Why does authority work?

[Menna]

To answer the question in the title of the thread I believe it to be the chief emotion of fear and worry....The two work in tandem and people believe authority = problem solving hence it works...

 

[TheSpoon]

I woke up early this morning thinking about another recent thread in this subforum where a Dagobah Resident complains about his girlfriend. In that thread, the first reply is from Laura where she says "you could have been more of a man but were not up to the task" and not long after, Cinnamon tells him to "grow a pair of cojones and find a way of making money such that you can maintain your own apartment". I really feel for the recipient of the mirror being held up to him. Especially with his existing cultural conditioning of "real men are strong, potent, and provide for their families", that feedback must have really burned. I trust that it is being done in a considered and deliberate way, from a place of compassion.

I didn't want to derail that discussion by commenting there, so I was turning the matter over in my head, planning a thread I would title "Enforcing Social Order", but instead I found this thread which contains some - I think - really on point discussion.

We live in an STS society. Wow. I mean, <insert expletive>. Let that sink in. What does that mean? Surely it means that just about any aspect of society we choose to look at, is based on selfishness. Not the infrastructure, not the buildings or roads or gardens. Or the stuff, TVs, phones, cars. Our actual social order is STS. How people tell other people what to do, how they should behave.

I'm an engineer by trade, so I don't normally do post modernist deconstruction. But today I have a new lens and it's quite an exciting thing. The whole world is up for grabs! All my assumptions, traditions, sacred cows, how I've come to see and understand the society I live in, it's all...sub optimal, shall we say, if we want to move in the direction of STO.

So who has examined social order? Obviously communism attempted to turn the whole thing on it's head ("let's share resources equally" - sounds very STO) so that's been roundly co-opted by STS. And Feminism, which critiques existing social hierarchy as being threat enforced in a dominant masculine model - the patriarchy - although women collude in that enforcement. Are there any other big players in the societal theory game?

Authority seems to work from a position of learned helplessness, and overwhelming systemic interference; we need to simply stop accepting that. Farmers keep us alive, not politicians. They are supposed to facilitate, not mandate anything.

When I read that, something in my head say "No, we work from a position of taught helplessness". If there's one thing our societal order does better than anything it is to propagate, police and enforce itself. People find challenges to the existing social order extremely threatening - Socrates, Jesus. Funny line in Neil Gaiman's "Good Omens" where Azriphale and Crowley are watching the crucifixion and Crowley asks: "What did he say that got them all so worked up?", " 'Be nice to each other' ", Azriphale replied. "Oh yeah, that'd do it" muttered Crowley.

I believe that in the past authority did not come so much from merit. It seems to me that authority in the past came from two things: knowledge and responsibility. Those two things are what in the past defined in some people whether they could become leaders of the tribe, be the heroes of history or become kings. Positions of authority.

Didn't quite get that sorry... surely knowledge and responsibility are merit? I think Palinurus was closer:

Ultimately, authority emerges from power - especially power over life and death. As Mao Zedong famously stated: political power stems from the barrel of a rifle.

Right, authority is all about threat. "Do it how I say or I will kill you", or exclude you from the group. Which - because we're social animals - feels like death, or might actually be so, in primitive cultures.

So the better defined question might sound akin to; 'On what basis do we accept authority?'.

Great question. I'll try for an answer: firstly we're taught to. We accept it because our parents and peers accept it. In the same way, most people seem to vote the way their parents vote and follow the same religion (until they leave the pack and find a new one). And I suppose when we "leave" the family unit (psychologically speaking), we come to recognise both the carrot and the stick. The establishment offers the following structures & protections, and expects the following in exchange - taxes, obedience, service. Or, of course, those that fail to align with this contract run foul of the law and/or are socially ostracized.

Authority should be provided/ handed over based on skills/ capability/ merit - would you disagree?

I don't know. At this point in reading, @truepositive, what came to mind for me is that this has been quite a distanced, abstract discussion so far. I haven't seen much of you here. Is it the case that you believe you have something to offer society in terms of your skills and so should be granted authority? The king is not the cleverest person in the room. His advisors are. However they are not capable of, nor do they wish to, seize and hold power.

I'll finish with a quote from Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe

"The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

 

[Bluegazer]

Didn't quite get that sorry... surely knowledge and responsibility are merit?

Can you give me an objective measure of merit?

You can have knowledge but if you don't know how to apply it and respond appropriately to the specific context of a situation (and that is also part of having a certain degree of experience/knowledge) your ability as a leader is poor. Hence you may not have much authority. For some people that may be enough merit. For other people it may not. That being the case, merit becomes subjective.

