Authority
This one shouldn't take long. Let me just get right down to it. Authority should arise directly from reason. One man or woman's preference should not trump that of his/her's coworkers, comrades, family members, teammates, etc UNLESS his/her preference is genuinely better for all involved. Whenever deliberation doesn't thwart or threaten an endeavor, all present stakeholders should be treated as equals-their preferences/ideas should be given equal consideration. This egalitarian principle benefits society by simply allowing more good ideas to flourish.
We tend to think that the titles "President", "manager", or even "father" denote raw authority in the old-fashioned sense of a general having authority over his army or slave owners having possession over their slaves. While there is undoubtedly situations where it is of the utmost importance that underlings react immediately and unquestionably to a command ("I say 'jump', you say 'how high'"), I believe that that kind of authority is not called for in most endeavors.
We no longer live in the dark ages. We may not all be equals in terms of education, intelligence, or ability, but several generations of public education along with widespread literacy and social connectivity should have dispelled any lingering notion that "commoners" are dimwitted ignoramuses. What I'm trying to say is that in the modern era, there is even less reason to consider oneself "above" any other.
In the last few centuries, great strides have been made in the name of equality. Blacks and women were given the right to vote. The traditional role of women in society has disintegrated-now, a young girl freely considers all (minus becoming a professional football player) the options available to men when she sets her own future course. An untold number of every-day heros have fought for equal, dignified treatment of the poor and those with special needs. Equality has won battles in government and made strides in society, but I see opportunities for further advancement in the way we think of authority.
The president of the United States is no "better" than the vice president, a congressman from Alaska, a city councilman, or a kindergarten teacher. These people are all equal in terms of constitutional rights; and, I argue, deserve equal respect (until we are given reason to question their integrity). Each have their own job to do. Hopefully the training and selection process for each position ensures that well-qualified individuals are hired. The President's job includes being a figurehead and representative of our country. He's/she's a head diplomat, chief executive, leader of his party, figurehead and mouthpiece, and manager. Its a big job, but its still just a job. He/she may be supremely intelligent and charismatic (or, then again, he may not), but he/she is no better than the rest of us. (Its always refreshing when politicians say that they are working for us, though the that is not precisely true. We are all working for one another.)
We must resist the urge to view society as a complex structure of hierarchical arrangements. That is the way of the past. Kings and queens, lords, pharos, priests, prophets, masters-we have a lingering inferiority complex a few thousand years old that came from perpetually bowing down to these people. Now, in ever day life, there's still an inclination to see ourselves positioned somewhere on a totem pole; with people in authority "over" us, and people whom we have authority over under us. Hierarchical structures are sometimes explicit and purposefully built and enforced (in which case I question their need or wisdom), and other times they are just felt (in which case I recommend we all strive to treat each other with equal respect and try to shake off the old way of thinking).
What IS authority, if everyone is equal? The world "authority" might as well be discarded. The concept still has a place if we think of it as being inseparable from reason. There is either a very good reason for someone to be in a position of old-fashioned authority, like an officer in the military, or else the most reasonable idea is the idea that has "authority".
We tend to think that the titles "President", "manager", or even "father" denote raw authority in the old-fashioned sense of a general having authority over his army or slave owners having possession over their slaves. While there is undoubtedly situations where it is of the utmost importance that underlings react immediately and unquestionably to a command ("I say 'jump', you say 'how high'"), I believe that that kind of authority is not called for in most endeavors.
We no longer live in the dark ages. We may not all be equals in terms of education, intelligence, or ability, but several generations of public education along with widespread literacy and social connectivity should have dispelled any lingering notion that "commoners" are dimwitted ignoramuses. What I'm trying to say is that in the modern era, there is even less reason to consider oneself "above" any other.
In the last few centuries, great strides have been made in the name of equality. Blacks and women were given the right to vote. The traditional role of women in society has disintegrated-now, a young girl freely considers all (minus becoming a professional football player) the options available to men when she sets her own future course. An untold number of every-day heros have fought for equal, dignified treatment of the poor and those with special needs. Equality has won battles in government and made strides in society, but I see opportunities for further advancement in the way we think of authority.
The president of the United States is no "better" than the vice president, a congressman from Alaska, a city councilman, or a kindergarten teacher. These people are all equal in terms of constitutional rights; and, I argue, deserve equal respect (until we are given reason to question their integrity). Each have their own job to do. Hopefully the training and selection process for each position ensures that well-qualified individuals are hired. The President's job includes being a figurehead and representative of our country. He's/she's a head diplomat, chief executive, leader of his party, figurehead and mouthpiece, and manager. Its a big job, but its still just a job. He/she may be supremely intelligent and charismatic (or, then again, he may not), but he/she is no better than the rest of us. (Its always refreshing when politicians say that they are working for us, though the that is not precisely true. We are all working for one another.)
We must resist the urge to view society as a complex structure of hierarchical arrangements. That is the way of the past. Kings and queens, lords, pharos, priests, prophets, masters-we have a lingering inferiority complex a few thousand years old that came from perpetually bowing down to these people. Now, in ever day life, there's still an inclination to see ourselves positioned somewhere on a totem pole; with people in authority "over" us, and people whom we have authority over under us. Hierarchical structures are sometimes explicit and purposefully built and enforced (in which case I question their need or wisdom), and other times they are just felt (in which case I recommend we all strive to treat each other with equal respect and try to shake off the old way of thinking).
What IS authority, if everyone is equal? The world "authority" might as well be discarded. The concept still has a place if we think of it as being inseparable from reason. There is either a very good reason for someone to be in a position of old-fashioned authority, like an officer in the military, or else the most reasonable idea is the idea that has "authority".
posted by Josh at
9:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home