Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   authority and respect
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 30 (281432)
01-25-2006 6:08 AM


Someone has stated that "Authority should be treated with respect." I do not believe that is a true or useful maxim and I will explain why. Note, I don't want this tied to a discussion of who said it or why it was raised. I find it interesting in itself for analysis, and would be discussing it had it been raised by someone else, for other reasons.
1) While the statement seems straightforward enough, in reality it equivocates authority with someone holding a position of power. The two are not synonymous. While one should recognize positions of power, in order to judge what one's options are, a position of power neither makes one an authority nor worthy of respect.
A position of power gets treated according to what power elicits: support, compliance, noninterference, complaint, resistance... and possibly escape.
2) Authority does not require one be in a position of power, though it might create a position of power. Authority comes from respect that others give it, based on activity others find worthy of respect. A quote comes to mind... "Respect cannot be learned, purchased or acquired - it can only be earned" (bits&pieces)
Authorities do get respect, but based on what the earn, and maintain by actions that others understand and can respect.
3) Respect is earned through some amount of creative or productive effort to be sure, but that is not sufficient. It also requires respect for others, especially those under one's power if one is in a position of power. Another quote comes to mind..."Men are respectable only as they respect" (emerson).
For those in power, appeals to one's humanity (for example the ability to make mistakes), while punishing others for theirs, is to demand that those who are not in power be set to a higher standard. It does not create an atmosphere for respect as is being demanded.
In practice Authority must hold itself to a higher standard, otherwise it is incapable of (and does not deserve) respect.
4) Those in power do not intentionally become corrupt, but mistakes often deliver complaints and resistance, which they (as any human would) do not want. It is in this moment that those in power can review their own actions and gain respect and so authority through deed, or fail and add to the vicious cycle.
The equivocation between power and authority is useful and has become so commonplace that we use the term interchangeably. But as I have outlined above, it is false and useless as a maxim. It keeps people in charge for no reason, it stifles actual debate, and it perpetuates corruption (even though unintenional) within the ranks of power.
Some may view this post as mere whining, the attempt to create a problem, or perhaps nailing something important to the doors of power at EvC. I suppose it will be whatever people view it to be.
My intention however is to question that statement as is, as indeed I have been fighting such a maxim for most of my life. It is applicable anywhere as it is used everywhere, and I found it wanting early on. Anyone that wishes to argue in support of that position... that authority should be respected... I am open for debate.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-25-2006 06:08 AM

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Ben!, posted 01-25-2006 8:29 AM Silent H has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 2 of 30 (281456)
01-25-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
01-25-2006 6:08 AM


More words
The equivocation between power and authority is useful and has become so commonplace that we use the term interchangeably.
Holmes,
Maybe you can go ahead and give the definition of authority that you're targetting? Because the first definition at dictionary.com seems to be this "commonplace mistake" that you're arguing against:
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
404: This page could not be found
If that's so, then... I think there's not much hope of useful discussion. You can argue all day that it's useful to use words in certain ways, but (trying to use holmes' desired definitions) as you talk about here, without power, authority can be useless.
Anyway, I don't think people, when using this first definition of "authority", really mix it with other definitions
4.
a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
I have a feeling this discussion will simply go into discussing the pros and cons of individual pronunciations (words?) having multiple meanings. But I thought I'd ask more before heading in that direction.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 6:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 8:55 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 30 (281464)
01-25-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Ben!
01-25-2006 8:29 AM


Re: More words
I was not meaning to start a discussion on dictionary definitions of the word "authority", indeed I tried to suggest toward the end of my OP that it is common now to use "authority" as a term for position of power... which is what your investigations have shown.
The question is whether "authority should be respected". My intent was to show that as it is used, this is not so. It involves an equivocation in order to make it palatable.
Let's use what you found in place of "authority" and you should see what I mean:
"Power should be respected", "Government should be respected". "Leaders should be respected"?
That does not ring true to me at all, and my guess is not to many others. For example Bush has power, but it is absurd to state that he should be respected. He must be: supported, complied with, uninterfered with, complained about, defied... or escaped.
There is no reason that one SHOULD respect him.
As a flipside, Carter enjoys no real position of power in the world, yet because of immense respect he is promoted as an authority and given power. Still some don't and none should.
I guess what I am bringing up is that the connection between authority and respect is tautological. One has authority (actual authority) as one has respect. Otherwise one simply has power and compliance. One cannot demand that authority should be respected, without making an equivocation.

