Why does authority work?

[truepositive]

There are many layers to this question, aspects i have considered, reasons why it seems silly, yet things dont change very much. Of course in a connected world there are no singular/ easy answers but i have wondered what societies looked liked before 'early globalism' happened. In tribal situations authority is merit based; the shaman heals and diagnoses, the hunters direct the direction of the party and so on, the farmers decide where to stay and discuss that. Authority can now be based on so many different frameworks of relative importance that it should lose its influence on society at large just from that consideration yet the psy and sociopaths run critical systems. And its all run from an imperative of profit and endless expansion; i'm not a luddite, we should embrace the good sides of technology but shun the extremes of it, folks wanting to dehumanize themselves.

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.

A short version of the answer then might be; it works because we have forgotten we produce everything of value, and let ourselves be shut out of critical decisions of what to do with it all. Blackrock has no power, it just has numbers on a screen and some goons protecting that.

 

[Rhansen]

A short version of the answer then might be; it works because we have forgotten we produce everything of value

I tend to think it is because (many) people want freedom from responsibility plus they can get angry later and assign blame when things go sideways. Kind of a victim mentality.
I.E. Gurdjieff

“It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering.” ​

 

[Bluegazer]

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.

 

[MatiaS]

Totally agree with people needing someone to tell them what to do. We have become so passive, expecting everything to just come to us instead of going and getting it. This applies also to knowledge seeking and I have to admit I at times have been guilty of this passivity.

We are similarly passive with our life decisions. And what is politics if not governing people's life decisions? We are so disconnected from any sense of personal responsibility for the food we consume, clothes we wear, accommodations we sleep in, the natural environment as a whole etc.. Every task of everyday life has been automatized and integrated into a vague background-hum which tells us "this is normal".

Everything should be one press of a button away from you. Everything should be instantaneous. I think because we've become so accustomed to this one-sided feedback loop where if you want something, thanks to "the advancements of civilization" you can get anything - ANYTHING - ordered to your doorstep within a few days from the internet (in the 'Western world' at least).

How disconnected have we become from the process of things. We don't see the enormous amount of energy and time being consumed for the things we use. Every plastic container, every bottle, every appliance in your house, every car you've ever driven, most windows and doors you've opened, the clothes you wear etc., all comes from somewhere, made by someone or something that is not yourself.

Imagine as a contrast the tribe, within which every tool, every piece of clothing, every kitchen utensil, every weapon, every house, is made - if not by yourself - by someone you know.

I'm trying to describe how our lifestyle is very much connected to this question. If everything you own is made by someone else, then it's not a long stretch to give away your decision making faculties to "someone who knows better".

I tend to think that true authority is not taken, it is given. It's a free will choice to make a decision based on knowledge, experience and love just as much as it is a free will decision to give away the choice to someone you believe knows better.

And here is where childhood imprinting comes in. We see our parents as people who "know better", our first authority figures. As we know, most parents are suffering from the same mind control program of giving their freedom of choice over to the Matrix/the STS hierarchy that their parents have been suffering from, and on and on down through the generations, and don't actually "know better".

I agree with the point made above, that being able to assign blame on someone else is a huge part of the equation. The weight of our conscience as it bubbles up as we've done something we know to be wrong can be immense. To be able to tell yourself in your mind somehow that "it's not my fault" takes a huge weight of your shoulders.

To summarize my points:'

• We don't realize that in the majority of all the areas of our life, we are already giving authority to someone else, and this is why we let ourselves be governed like sheep by governmental authority, following the herd blindly, not questioning anything, because "someone else is taking care of it".
• If we were to realize and think about how much responsibility (time and energy) our lifestyles actually entail, and the logistics of it all, we could also understand the mind control program of "authority".
• True authority is given as a free will choice by a group mind to the best qualified person(s). For a building project, the group chooses the project leader most qualified. For gardening, people with experience teach others how to help. For health emergencies, the counsel of somebody knowledgeable is sought. Etc.

 

[Palinurus]

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.

Historically, authority is connected with a stratified hierarchical society in which a (standing) army is used to protect the privileges of the few over the legitimate needs of the masses, regarding the distribution of food, water and other means of sustaining life, and wealth..

For starters see:
Authority (sociology) - Wikipedia
Authority - Wikipedia

 

[SOTTREADER]

I don't necessarily think "authority" is a negative thing. In some regard I see certain situations as requiring levels of authority in order to function at an optimum level. This is not to say that people are surrendering "freedom" but simply choosing to work within a certain framework in order to maximise their chances of a favourable outcome. There are many things at play across the spectrum - certain people have more competence in certain things, others have personalities and character traits that make them better at "leading", others have more experience and wisdom in certain matters etc. Also you as an individual can't be competent or experienced on all matters that affects your life, it is simply impossible unless you are superhuman.

