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.
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?
Can you tell the difference?