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Ben!, posted 01-25-2006 8:29 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 01-25-2006 9:20 AM Silent H has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 30 (281469)
01-25-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
01-25-2006 8:55 AM


Re: More words
The question is whether "authority should be respected". My intent was to show that as it is used, this is not so. It involves an equivocation in order to make it palatable.
I don't want to get into semantic arguments, although that might be unavoidable.
You wrote "Note, I don't want this tied to a discussion of who said it or why it was raised." Yet there is an obvious guess as the issue that led you to start this thread, namely that raised in this post. Ben has already suggested that you are taking "authority" to mean other than was intended. I suggest that you are also taking "respect" to mean other than intended. As said in Message 251 of that same thread
You've got to let some problems go. The moderator team isn't perfect, either, including me. My advice, as always, is to just focus on the issues and ignore anything that appears like personal slights.
I take it that "respect" was intended to mean respect for such requests. Whether you respect the person who made that request is a different issue, and IMO personal respect for the authority as a person was not what was being asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 8:55 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 11:11 AM nwr has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 30 (281489)
01-25-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
01-25-2006 9:20 AM


Re: More words
Ben has already suggested that you are taking "authority" to mean other than was intended.
And I have already addressed that. Yes, authority commonly refers to power or those in power. That is what I said towards the end of my post (I guess I should have started with it), and made more clear in my response to Ben.
I suggest that you are also taking "respect" to mean other than intended.
Uhm, I made it clear I did not want to discuss anything regarding where it came from. Let us deal with this phrase here. Typically when someone says something like this they are asking for themselves to be shown respect. As I have already mentioned this goes well beyond anything here, and Bush would be a great example.
His administration often suggests that he, or his decisions, should be treated with respect. That is to say, one should not criticize or engage in any specific criticism. To do otherwise is to disrespect his authority and weaken the presidency.
But that is counterintuitive. If his policies are worthy then they will be respected and followed and he will gain in authority. If they are not deemed as worthy then they will be questioned and will not be treated with respect. If anything some believe there is a mandate to disrespect those in power, who are failing the trust put into them.
I take it that "respect" was intended to mean respect for such requests. Whether you respect the person who made that request is a different issue, and IMO personal respect for the authority as a person was not what was being asked.
What does "respect for such requests mean"? That suggests: support or compliance, correct? And you are right that it can apply to rules as well as persons. In my reply to Ben I even mentioned a system.
Thus it can be any power. And when one requests "respect" one may in fact be asking for compliance, but sugar coating the pill.
This brings me right back to my point regarding "authority should be respected", at best what is being said is "power should be complied with", or (to my mind) at worst "power should be treated well". In either case it would be less than useful.
Power, if thought in error, should be challenged. Power, when in error, should be disrespected. Authority does not need to request either compliance or fair treatment as it will already have it.
Before you reply, remember that I am not trying to discuss another thread at EvC. Use Bush as an example, if you can find no other outside of EvC.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-25-2006 11:12 AM

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 01-25-2006 9:20 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 01-25-2006 11:23 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 01-25-2006 12:50 PM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 6 of 30 (281492)
01-25-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
01-25-2006 11:11 AM


Re: More words
Power, if thought in error, should be challenged. Power, when in error, should be disrespected. Authority does not need to request either compliance or fair treatment as it will already have it.
From a military point of view soldiers must respect those in authority/power. It doesn't matter if Clinton or Bush walks up to you, you salute and stand at attention when talking to a superior officer (in this case a civilian that outranks officers). As a conservitive, I may not respect Clinton himself; but when he was President, I must respect his rank/authority. A liberal soldier is now in the same boat. They may not respect Bush, the man, but they must respect the position he holds.
I apply this to all areas of life including business, church, work, as well as military. I may not respect a person for who they are, but respect (or show respect) to the position they hold.

