Authority

Christ amongst the Doctors, Orazio Borgianni

The term authority is defined as the power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior. There are two main reasons for someone to have power to influence or command thought, opinion or behavior: competence and status. Authority is helpful when it comes from competence because it gives power to the competent. But more times than not authority is founded in status, which may or may not be accompanied by competence. When both components, competence and status, are either present or absent everything is clear and coherent. The mismatch of the two is tricky: either one has competence but no status, or one has status but no competence.

Jesus

Jesus is a significant example of someone who did not subscribe to the authority structure of his society and was often in conflict with recognized jurisdictions. The religious scholars confronted him with paradox in legalistic issues of following Torah law. He baffled them in response with his “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. These Pharisees and rabbis had recognized authority to discuss their interpretations of the Jewish law, but this man who claimed to be the son of God was attracting a large crowd for his version that was unauthorized by any mortal credentials. The scholars represent the traditional recognition of authority via titles and experience, while the popularity of Jesus’ sermons were a threat to that social power structure. 

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar is one of the most prominent leaders in history who successfully seized power. The absolute power imperator was granted on a temporary basis to Roman generals during war when time was of the essence on the battlefield. But he extended his imperator authority and all emperors since have taken their title from this first Roman emperor’s Latin term of power. He was successful, at least for a few years, because of a few different power grasping strategies. First, he was a very successful military leader who conquered large parts of Gaul and around the mediterranean–the Romans referred to the Mediterranean Sea after him as just “our sea”. Roman culture understood itself as expanding civilization and Julius Caesar was very popular for his contributions to this effort. Second, he would celebrate his victories by parading his troops home in grand splendor through the streets of Rome and declare days of feasting, providing the food and wine himself from his extensive coffers. In a move of ridiculous wealth, it was not uncommon for him to pay the month’s rent for all citizens of Rome. He literally bought the love of his citizens. Third, he participated in what Juvenal referred to as “bread and circuses”: to keep the poor content, there was always nourishment in the form of a grain dole and entertainment available even, and especially, to citizens who could not pay. Machiavelli later studied Caesar’s strategy extensively, directly using his example for how to gain and hold onto power. He successfully transitioned the great republic into an empire with absolute rule. Even his assassination on the floor of the senate, one of the boldest moves in history, could not undo the evolution he made to the form of the Roman government. This example shows the effectiveness of hard military tactics, soft political charm, and flowing financial capital to create authority that does not play by the rules. He did not have absolute authority, but by literally assuming absolute authority, he created his absolute authority. 

Social Contract

Locke wrote revolutionary ideas about the authority of governments with his concept of social contract. The idea that each citizen by participating in civilization grants authority to their government, and at any time can rescind that authority, has been widely accepted as a replacement to the divine right of kings for the modern world. Politicians, political parties, and governments have the authority to rule only as much as the citizens decide they have that authority. Through votes, protests, revolutions, immigrations, and wars, citizens have exercised their right to question and to challenge and even to deny authority. In turn, when an individual continues to live within borders, by default they are consenting to be governed by the laws of that society. The government should exist and have power at the whim of the people, but oftentimes the government and its citizens forget this dynamic. On the government side, this looks like corrupt politicians, arrogant cops, and bloated militaries. Scarier is how this looks amongst the citizens: the people play victim, the media is full of fear mongering, and everyone blames “the powers that be” in bad faith that there is nothing an individual civilian can do to bring about change. 

Authority versus Status

Authority is nice when it comes from competence. But more times than not, it comes rather from status. The status could be based on relationships, credentials, age, society, economics, popularity. The mother says “because I say so” and expects her words to be followed. The student is in awe of the graduate degrees of the professor who compares his university’s reputation to that of his colleagues’. Teens try a new trick that is trending on social media because they want to be as cool as others. The more followers a content creator has or the more views on her videos, the more credible she must be; democracy has spoken. The more years a person has lived, the more they know the secret to living well; time has taught. The more money the poker player has won, the more skilled he must be; the results speak for themselves. 

Comparison

Authority implies hierarchy. To decide if someone is an authority, a comparison is calculated: who holds the credentials? A winning mid-stakes poker player is an authority to low stakes players, but for winning high-stakes players he is not. A philosophy graduate student is an authority to the cafe worker on matters of the afterlife, but compared to Camus he is not. Authority can waver not only from objective expertise or status but also from subjective assessment where individuals are compared situationally within a hierarchy. This hierarchy comparison has two implications: positioning and mobility.

The first implication is positioning oneself, for instance by marketing. If one can represent himself as someone who is more professional, more successful than the other, the first becomes an authority for the second. Not because the first was born in a king's family and not because he is a more experienced expert, but because he was able to convince the others. He may have taken the opportunity at the right moment, featured his good qualities, and seized the title strategically or by chance.