A couple of examples

- Professional sports team effectively organise themselves according to this principle of having authoritative influence in certain functions - take football, you have a manager who has overrall responsibility/accountability for the team and its performance, he is responsible to ensure the team is well prepared, everyone knows their job and the tactics to follow etc. You have the captain who leads by example on the field because he either has the experience to do so, has excessive talent or carries himself in a way that inspires and brings out the best in others etc. In this example there's nothing wrong with authority assuming no pathological elements start taking root?

- In life, I honestly don't have a problem or issue in getting the view or advice of an authoritative figure in health, finance or whatever if I believe them to be competent and acting in my best interest when advicing me in whatever. Again, no issue with authority in this context if pathological elements don't creep in.

- In a business, I don't have issue if the leaders are competent in their jobs and know how to treat people. Certainly there is no issue if the business "owner" has overrall authority or responsibility given it's their business?

All in all I don't think authority is necessarily a bad thing or means people are relinquishing personal responsibility. It all depends on how the situation is working and the context in question.

A more present example - take the forum. Certainly there is authority present here in the shape of the administrators and owner but is that to say the rest of us are in a state of "learned helplessness".

 

[truepositive]

Thanks for the great responses, bit of a natural perspective/ context developing there. We could argue philosophical/ logical definitions of parts of it but i digress outside of merit being a vague term i used, which IS tied to knowledge and responsibility depending on your framework. A better way to position that potential discussion might be to ask how authority can be based upon 'merit towards whomever subjected' and with which attitude it gets expressed. Eh, longer then i wanted but then again bookshelves have been written about this.

So the better defined question might sound akin to; 'On what basis do we accept authority?'.
I agree that the 'modern human' has become lazy and it reflects back into this question, but that is an artificial process imo. (A potential new thread too)
I also agree that having structure and moderation in public platforms is useful. Then i also recognize that authority directly ties in to the 'violence mandate' most governments have. That is an unnatural form, not given, but taken.

I think a psychological aspect to the question is still being overlooked thus far, which i have some opinions about but i would like to hear yours first.

 

[Voyageur]

I don't necessarily think "authority" is a negative thing. In some regard I see certain situations as requiring levels of authority in order to function at an optimum level. This is not to say that people are surrendering "freedom" but simply choosing to work within a certain framework in order to maximise their chances of a favourable outcome. There are many things at play across the spectrum - certain people have more competence in certain things, others have personalities and character traits that make them better at "leading", others have more experience and wisdom in certain matters etc. Also you as an individual can't be competent or experienced on all matters that affects your life, it is simply impossible unless you are superhuman.

Yes, seems to have been the case through the ages. Caesar vs. Cicero, JFK vs. LBJ. Putin vs. Biden (politically speaking).

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

Much context as to the basis of the authority; law, scholarly and so on and so forth, and probably most might accept authority if it is moral and just. As such, though, people may want to defer to the authority of a good engineer (probably accept traveling over a engineered bridge), or proper moral authority to help sort out those without any morals in civil society. Authority generally is earned or appointed (and if appointed it should always be earned). Moreover, to yield authority carries incredible responsibilities, which obviously is largely lacking as can be seen in societies today, when greed with no moral fortitude drives. The latter is also tied to things like institutional authority, that is either sound or it is ponerized. If the institutional authority is sound, that authority may also appoint lower authorities (and people will vote for people to be authorities on their behalf), and then hold them to task as to their ability to carry out their responsibilities in a fair, reasoned and incorruptible way. Good cop bad cope, judge, lawyer, political appointee, shareholder appointed CEO, medical, military et cetera.

On balance, it is apparent that it is not working out so well these days, and yet this does not mean that all the authorities appointed are not good people who try to hold to their earned moral and respected values within institutions, institutions that once meant something. Unfortunately, now more and more they themselves have fallen under authority levels that are full of termites (plain speaking) that undermine the very institution.

Then there is this stage:

“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”
― Frédéric Bastiat

That may come down to part of what you said "On what basis do we accept authority?"

All is not so easy, though, as many people did not, will not, accept unjust mandates placed upon them by medical and political authorities. Conversely, some 'grudgingly' accept due to their individual situation.

Many of us know the game of authorized fiat money and would not accept it, and yet it is not easy to work outside that monied authority that rules.

So, it kind of comes back to practical authority, moral and just authority, or the opposite (with contrasts) and it can be a struggle.