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 11:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 11:46 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 01-25-2006 11:52 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 01-25-2006 12:59 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-22-2006 2:57 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 10:53 AM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 30 (281494)
01-25-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
01-25-2006 11:23 AM


Re: More words
From a military point of view soldiers must respect those in authority/power.
That is a fantastic example, and which I was hoping would be one of the first to be raised.
It does appear that in tight organizations which need to function smoothly "respect" (in the sense of treat well) for those in power is an asset. That is because... I'd argue... for morale purposes. Without respect, leaders will not work as well as they should (losing confidence), and more disorder may appear. In heated moments, tempers are high, and sometimes it is enforced codes of respect which keep situations together.
This was showcased in the movie "caine mutiny".
Yet there is supposed to be a level of respect to those under one's command as well, and indeed limits drawn where those beneath can legitimately challenge authority. There are even ways for men to display less respect, within the bounds of showing respect. I saw some segment discussing the ways american troops say "hoo-ah" in different tones to bring this out.
One obvious point to make about this is that the military is a special case, and not representative of the rest of life. In that case one has voluntarily stepped into a system where one's will is known to be bent and indeed discarded for the benefit of the system.
Certainly civilians do not need to follow such a code and are under different sorts of obligations. And joining other entities which are not of such rigorous and testing conditions cannot claim to require such strict behavior.
I may not respect a person for who they are, but respect (or show respect) to the position they hold.
That is simply not true. I mean maybe face to face you do, but you have shown incredible disrespect to very powerful people, and some who have put their life on the line for this nation. Or are you only discussing that you will speak highly of the office they hold?
My guess is though that while you mention things like business or church, you are not going to be treating a minister in the church of satan with a whole lot of respect.
But this does raise another question (which will include the military) is the respect for a position, rather than a person? If so, is that really a veneration to a system, rather than people?

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 01-25-2006 11:23 AM Tal has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 30 (281496)
01-25-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
01-25-2006 11:23 AM


Re: More words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 01-25-2006 11:23 AM Tal has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 9 of 30 (281514)
01-25-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
01-25-2006 11:11 AM


On motherhood and apple pie
Uhm, I made it clear I did not want to discuss anything regarding where it came from.
It always depends on where it came from. The meaning of the words in inextricably connected to the intentions of those using the words.
Given your desire to not "discuss anything regarding ...", I shall assume that this topic is a completely new one, and has no relation at all to events that have transpired at evcforum.
Given these circumstances, the metaphor of my subtitle characterizes what I take to be the content and importance of this new topic. I have no interest in further debating it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 11:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 1:42 PM nwr has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 30 (281519)
01-25-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
01-25-2006 11:23 AM


Re: More words
quote:
I may not respect a person for who they are, but respect (or show respect) to the position they hold.
This just the opposite for me, Tal. I actually do have some respect for both Clinton and Bush as people (flawed though they both are). I rarely have respect for positions that entail coercive, authoritarian power, though. Interesting, huh?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 01-25-2006 11:23 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 1:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 30 (281524)
01-25-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
01-25-2006 12:50 PM


Re: On motherhood and apple pie
I shall assume that this topic is a completely new one, and has no relation at all to events that have transpired at evcforum.
Wow, it took two posts of mine stating it specifically before you could reach an "assumption"?
Given these circumstances, the metaphor of my subtitle characterizes what I take to be the content and importance of this new topic.
I'm sorry, so your post here is to simply piss on my thread? That's cute. Personally I find it an interesting question, especially in light of recent events around the world.
Authority, power, respect, and obedience are not just motherhood issues. Let's take an example. In Japan they are supposedly moving to a more progressive stance by allowing a woman to become empress. Thus someone who could not hold and wield a specific position of power will. Would this have happened if she had not been held in respect? After all they haven't allowed it for the rest of their history.
Of course the question some Japanese may ask is why they should be allowing that at all, and perhaps no one should be allowed to become an emperor again. That would be because a loss of respect for that system, and a growing respect for equality (or systems based in equality).
Yes, these kinds of questions interest me.
I have no interest in further debating it.
Well if my example hasn't convinced you it could be interesting, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 01-25-2006 12:50 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by MangyTiger, posted 02-22-2006 8:37 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 30 (281526)
01-25-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
01-25-2006 12:59 PM


Re: More words
I actually do have some respect for both Clinton and Bush as people (flawed though they both are). I rarely have respect for positions that entail coercive, authoritarian power, though. Interesting, huh?
That is much closer to a position I would hold. Admittedly I have rather little respect for either, and much less for Bush than Clinton, but there is a respect I have for them as people that I cannot hold for their position.
For example I can see that regardless of any failings, Bush is likely personable and well intentioned, and extremely loyal. I have to respect that about him. Heck its probably why I favored him over Gore in 2000.
Intriguingly its a respect that does not lead to any sense of authority for that person. Like he could be a neighbor, but I wouldn't want him captain of my team.
Perhaps there are different types of respect.