 

[pinkfreud]

I just wanted to add the word “trust” to this conversation. I fully agree that, in modern times, learned (and taught!) helplessness is my go-to explanation for how authority works.
However, I have to acknowledge the theory that it is an adaptive advantage to ask for help when help is needed and take advice from a reliable source when applicable.
When I consider my personal authority figures over time, I can see how important trust is in that exchange. Once trust is violated, all sense of authority is abandoned.

At times, it is due to subject matter. Maybe someone is reliable, but tried to assume authority in a realm they weren’t capable enough to tackle. It isn’t that I view that as a character flaw, necessarily. But I will note that ego got ahead of knowledge and responsibility in such a case. In such a situation, it would be better for the advice to come with a preface: “I’m not the best person to ask, but here’s what I would try... maybe this person, or this reference tool can point you in the right direction.”

Other times, ego is obviously more of an issue. And sometimes, a malicious ego is even evident, though it can take time to recognize these patterns due to whatever attitudes or assumptions or programs I have operating unconsciously. So yea, free will only exists with proper attention. As does responsibility.
I hear so many times from people around me, and even still in my own head (though that is improving with practice and learning), “but I can’t do anything about it.”
This is because they (and I) haven’t learned or understood how to do anything for themselves. This is also why, as far as I can tell, it is so hard for many to understand what the threat of our current situation in Earth is.
If I never exercise a right to regulate my own health, to know what my food is and how it became, to bring raw materials into a new thing, etc. then why do I care if those rights are abolished?

To answer the question of measurable merit: if I want to know how to hunt, I will likely begin by asking someone with a freezer full of venison how they got that.

If I want to know how to perform an advanced martial arts move, I will see my instructor perform it ( because how else would I know such a thing exists in the realm of possibility) and I will ask what I need to do to access that ability.

If I need to understand the function of a command on the computer program at work, I will ask the programmer, and if I cannot reach that person I will start with someone in the IT department and work my way up the merit ladder as possible. Maybe by the time I can talk to the department head, I will have fewer questions.

I don’t mean to cut anyone (including myself) any slack, but I sense that the trust circuit is easily hijacked without personal responsibility. It is a word that we use too freely as a society. Trust, as it is used, means you won’t hurt me. Trust, properly used, means I can learn from you.

A more precise take on modern parlance:

Only trust yourself if you know yourself.
Only trust the universe if you know the universe.

 

[truepositive]

Thank you all for the great replies and my apologies for abandoning the topic for a while. As you clearly recognized, this question has deeper layers. One interesting analysis of a historical problem could be 'spiritual authority' and its clear failures paving the way for material authority becoming dominant. That would have been one of the key points i failed to describe in the slightly vague OP.

 

[truepositive]

Was Descartes dream of an 'angel' true?

If so it answers alot of questions and possibly raises even more, since we now find ourselves in a time where 'science' is the self-presumed authority over everything. Leaving bookshelves unsaid here since i assume most if not all them will be properly assumed and understood.

 

[Nathancat7]

I believe that in the past authority did not come so much from merit. It seems to me that authority in the past came from two things: knowledge and responsibility. Those two things are what in the past defined in some people whether they could become leaders of the tribe, be the heroes of history or become kings. Positions of authority.

The more knowledge you have the better decisions you can make to act in favor of your own destiny or the destiny of many. As for responsibility, as the word indicates, it is your ability to respond to life's events. The reality is that people do not have that ability either underdeveloped or in the worst case twisted. You only have to look at the current generations and their childish attitude. But for the latter I am convinced that it is the result of a very careful social engineering to create very dependent beings where authority uses this lack of responsibility to justify itself and perpetuate itself in power. That is where psychopaths appear.

This is an important point because most people think they are an authority, without cosmic knowledge and responsibility.
The system is so specialized, controlled and profit driven, that fear (fear of losing a job, social fear of going against the social system structure, fear of not advancing within the framework of established rules) is incorporated into identity.
So it comes down to trying to avoid suffering by suffering based on decisions made in the duress of fear.
It's not surprising because of course because so many terrible things happen to people.
Many have so few beautiful things in their life, children, maybe a home, they maybe maybe make a deal with the devil to hang onto it.
It doesn't work but it's understandable.
So it's a lack of courage, with the insecurities never finding the light, or support , or a dream of a different way.

 

[Nathancat7]

I just wanted to add the word “trust” to this conversation. I fully agree that, in modern times, learned (and taught!) helplessness is my go-to explanation for how authority works.
However, I have to acknowledge the theory that it is an adaptive advantage to ask for help when help is needed and take advice from a reliable source when applicable.
When I consider my personal authority figures over time, I can see how important trust is in that exchange. Once trust is violated, all sense of authority is abandoned.