The second implication is mobility, the flexibility of different values to change the rankings. There is an opportunity to overthrow any god or expert through radical skepticism or by simply changing the rules. One can look at someone who is considered an authority by most people, but use different criteria than the traditional audience used, and as a result authority at least loses points and at most loses trust. The house of cards tumbles. If we say a certain politician is an authority in world affairs, someone may ask why he is fatter, older, and more senile than his citizens, and even the act of questioning his authority has brought his authority under consideration to affirm or deny. The young challenger would like this narrative: now instead of the conversation focused on the inexperience of youth, the scrutiny is drawn to the outdated doctrines of the old guard.

Leadership Attitude

Leadership is first an attitude and then a formal recognition. To lead by example is not to raise yourself into a superior position and then assume you have followers, but to be among the crowd and bring a voice to the crowd. A good leader does the work, volunteers to help others, and suggests improvements by investing their own efforts into what the improvements would look like. It is an obvious decision when someone who has set a standard for their colleagues is promoted to lead them, when they have already been leading them. The official title or status naturally follows. 

To gather followers involves inspiring the common people to see that his cause is their own, and their cause is his own. Spreading information is good, even if the opponents have access to it; better everyone knows the strengths and weaknesses of your cause if you are on the right side. If you are the David to the Goliath, you have the opportunity to become a hero. Everyone enjoys a romantic underdog story. To persuade followers is to convince them by relating to the subjective needs and desires of the many. If there is a mutual trust and an exchange of favors that indebt each other to a common connection, then there is a mutual investment that the many will succeed in their endeavors. 

Air of Authority

Demanding authority when there is no merit, and even when there is some merit, usually does not work. The demander is seen as an immature child who wants his way. But assuming authority is quite easy. If someone has the air of authority, the presumption that they deserve authority, it is easy to take. The right outfit, the raised chin and straight back, and especially the tone and assertive language that does not leave room to be questioned works well to take charge. People want to be led. They want to admire someone and they equate social charm with competency to do and to lead. The more someone treats the job as checking off a box, routine busy work, with an apathetic focus, the more it seems they know what they are doing. Those at the top may not have worked hard to get there, but they belong there because everyone accepts this as so, and so they belong. It is circular. And those at the bottom or those aspiring to move up rarely have the mobility to change their social position because they do not belong among those at the top; they easily expose themselves as an imposter. Again, it is circular. Every field has its social codes: it could be New York bankers with their fancy suits, but it could just as easily be drug dealers spotting a rookie buyer versus an undercover cop or first year teachers trying to get their classroom of teenagers to pay attention to the lesson. Attitude makes the difference. 

Problems of Authority

Individuals often do not distinguish authority from competence.

It is easy to conflate authority and status, and therefore it is easy to assume status is an indicator of abilities. If someone achieved something great, or was promoted to a high position, or more commonly was in the right place at the right time, it is assumed they can do it again, they can guide others in greatness, they can exercise discernment in deciding matters that have to do with their area of specialty. Often the new authority is beyond their old accomplishments, for instance leadership and teaching are not natural skills that come with investing well, winning tournaments, or writing grant proposals that are accepted. Yet, these accomplishers are granted the authority to lead and to judge. What happens when they fail? The failure is considered an accident. Even if they or others recognize or suspect a discrepancy, the suspicion usually does not go beyond a pre-reflexive doubt. If they themselves feel like impostors they do everything to hide this feeling from others and social agreement protects this illusion. If others question their competency, those others are usually dismissed as the sore losers. Those who granted the authority avoid questioning their own choice publicly, since to challenge is to question their own discernment in having bestowed the authority. Those who are lower than the authority lack authority so their opinion is likely insignificant or worse, they risk being ignored, discredited, or fired.

It is easier to give credence to authority because it avoids thinking.

If there is some formal authority, society thinks no appeal to argument is needed: he has earned the credentials to be able to decree what he says without providing evidence. If there is no formal authority, the content is critically examined, arguments are needed. Between authority and competence, if there is a distinction made, authority is a shortcut to rely on instead of doing the evaluating and critical thinking work. The reliance on credentials is often good enough. Followed as if it were a dogmatism, the social agreement of the many is a heuristic for the lazy. Either they believe they can not think for themselves, they lack the ability to evaluate arguments well or without bias, they doubt they are competent enough to be the first to proclaim the emperor has no clothes, or they simply are too lazy to do the work. So they rely on the oversimplification that authority provides. It seems reasonable if they are even aware of their apathetic choice: the work has been done, so why do more work to confirm. In case of failure, they are justified for trusting the social agreement. 

Another reason why avoiding thinking is appealing is the fear of losing face. Some people are too deep into the weighing and judging mode: what consequences might be faced if authority outsmarts, if the authority shows ungroundedness in the criticism or even ungroundedness in the doubt in general. Authority figures rarely consider cooperation in reasoning, are rarely open to the consideration that even bad criticism may lead to more clarity and strength of the original position; they are not open to being convinced.