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 01-25-2006 12:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Ben!, posted 01-25-2006 10:17 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 01-25-2006 10:57 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 13 of 30 (281602)
01-25-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
01-25-2006 1:47 PM


Re: More words
Just skipping around and tossing out thoughts, like a flower girl tossing white rose petals at a wedding
Sorry, been reading too many Omni posts.
For example I can see that regardless of any failings, Bush is likely personable and well intentioned, and extremely loyal. I have to respect that about him. Heck its probably why I favored him over Gore in 2000.
I don't think I'd call this "respect". Or, if you wanted to call this "respect", then I'd agree with your comment
Perhaps there are different types of respect.
The kind of "respect" you talk about above, and what I wouldn't call respect, is a situation where you make a judgement about a person. Above, you judge some qualities of Bush to be good, so you say you'd "respect" them. I'd just say, I like them and think they're good.
OK, on second thought... I might use the word respect. Especially for someone who is older, and who I think has qualities that I aspire to. I do think this is a very different use of the word "respect."
The other kind of respect, the one I think that is relevant here, is all about two things: behavior, and lack of judgement. To me, respect means you give a person some kind of honorable treatment not because of your own judgement, but because of the position of that person. Either they are held in high esteem to somebody that matters (i.e. girlfriend, parent, colleague), or they hold a position for which some social norms of respectful behavior have been established (often about power!).
I think the first type of respect is not important for positions of power, but the second is. There are usually well-established social norms for how to treat people in power, how to go about having your voice listened to, etc. Sure, sometimes you have to work outside the social systems... but normally, it is important to work within those boundaries.
Intriguingly its a respect that does not lead to any sense of authority for that person. Like he could be a neighbor, but I wouldn't want him captain of my team.
He's the president of the United States. If you don't treat him with respect, there's all sorts of problems. For example, if too many people don't go through the proper channels to be heard, then it's likely that they simply get tuned out; the president is a busy guy. If you ridicule him, then you show outsiders that we have weak support within our own country, that we're not working united. If you throw tomatos at him, you simply distract the prez from doing real work, you distract the issues from what is important, and add no value.
We shake hands. Or bow. Or offer a gift. And dress nicely, and speak in a certain way. All to show our willingness to work together. We use protocols to communicate our willingness to work together constructively. A lack of respect without purpose is a dangerous thing.
A lack of respect due to a failure to succeed through proper channels is a different story. I guess that's what your OP is about, and I guess that's really what I should be addressing. But I wrote enough for now, so ... back to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 1:47 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 01-26-2006 8:58 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 30 (281607)
01-25-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
01-25-2006 1:47 PM


Re: More words
Hi, holmes.
quote:
Admittedly I have rather little respect for either....
Well, let me clarify -- when I said "respect" I was referring to that minimal amount of respect that any human being is entitled to, not necessarily anything more than that. Although, now that you have said it, I suppose that it is possible that I might like either gentleman if they were my neighbors, heh.
-
quote:
Perhaps there are different types of respect.
Probably true. I seem to remember some time ago we were commenting in another thread about the difference between respecting someone willing to risk her life for any cause and someone willing to risk her life for a cause that we also believe in. I suppose there is a great difference in the respect I would feel for, say, a suicide bomber willing to die for his cause, respect for Mahatma Ghandi, many of whose ideals I would share, and respect for George Bush if he were just my jovial, goofy neighbor who can't seem to run a business successfully.
But this may be getting far afield from where you wanted this thread to go.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 01-25-2006 1:47 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 30 (281706)
01-26-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Ben!
01-25-2006 10:17 PM


Re: More words
The other kind of respect, the one I think that is relevant here, is all about two things: behavior, and lack of judgement. To me, respect means you give a person some kind of honorable treatment not because of your own judgement, but because of the position of that person.
It could very well be that this is the more relevant type of respect (though nwr seems to disagree). I was simply pointing out that there could be other kinds.
A lack of respect without purpose is a dangerous thing.
Interesting. I wouldn't say inherently a dangerous thing, but it certainly can be depending on what is being effected.
A lack of respect due to a failure to succeed through proper channels is a different story. I guess that's what your OP is about, and I guess that's really what I should be addressing...
Yes, but your rambles OT are usually interesting and worthwhile anyway. The problem with the maxim is that it is often used to defuse valid criticism and challenges to power through proper channels, by altering perceptions of those not in power. As well it is used to promote or advance a powerbase to alter what proper channels are.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Ben!, posted 01-25-2006 10:17 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024