Authority vs. Authoritarianism: A Problem of The Times

These days, a polarization or "separation of camps" exists between authorities and authoritarians. An "anti-authority" sentiment has arisen in one camp that distinguishes poorly between legitimate, helpful, knowledgeable authority and illegitimate, detrimental, ignorant authoritarianism -- or "dominator authorities". 

A "pro-authoritarian sentiment" has grown in the other camp, a sentiment that resists and attacks the inevitable new developments of newly emerging authorities ("progressives").

Very often, people use the word, "authority", to describe both, indiscriminately, so that people mis-categorize persons of authority as authoritarians and resist or otherwise fail to support them, when their services are direly needed.

This polarization has crippled people's intelligence and rendered them more susceptible to manipulation by persons of malicious or self-serving intent.

This piece exists to clarify the difference, so that people exercise their intelligence, better and save themselves from the machinations of authoritarians.

Authority vs. Authoritarianism

There's a night-and-day difference between authority and authoritarianism.

The words authority and author are obviously related. An authority is someone with a comprehensive understanding of how things work in some aspect of life. Someone who writes it all down is called an author.

Authoritarians on the other hand, are people who believe in the right of the authority to control others. What's important to them is not understanding, but obedience.

To clarify that difference, let's make a distinction. And authority is rightfully a teacher. An authoritarian on the other hand, is a controller of others – a control freak. An authoritarian believes in the right of an authority to dominate, who expects to be dominated and, on the basis of that "chain of authority", expects to dominate others.

There's a world of difference between teaching and dominating, isn't there?

Teaching versus Dominating

Every competent teacher knows that teaching involves the voluntary cooperation of the student. The teacher presents information or a viewpoint. The cooperative student voluntarily internalizes that viewpoint or understanding. The teacher hands it off. The student captures it. The process of capturing it is known as self-discipline.

Authoritarians, on the other hand, believe that they have the right to compel cooperation. The words, "Thank you for your cooperation," then, take on an ominous tone.

Instead of relying upon self-discipline, the authoritarian relies upon enforcement or punishment. What the student of an authoritarian learns is not just the viewpoint or understanding of an authority, but also the likelihood of punishment for failing to learn it.

Just to be clear about the distinction, discipline is self generated from within; enforcement and punishment are imposed from outside.

Rebellion: the problem of the times

People confuse authorities with authoritarians. They expect that with authority comes the likelihood of punishment rather than caring instruction.

So, they become resistant to all legitimate, helpful authority.

And therein lies the problem. People are making themselves both dense and opinionated -- thus making their culture both dense and incapable of meeting the challenges of change.

Authorities are like good parents. Authoritarians are like bad parents.

A good parent teaches self-discipline; a good parent gives lessons. A bad parent punishes in the guise of teaching; a bad parent "is going to teach you a lesson you won't forget".

Authoritarianism leads to mistrust. Mistrust leads to the crippling of a society and to the incompetence of its members.

That incompetence leads to dependency. And that dependency leads to authoritarianism.

Why?

Because people are unwilling voluntarily to submit themselves to the instruction of authorities. They must then be compelled, even for their own good.

Because they don't distinguish cleanly between authorities and authority figures, "for their own good" becomes suspect to them. They suspect that every authority is actually an authoritarian.

And away we go.

Isn't that what we are seeing in these times?

Then, instead of going for, learning, people go for idle distractions, which are non-threatening, but ineffectual. Think, entertainment.

Ineffectual people, despite their resistance to authority, ultimately become more controllable by authoritarians, more manipulable, more gullible than competent people.

The authorities they choose are of their own choosing, rather than of the greatest competence.

Again, why?

Authority has Inherent Power; Authoritarianism Seizes Power

The communications of authorities in some area of knowledge embody a kind of forcefulness, the forcefulness of self-assurance, of competence, of integrity.

This, people who confuse authority with authoritarianism regard as a threat to their own autonomy, their right to decide, for themselves.

The communications of authoritarians contain the feeling of a hidden threat – or they may be couched in terms that pander to the concerns of listeners in ways that flatter the intelligence of listeners, rather than informing that intelligence.

In true teaching, there is no threat to autonomy. Rather, true teaching is empowering. True teaching gets people to discover, or test, things for themselves. That's where the true learning comes in.

An authoritarian doesn't want people to test things for themselves. An authoritarian wants people simply to believe the authoritarian and go along. This, people rightfully resist.

But they must learn to distinguish the difference. And authoritarians, and their followers, who are also authoritarians, resist learning from outside their accepted "chain of authority". They are like dogs who obey only their master. They resist exercising their own intelligence, resist taking "unauthorized" initiative. They want the assurance of their authoritarian superiors that they will not be threatened. So, they conform.

The true authority faces, that is, is willing to confront, authoritarians.

The true authority, and the student of true authority, has the courage to question or to refuse.

The authoritarian is a coward feigning the appearance of strength. The authoritarian uses the clichés of, the language of, entrenched power, or of tradition.

The true authority develops his or her own language of expression, coins his or her own terminology to express something new, something to be learned. Understanding that new language of expression or terminology requires a person to exercise their intelligence.

Authoritarians are afraid to exercise their own intelligence. They conform, but without intelligence -- if with cleverness -- to maintain the dominance of their (inherited) view. They conform, merely obediently.

That, indeed, is their stupidity -- and it is self inflicted. So, where authoritarians self-inflict stupidity, the students of an authority apply self discipline – which requires them to exercise their intelligence -- and also the courage to test and question.

Can you tell the difference?