Looked at levels of authority during covid (still happening, albeit to a lessor degree in places), and it was interesting/scary to see even in the smallest possible way, people who suddenly would confer upon themselves unappoint authority, and sneer and lambaste for the smallest mask infraction, when all one was doing was buying a coffee; pull up your mask over your nose, type of authority (I'm sure many experienced it). For some these people, and many were teenagers, this was likely their first taste of having perceived authority that they ever have had, and they seem to have no problem with it. This then might look to the times of past tyrannies (Mao, Stalin, Hitler), when people without ever having been appointed authority had become emboldened to dish it out in the most inhuman ways, and for their efforts, as authoritarian followers, they often would receive granted authority to carry on.

 

[BHelmet]

What comes to my mind in reference to the original question: it works because we were designed, modified, programmed and hybridized for it to work. And psychopaths have a tendency to slaughter, neuter, or otherwise penalize those who resist or might resist, thus attempting to thin out the pool of resistance genes as well as instill fear in the self-preservation areas of the brain of those who are prone to resist.

As for G.I. and suffering, on the surface it sounds stupid to cling to our suffering. Yet, we learn and grow through suffering and in an STS world, to attempt to follow the STO calling can be to actively and intentionally choose suffering. And so to cling to a path or aim could be to cling to suffering.

 

[Nienna]

As for G.I. and suffering, on the surface it sounds stupid to cling to our suffering. Yet, we learn and grow through suffering and in an STS world, to attempt to follow the STO calling can be to actively and intentionally choose suffering. And so to cling to a path or aim could be to cling to suffering.

As with everything, there is good and there is bad and there is the specific situation that determines which is which. Yes, we need suffering to learn and improve ourselves. But those who wallow in their suffering, who wear it like a badge and show all who will see. Who makes their entire life all about their suffering; this is not what one learns from. It is defeatist and keeps one stagnant.

 

[truepositive]

Thanks for a couple of good replies with different and necessary angles towards the subject. In retrospect i apologize for the fairly messy OP, but apparently it was good enough, alas;

So, it kind of comes back to practical authority, moral and just authority, or the opposite (with contrasts) and it can be a struggle.

I feel like all of that has become difficult due to the way societies/ nations and the planet at large have become organized in 'modern times'. There is a lot of plausible deniability and diverting responsibility going on. Keeping the practical aspect of things in focus is a good point, as with almost anything.

When it comes to Bastiat's choice; that could be a very interesting litmus test of sorts, but unsurprisingly i lean strongly towards option B. As long as we are talking strictly about man-made laws, that is.

we were designed, modified, programmed and hybridized for it to work...

I realize there is A LOT of background to this statement that is very much a topic of it's own, which i am not unfamiliar with. The question might be, does that apply to everyone? How many types of humans are even around currently? - Both more or less rhetorical and out of scope here imho; if it is a uniform thing, then apparently programming is not set in stone, if not, then the demographics of our planet are an interesting 'mystery'. On the practical end: how do you actually de-program people? (as always i have ideas, but interested in other opinions first)

But those who wallow in their suffering, who wear it like a badge and show all who will see

I've tended far more towards suffering in silence, but that does not make things much better if that is all that happens for too long.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

Authority works because of human nature, which is STS.

Authority allows people to save their own energy in making decisions about how to run their lives. Saving energy is something they do for themselves and therefore the STS.

Authority allows people to shift responsibility for their lives to someone else, so that they themselves can protect their ego when things are not going well. Ego protection is by nature an STS.

Authority allows people to think that if they respect someone else's authority, he or she or it will do something for them. They respect authority because they expect to get something when they want something or need something. So it is doing something for expected future profit, and that is STS.

Authority makes people fear that authority (and therefore someone stronger than them) may turn against them, so they respect authority for their own comfort. Staying comfortable is for own benefit, for own well-being, so STS.

Authority is a force that gives a sense of security that if something bad happens to someone, authority will stand up for them thanks to its strength. The authority then plays the role of "older brother." This is also STS, someone respects authority because they expect it to protect them and take care of them.

What is condradict to the authority, what is the balancing force of authority on the other side?

For example, in our STS world there are people who go beyond STS and direct their development towards STO. What distinguishes them from others.

Such people are like alpha males and alpha females. I'm not talking right now about a corrupt interpretation of what it means to be alpha (to impose on other of what people think or behave). Being alpha comes primarily from the fact that if a pack of wolves has an alpha wolf, he always goes last. The point here is that the wounded and weak animals are at the front, then the rest of the herd including beta males. And at the very end comes the alpha wolf. His being alpha is that he watches the whole group and act if someone is left behind, risking that because he is in last position NOBODY WILL HELP HIM when they come for him, because there is no no one to stand behind him. Therefore, among the alpha males they should be the strongest.

