One difference between an authoritarian and an authority has to do with listening.An authoritarian wants communication to be one-way: out to others. (S)he never listens long enough to get a sense of the other's experience, but only long enough to identify ways of undercutting the other, whose opinion differs.
An authority, on the other hand, listens. Closely.
That's how an authority gets to be an authority and to stay an authority -- by listening enough to get a sense of things previously overlooked,
- by staying open enough and long enough to sense things of which one was previously oblivious
- by allowing what comes in to resonate us and to relax any stresses that show up. To one degree or another, they do.
The authority stays an authority by staying current, by changing to incorporate the effects of experience in oneself, by incorporating the Unknown Unknown into ones worldview, so that new things may emerge.
The authority is not afraid of not-knowing or of appearing not to know. The authority knows that not-knowing is the entry-way, the mouth that feeds on the Unknown Unknown in order to generate The Known, all that is known by mind and stored in memory.
The authoritarian is afraid of not knowing, and so always purports to know (even when wrong).
The authority admits that, as much as we know, we don't know it all -- and therefore, we don't know beyond knowledge.
Therefore, the authority, who listens, who is affected, honesty acknowledges faults.
The authoritarian makes as the stock-in-trade, the willingness of silly people to tolerate his persistent faults being persistent. Therefore, (s)he is afraid of being found out.
The authority, not being concerned for the opinions of others because honest to begin with, is not afraid of being found out, since (s)he knows that whatever actions (s)he takes, they do not *come from* her; they come *to and through* her (or him). All the authority does is to consolidate into some persistent and hopefully, reproducible form, is capture what has been shown in imagination -- capture it in memory and as something tangible, that functions, that works to beneficial effect.
The authority is a benefactor.The authority, because confronted with the mysterious origin of things the origin beyond himself, beyond all things ... is naturally humble about his personal credit for what (s) has invented -- and will take credit only for doing the hard work!
The authoritarian is a parasite.Authoritarians want to make the way things develop be the way that will get the most approval from the prevailing power structure. Thus, authoritarians are strong on memory fixation and weak on open imagination.
What they imagine is shaped by what they remember of "where the bread is buttered" and by the expectation that it continues to continue.
Authoritarians feed off the system while impaired in the ability to provide a fair exchange. They plunder The System. Think, "financiers" -- and many others -- "fossil-fuel industries", "chemical companies", "military contractors". get the idea? Mooooooooooo$$.
Authority gets its persuasive prestige for the benefits that authorities channels into The System, by means of exercising their expertise. Their prestige is the prestige of being regarded as a source of benefit -- prestige that grows as more people benefit.
Authoritarians do not contribute what is needed because they do not listen. They do not wish to listen. To listen is to be affected. They do not want to be affected. They want a one-way channel: out. They want the power because they imagine that getting everything to go as they imagine they want it to will bring relief from their distress at being fixated in memory with stunted imagination compelled by inherited and now outdated senses of values.
Authoritarians come heavily laden with the inherited trauma of ancient ancestors, of recent ancestors, of childhood upbringing and social *commonalities* (NOT "norms"). They're full of it. And their inherited conditioning comes with a fear-laden threat: *Don't change any of this on pain of punishment."
So, authoritarians don't like true authorities. True authorities make authoritarians look bad, who then have to react (generally with lies and denials) to avoid the fear of the threat of punishment for coming clean. True authorities make authoritarians feel like imposters, who then retaliate with false characterizations of individuals who act like authorities (such as, "So-and-so doesn't know what they're talking about." "I have such contempt for "so-and-so", etc., etc.). They have "status issues".
I think that the "status issue" of authorities is about whether their work is used well, or not, about whether it gets the recognition it deserves for the benefit it can provide. So to speak. Other than that, authority is there to listen and to serve.
So, I've painted a pretty extensive picture, here.
There'll be a quiz on that sometime this week.