People don't understand authority

Submitted by christopher on Thu, 2009-04-16 14:36

Most people don't understand authority; they confuse it with power. Of course it doesn't help that we have a government that claims authority. The government doesn't have authority; it has power. Authority requires authorship. God made us, not the government. God and parents are the only legitimate authorities.  Thankfully God has both ultimate power and authority.

»
Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

This is confusing to me.  Authority and power in the dictionary are used as synomyns.    What do you mean when you say "Authority requires authorship."?  Also, are you saying that because God and parents are the only legitimate authorities that you do not have to obey the law?  You are above it?  And answerable only to God? 

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

Also, how can you say "Most people don't understand authority..".  How do you know that?

christopher's picture

christopher says:

I knew somebody would jump all over me for that comment. :)  Let me restate it: most people that I know don't understand authority.  (Now all the people that I know will be jumping on me.  Maybe I should say: it seems like most people don't understand authority.  Is that better?

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

Why do you say that?  What makes you think that most people don't understand authority?  What are you basing that on? 

christopher's picture

christopher says:

Fair enough.  I'm parsing the word authority, and noting that the root is author.  Apparently the original meaning of the word had to do with authorship, which makes perfect sense.  If you make or author something, you have authority over it.  Power is very different: though it can appear to be similar.  I don't have to be the author of something in order to wield power over it.

Power is what the government does.  It has big guns and cooperative employees, so they can exercise power over me, but they don't have authority over me.  I choose to submit to the government not because they have authority but because they will abuse me if I don't submit -- they have power.

God's approach is very different.  He actually has authority, and he is very powerful, but he chooses to give us a great deal of liberty, allowing us to choose our own way.  God legitimately deserves our allegiance, but does not demand it.  The government does not deserve our allegiance but does demand it.

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

I don't understand your apparent need to compare religion/beliefs and government.  I understand your last paragraph except for the last sentence.  You seem to be trying to use your religion to discredit the government (when there are lots of other ways to do it!).  You would have a hard time dissing the government with this argument if you were talking to an atheist.  The point I am trying to make is you don't need to use your religion to find fault  with the government.  Use reason and logic and you will probably find more who are sympathetic to your cause. The following is from the New World Encyclopedia:

"

Authority

From New World Encyclopedia

 
Jump to: navigation, search
Previous (Authenticity (philosophy))
Next (Authority control)
 

Authority (Latin auctoritas, used in Roman law as opposed to potestas and imperium) is a key concept in political philosophy. Authority is a power based upon a certain legitimacy, justification, and the right to exercise it. Authority is often used interchangeably with the term "power," but power simply refers to the ability to achieve certain ends with or without justification or rights. For example, whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, such as through lynching, only the courts have the authority to order capital punishment. The legitimacy of political authority is, however, a central issue in political philosophy.

Since the emergence of the social sciences, authority has been a subject of research in a variety of empirical settings; the family (parental authority), small groups (informal authority of leadership), intermediate organizations such as schools, churches, armies, industries and bureaucracies (organizational and bureaucratic authority) and society-wide or inclusive organizations ranging from the most primitive tribal society to the modern nation-state and intermediate organization (political authority).

The jurisdiction of political authority, the location of sovereignty, the balancing of freedom and authority, the requirements of political obligations have been core questions for political philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to the present.

"The phenomena called authority is at once more ancient and more fundamental than the phenomena called state; the natural ascendancy of some men over others is the principle of all human organizations and all human advances."

—Bertrand de Jouvenel

Max Weber on authority

The word authority derives from the Latin word "auctoritas," used in Roman law as opposed to potestas. According to Giorgio Agamben (2005), "auctoritas has nothing to do with magistrates or the people's potestas or imperium. The Senator…is not a magistrate."

In Weberian sociology, authority comprises a particular type of power. The dominant usage comes from functionalism, defining authority as power which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the powerful and the powerless. Weber divided authority into three types:

The first type discussed by Weber is the Traditional authority which according to him derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another then it is known as traditional authority. The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example. There are several examples in this regard. The Tudors in England, and the ruling families of Mewar in Rajasthan (India) are some examples of traditional authority.

The second type of authority is Rational-legal authority. It is that form of authority which depends for its legitimacy on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down, and are often very complex. The power of the rational legal authority is mentioned in the constitution. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority. Government officials are the best example of this form of authority which is prevalent all over the world.

The third form of authority is Charismatic authority. Here, the charisma of the individual or the leader plays an important role. Charismatic authority is that authority which is derived from "the gift of grace," or, when the leader claims that his authority is derived from a "higher power" (e.g. God or natural law or rights) or "inspiration" that is superior to both the validity of traditional and rational-legal authority, and followers accept this and are willing to follow this higher or inspired authority in the place of the authority that they have hitherto been following. Some of the most prominent examples of charismatic authority can be politicians or leaders who come from a movie or entertainment background. These people become successful because they use their grace and charm to get more votes during elections. History has witnessed several social movements or revolution against a system of traditional or legal-rational authority, which are usually started by Charismatic authority.

