authority and respect

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)

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)

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. 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. 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)

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. 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)

Wow, it took two posts of mine stating it specifically before you could reach an "assumption"? 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. 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)

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)

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. Interesting. I wouldn't say inherently a dangerous thing, but it certainly can be depending on what is being effected. 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)

That was interesting information but I'm not sure why it changes whether the japanese "empress" is a good example of authority, power, respect, and obedience being something more than just motherhood issues. In fact, your information seems to confirm that it is more than that.While limited in some regards, they still wielded great power which effected lives. What you have shown is that what merits respect and is given power has changed over time. Thus the adage of authority deserving respect does not hold.Those that once were given respect were no longer given it, and now facing a new situation and in a new environment some may have been forced to accept a new authority... should they have given their respect?Regardless of whether there were empresses prior to the 1800s has little bearing on how the modern people might feel based on customs and culture over the last 200 years which included such a prohibition. My point was not that she had a lot of respect, but rather if it would have been considered if she had not been respected at all. Lets say she was a 16 yo kid who had been doing a lot of embarassing and juvenile things which made the public mad. Would they have bothered to even try changing the law? Doubtful.

---

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

I'm sorry but that's just not true. I agree they shouldn't join and not expect non-deployment, but that is different than what is going on. Maybe things have changed since 911 when some joined in the face of a tragedy and wanted to do something, and after all the press since the Iraq war letting everyone know that deployments are likely.HOWEVER, recruitment advertising for reserves has and continues to be based on one weekend a month and one week a year (or was that one month a year?). If deployment should be expected, especially the kinds we are seeing, then the advertisements should state that that is what the job is. I'm sorry, but where in that propaganda piece was there anything about what he expected he would face when he joined? Your story seems to be of what he has come to understand and accept since being in the military. I might add you used an example which specifically avoided PD's point. I mean where was this guy's family business that could go down the tubes? Or are you suggesting that most reservists are politicians?

---

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