At times, it is due to subject matter. Maybe someone is reliable, but tried to assume authority in a realm they weren’t capable enough to tackle. It isn’t that I view that as a character flaw, necessarily. But I will note that ego got ahead of knowledge and responsibility in such a case. In such a situation, it would be better for the advice to come with a preface: “I’m not the best person to ask, but here’s what I would try... maybe this person, or this reference tool can point you in the right direction.”

Other times, ego is obviously more of an issue. And sometimes, a malicious ego is even evident, though it can take time to recognize these patterns due to whatever attitudes or assumptions or programs I have operating unconsciously. So yea, free will only exists with proper attention. As does responsibility.
I hear so many times from people around me, and even still in my own head (though that is improving with practice and learning), “but I can’t do anything about it.”
This is because they (and I) haven’t learned or understood how to do anything for themselves. This is also why, as far as I can tell, it is so hard for many to understand what the threat of our current situation in Earth is.
If I never exercise a right to regulate my own health, to know what my food is and how it became, to bring raw materials into a new thing, etc. then why do I care if those rights are abolished?

To answer the question of measurable merit: if I want to know how to hunt, I will likely begin by asking someone with a freezer full of venison how they got that.

If I want to know how to perform an advanced martial arts move, I will see my instructor perform it ( because how else would I know such a thing exists in the realm of possibility) and I will ask what I need to do to access that ability.

If I need to understand the function of a command on the computer program at work, I will ask the programmer, and if I cannot reach that person I will start with someone in the IT department and work my way up the merit ladder as possible. Maybe by the time I can talk to the department head, I will have fewer questions.

I don’t mean to cut anyone (including myself) any slack, but I sense that the trust circuit is easily hijacked without personal responsibility. It is a word that we use too freely as a society. Trust, as it is used, means you won’t hurt me. Trust, properly used, means I can learn from you.

A more precise take on modern parlance:

Only trust yourself if you know yourself.
Only trust the universe if you know the universe.

I like your notion of trust, and I like your itemization of placing trust in a specific situation, as long there is understanding/knowledge of divine mind giving.

 

[Nathancat7]

I was just thinking about emotional attachment and bonding in childhood as of course having a big influence on orientation to authority.
Merit then, means, as an adult, seeing that with some understanding, but not be held in bandage to it.

 

[siftingmaterials]

I was just thinking about emotional attachment and bonding in childhood as of course having a big influence on orientation to authority.
Merit then, means, as an adult, seeing that with some understanding, but not be held in bandage to it.

Perhaps we offer ourselves as conceptual and material content in the service of a mother or perhaps we offer ourselves as conceptual or material content in the service or something called "freedom". The qualities of those cases are identical. We behave according to the content rules of those sovereign ideas.

If we think it's just or proper or morally certain, we might think we can interpret the future and see what's best for others. On behalf of that idea of our mother or some idea of freedom, we may begin to establish content rules for others

 

[Nathancat7]

Right, really agree

 

[hollenoaea]

I found this Dugiin explanation helped me to understand better the lack of responsible leadership and the collapse of the west.

 

[Kika]

To answer the question in the title of the thread I believe it to be the chief emotion of fear and worry....The two work in tandem and people believe authority = problem solving hence it works...

1. The problem
This, too, is my starting point for considering people's need for help.
According to the way people solve their problems, I divide people into; active (successful) and passive (victims).

2. Intention/expectation/solution
Considering that, to which group a person belongs, it depends on whether he will look for authority in the form; teacher/role model or savior/abuser.
Then it is activated

I just wanted to add the word “trust” to this conversation.

3. Trust/Solution
If the problem is solved - everyone is happy. If the problem is not solved; active people look for new sources of knowledge, while passive people change polarity (they turn from victims to abusers/saviors).

My pixel in the picture "authority".

 

[Kika]

According to the way people solve their problems, I divide people into; active (successful) and passive (victims).

Small correction.

I would replace the term successful with competent. I think that word is more appropriate to what I meant.

 

[Menna]

1. The problem
This, too, is my starting point for considering people's need for help.
According to the way people solve their problems, I divide people into; active (successful) and passive (victims).

Yes, you can do that but there also may be a blend people that are 70% active and 30% passive. Also people act based on their support system and how things "work out" for them in life so if Person A has a history of sitting around 75% of the time and "things" happen for them or they have support from others then they will most likely be passive because that has "worked" for them...

If someone is more alone or doesn't have things "work out" when they are passive then they will be more active...

Also, people solve their problems based on if they have to or will their problems be solved for them...even if just temporarily.