What distinguishes authority from coercion, force, and power on the one hand and leadership, persuasion and influence on the other hand is legitimacy. Superiors feel that they have a right to issue commands; subordinates perceive an obligation to obey. Social scientists agree that authority is but one of several resources available to incumbents in formal positions. For example, a Head of State is dependent upon a similar nesting of authority. His legitimacy must be acknowledged not just by citizens but by those who control other valued resources: his immediate staff, his cabinet, military leaders and in the long run administration and political apparatus of the entire society.

Authority and the state

Every state has a number of institutions which exercise authority based on longstanding practices. In India, the British created the institution of the Civil Service, which is still going strong even after 150 years. The Armed Forces of India is another institution which is subordinate to the government but is a very old and prominent institution. Apart from this, every state sets up agencies which are competent in dealing with one particular matter. All this is set up within its charter. One example can be that of a port authority like the port of London authority. They are usually created by special legislation and are run by a board of directors. Several agencies and institutions are also created along the same lines and they exercise autonomy in certain matters. They are also usually required to be self-supporting through property taxes or other forms of collection or fees for services.

The jurisdiction of political authority is widely discussed in democratic societies, including the United States. Because the Founding Fathers intended a system of checks and balances which ideally limits concentration of power in any one of the three branches, there is an ongoing discussion in U.S. politics regarding the legitimate extent of governmental authority in general. While there has been an ongoing trend toward consolidation of power in the federal government, and in the executive branch in particular, many critics argue that the Founders intended a system which afforded the populace with as much freedom as reasonable, and that government should limit its authority accordingly.

Religious perceptions of authority

Most religions around the world, whether Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity have always considered God as the supreme authority. All the religious scriptures have considered God to have authority and wisdom, which is infinitely superior than any human being. The source or reason behind this authority usually involves tremendous power and compassion along with primacy in the physical and spiritual realms. That which is divine is usually thought of as the creator and therefore superior to ordinary creatures.

Divinity, as presented in the religious scriptures, makes claim to the final authority for all truth and reality, and provides rules and directions for the use of creation. The question of authority in such a system is "what does God want from me and how do I know this?" Although there are multiple methods of understanding the connection to a divinity, all seem to require some measure of faith in a divinity and contemplation of perhaps multiple methods of communication.

For example, in the modern era; the act of observing the communion or the Lord's supper comes from a combination of direct divine command, approved apostolic example recorded in scripture, and necessary inference. Jesus directly states to his disciples that they are to partake of this examination (found in the Gospels and rehearsed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians); there is an example of an apostle and others participating in this act of worship and obedience in the Book of Acts, where the day of the observance is mentioned; as with all Bible references, the reader must infer or understand how the direction from God to be applicable to today."

 
 
NoBlesseOblige's picture

NoBlesseOblige says:

I just had a conversation with some men last night and couldn't believe all the controversy we got into, MOSTLY because of semantics.  One man, seriously, suggested we come to meet with a list of our definitions of words so we could know what each other was talking about!!!  Sometimes, I think people even invite controversy over semantics.  Some of us are still formulating our personal dictionary of terms....

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

Terminology and semantics is always a big issue.  And when people have different backgrounds it gets even harder to articulate what you mean.  But more than semantics my issue is with what idea Chris is trying to develop.  To just make a general statement that people don't understand authority and then compare government with God seems very general and superficial.  What exactly is the idea?  That we need to abandon all government and live by religion alone?  Is this another argument for a stateless society? 

christopher's picture

christopher says:

You said:

I don't understand your apparent need to compare religion/beliefs and government.

Is there something wrong with exploring the impact of my beliefs on my view of government?  I think trying to keep my belief in God separate from my thoughts about government is dualistic.  I believe that God is Lord of everything in my life, so I take a much more holistic approach than you appear to be comfortable with.

I appreciate the sources you posted.  I think they help explain the difference between power an authority, especially this: "Authority is often used interchangeably with the term 'power,' but power simply refers to the ability to achieve certain ends with or without justification or rights."

 

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

Comparing them and using your beliefs to support or not support government aspects are two different things.  Yes, in the context of religion you are answerable only to God.  In terms of your soul and your religious beliefs.  But on another level you are also answerable to the government.  Your beliefs may help you determine whether a law is just and if it is not then you work to change it ( and maybe you are right or you are wrong).  But I would not put God/religion on the same level as government.  They are totally different levels so comparing them does not make sense to me.  I hope I have made the distinction here. 

christopher's picture

christopher says:

Well, as a follower of Jesus, I believe the state lacks authority.  The only reason I am answerable to the state is because they have power (i.e. guns) -- they have no real authority.  It sounds like you are suggesting that my belief in God is on a subordinate level to the state.  Explain to me how I am morally answerable to the state?

