On Authority

Part 1 of a series

People complain these days that people do not respect authority enough. But what if that is just a symptom, and something more significant contributes to that problem, in addition to being a problem in and of itself? Let’s pop the hood and find out.

First of all, what is authority? I propose the following definition: the power to command the actions of others; and the sanction, or social approval and recognition, to use that power.

Before we go any further, this is not going to be a broadside against authority in general, or a call to generalized rebellion. It is not a call for special pleading. Sometimes people need to lead, and sometimes people need to follow, in order for society (or any other group) to operate in an effective, and hopefully just, fashion. Authority can be considered a kind of leadership, although one with a defined and sanctioned amount of power behind it, beyond personal characteristics and capabilities such as charisma or individual intelligence that don’t entail the real or potential use of force.

The problem is twofold:

1) Authority suffers from an inherent accountability problem, which we will explore here. Assuming good faith, it is not intentional—but it can be intentional in the wrong hands.

2) As a result of the first problem, people may choose a different authority to heed and follow when the “primary” authority does not deliver on what it purports to deliver. We will explore that later.

Accountability

This has been a longstanding observation about authority in general and is not a newly discovered problem. Juvenal wrote “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, or “who watches the watchmen?”. That is, who holds the “watchmen” to account even as the “watchmen” hold the general public to account.

However, there are certain principles and customs, as well as both formal and informal rules, that tend to make that accountability more difficult.

Respect and Criticism

Let’s clarify the term “respect”. Respect, as applied to authority, can mean not just one but two related but distinct things: 1) compliance or obedience, or 2) honor, or at least refraining from disparagement or dishonor. Combined, they can form what is often called “obeisance” or “deference”—that is, compliance in an honoring manner.

The conflation of these two aspects of “respect” is where things get tricky. The compliance or obedience part of “respect” is not the issue—at least not directly. The issue comes when authority is criticized, by any means or method, whether in a disparaging manner or not, even when compliance is not an issue.

Authority hates being disrespected (or criticized) more than it hates being disobeyed. Disobedience has a clear path to address it—typically some kind of punishment or other sanction. Justice is done and nothing more (at least theoretically) needs to be done. Disrespect and criticism, on the other hand, are seen by authority as a potential erosion of its authority—even if the person leveling the disrespect or criticism is being perfectly compliant. In short, authority sees disrespect and criticism as an existential threat, while it sees disobedience as just another day at the office—punish the disobedient and move on.

Why does authority see criticism and disrespect as an existential threat? If enough people criticize and disrespect an authority, then its power dissipates. Authority ultimately depends on others for its sanction to use its power. So, the prime directive of authority is self-preservation. If an authority cannot preserve itself, nothing else matters. Following from that as a second directive is establishing itself in the eyes of others as competent to provide that authority; again, criticism is seen as erosive.

But here is the problem. Just like any other human endeavor, authority is not and will never be perfect. It will never be completely above reproach.

What is needed is a way to deliver criticism—and perhaps some level of “disrespect” as part of it, keeping in mind that “disrespect” is often in the eye of the beholder-- without the authority acting (or, really, reacting) in a literally defensive manner that threatens the critic. That criticism may even extend to some kind of sanction or punishment imposed on the authority itself. It is an important feedback mechanism that benefits everyone, not least the authority itself. A good, capable authority is antifragile, not fragile.

Next time we will cover some other ways on how authority evades accountability, again without even meaning to do so (or maybe it does!).