So in our STS world, something that balances authority as something what (in STS) is hierarchical is taking an attitude towards life where WE ARE AUTHORITIES FOR OURSELVES, and by the way we do something for others that they could potentially benefit from. For example, you take care of yourself in life, you direct your spiritual development, you are independent and an additionally you share how you understand things so that others too can get something of it for themselves, although you are not an authority for them. They themselves should be authorities for themselves, having only your indirect help and assistance, without attacking them to get them to take your point of view or something like that.

There is no hierarchy in STO in which a group of people is the authority over an individual or other group of people. In STO, authority is dual nature. In STO, authority is each of us individually and authority is objective reality as such, it also constitutes a certain balance between the individual and Creation (that objective reality). You make a decision on the basis of your full free will, outside of external pressure or influence, relying on your understanding of the principles of objective reality, and that is the universe/creation itself with the laws and principles on which it works.

 

[truepositive]

I just have to wonder about human nature, and whether a unified statement/ conclusion about it is possible, alas. Not new to the concepts, dividing STO/ STS is at risk of becoming a binary construct of the exact type i just judged a TOE on. The implied demarcations are philosophically difficult at least, but possible with extreme care. Where does the self end, and along those lines, when does it?
Free will is another problematic concept in philosophy, almost paradoxically so. In a 'mental construct philosophy' sandbox, total freedom and total order can exist, but there is no tangible situation in observed reality relating to either of those concepts.

Digressing from trying to explain this universe at the sidelines of a topic that could relate to it; there are alot of definitions wanting in the longer story you put forward.

Authority should be provided/ handed over based on skills/ capability/ merit - would you disagree?
If not it is usually requested/ ordered/ demanded, and subsequently handed over regardless of all that.. why? perhaps rather, why do we care about the pyramidic structures erected around so many trades and activities and respect them arbitrarily?

It has to be more then natural inclination because for 'most' people none of this is even a conscious thought process.

 

[Voyageur]

Being alpha comes primarily from the fact that if a pack of wolves has an alpha wolf, he always goes last. The point here is that the wounded and weak animals are at the front, then the rest of the herd including beta males. And at the very end comes the alpha wolf. His being alpha is that he watches the whole group and act if someone is left behind, risking that because he is in last position NOBODY WILL HELP HIM when they come for him, because there is no no one to stand behind him. Therefore, among the alpha males they should be the strongest.

Hello Luks, what you said here caught my attention, which is not the way I've come to understood wolves, wolf pack dynamics and alpha's (i.e. going last). So not well following what you said, yet if you have something to confirm, okay.

Not to venture too far away from this thread, briefly here is a thread on wolves that has/had a good film (note: the documentary film is no longer available, which is too bad) and other links posted, such as:

Animals Make Us Human" by Temple Gradin

One of my biggest surprises doing the research for this book was reading L.David Mech's thirteen year study of the wolves on Ellesmere Island in the Northwest Territories (now part of Nunavut) of Canada. Mech's findings turn practically everything we thought we knew about wolves upside down. Since dogs are genetic wolves, that means we need to think about dogs in some new ways too, which is what I am talking about.

Dr. Mech's most important finding for people thinking about wolves and dogs: In the wild, wolves don't live in wolf packs, and they don't have an alpha male who fights the other wolves to maintain his dominance. Our whole image of wolf packs and alphas is completely wrong. Instead, wolves live the way people do: in families made up of mom, a dad, and their children. Sometimes an unrelated wolf can be adopted into a pack, or one of the mom's or dad's relatives is part of the pack (the "maiden aunt"), or a mom or dad who has died could be replaced by a new wolf. But mostly wolf packs are just a mom, a dad, and their pups. [...]

The reason everyone thought wolves live in packs led by alpha is that most research on the social life of wolves has been done on wolves living in captivity, and wolves living in captivity are almost never natural families. They are groups of unrelated animals, put together by humans, that have to come up with some way of dealing with each other.

 

[siftingmaterials]

I've noticed when I meditate how, when thoughts creep in and I begin to pursue them, I have to create the thought that orders me to disconnect from my invasive thinking. Do I have to create a master thought in order to act?

As the thought's creator, am I not its master? Am I not the master of my thoughts?

I'd have to chase my thoughts to discern any kind of answer, let alone a correct one. "Follow me," they say. And I do follow them and not the other way around.

I'm describing a pathological behaviour that cannot be stopped. It can only be pursued. It tells me what it is. Even when I create it, I still have to believe it and follow it.

It's as present during mindful meditation as it is while we drool over an election or a war. It's the same preoccupation.

I would say we couldn't possibly be responsible for choosing our masters because we can't stop.

But I would say we are responsible for becoming aware: At what scale, position, and proximity, right now, in this moment, is my absolute, is the thing that's so above me, that's so deserving of my subjecthood in its presence? What is it this time? What is it this time? What is it this time? What is it now?