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

I do not believe that just because a person is a Christian that exclusively rules out the state having any authority in that person's life.  The state does have legal authority in certain areas.  I am NOT suggesting that your belief in God is subordinate to the state.  They are different levels.    You are making it an either or situation and it is not.   You are legally answerable to the state; you are morally answerable to God.  If a person commits murder then the state has the authority to take them off the street so they don't hurt anyone else; that person will be judged later in a religious context.  You are not only answerable to the state because they have power but also because you choose to live in this country and therefore abide by its laws (or work to change them).  I guess I don't understand your beef.  Does this all go back to your idea of a stateless society?  Is that what this is all about?  And a stateless society is somehow more open to religion?  And I never said you were morally answerable to the state.  Your statement "Well, as a follower of Jesus, I believe the state lacks authority"...this does not make sense.  So if you commit murder the state should not do anything about it because you believe in God: or if you exceed the speed limit and recklessly endanger other peoples' lives there should be no repercussions from the state because you believe in God?  And so this would be true of anyone else who says they believe in God?  or Allah?  Or just you because you are a follower of Jesus?  Are you above 'human law"? 

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

I found this in a response on www.freerepublic.com and I think it says a lot:

Government exists because it is an instrument that can keep the peace and dispense justice. It is imperfect in a country that believes in God, and it is even less perfect in a country that does not. But even in the country that doesn’t believe in God, it is still more of a stabilizng effect than total chaos and anarchy. Nobody can survive very long under such conditions.

And here was another quote from the same webpage:

"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

"Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." [Rom 13:1-7]



 

christopher's picture

christopher says:

I think you are reading a lot into my position.  Don't forget that my orignal statement was that a lot of people don't understand the difference between authority and power.  I get the feeling you agree with me on this point, but are concerned about some of the implications in recognizing the difference.

It seems that you are thinking collectively, and this has been a core issue in many of our discussions.  While I believe that my position is right (as best I know it), I do not wish to impose my views on others.  I am thrilled when others come to see my position, and equally thrilled when another offers new insight that compells me to adjust my position, but I never, NEVER want any person or group imposing their view on me or anybody else.

I do not believe that it is because I am a follower of Jesus that the state does not have authority over me. Rather, through my understanding of God my view of authority has been formed, and I am therefore convinced that the state has no legitimate authority over me or anyone else.  (Now, it's important to note that this doesn't mean that I couldn't support a voluntary government that was given authority by those wishing to be involved: but that would be delegated authority, and this is not the kind of authority the the US government claims.)

Even though I recognize no legitimate authority in the state, if I break their "laws" I will feel their heavy hand for it -- they are physically much stronger than I.  Clearly they have the power; but where do they derive their authority? I submit to the state (on most issues) because of the power that they hold.

Frankly, Jesus made it clear that his kingdom is not of this world.  Any disciple of his is not a citizen of the USA or some other state, they are citizens of heaven.  The reason I do not kill is not because the state has a law against it, but because God doesn't want me to do it.  The reason I pay taxes, is because I don't want to be abused by the state, and because Bible authors suggest we pick our battles wisely -- and I don't think this is a wise one (though I speak out against it frequently).  I am not out to find a way to disobey the law.

In regards to your assertion that I consent to be governed because my property is physically located within the borders of the USA's claimed territory: on what premise?  Since when was owning land a consent to be governed?  If I consented to be governed, how did I do it and how do I unconsent?

What gives any particular state the legitimate authority to govern me without my consent?

christopher's picture

christopher says:

On what grounds should I believe that voluntary government equals chaos?  and... Aunt Judy, are you proof texting!?  I previously responded to the use of Romans 13 for legitimizing the state here.

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

First, no I don't agree with you on your point that most people don't know the difference between authority and power.  Second, how can I think collectively and what does that paragraph mean?  I understand that in a religious and spiritual context you are only answerable to God.  I will agree with that.  But we live in a fairly civil society and for there to be stability and freedom there have to be some civil laws to live by.  I believe that I would do the right thing whether the laws existed or not but there are a lot of people who would not (and apparently do not).  So, I recognize that the government does have some authority and power over my life but in so doing provides for protection of my freedoms in a world filled with bad guys.  The government has no authority or power over my soul though.  That is between me and my God and has nothing to do with government.  And because we have freedoms I can pretty much do or think anything I want to, worship or not, read whatever I want to, dress the way I want to, be social or antisocial, live wherever I want to, earn a living however I want to, marry whoever I want to, etc.  So, back to the point you were trying to make.  I don't see government and its authority/power being in direct contention with anyone's religious beliefs involving authority/power.  To compare them is still a moot point.   Maybe we should put this discussion out of its misery!  And everyone else who might be reading.  Although they have probably lost interest by now!  LOL

christopher's picture

christopher says:

Allow me to be your first example of someone who recognizes no legitimate authority in the state as a result of my understanding of God's authority.

Aunt Judy's picture

Aunt Judy says:

I wonder if you will be the last....how many other people can say the same thing?  Maybe I will be surprised.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.