Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. It can also refer to a certain kind of expertise or knowledge that we might defer to. Sometimes we respect authority, and sometimes we resist it or even revolt against it. But where exactly does authority come from, and when, if ever, ought we defer to it? How do we challenge authority? What makes an authority figure authoritarian? And can there be anarchist forms of authority? Josh and Ken authorize a conversation with James Martel from San Francisco State University, author of Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat.
Josh and Ken begin the show by discussing the perceived erosion of top-down authority structures in today’s society. Josh views this as a positive phenomenon, claiming that less hierarchy results in more freedom for individuals. Ken argues that without the clear authority provided by such structures, there can only be confusion and chaos.
The hosts are joined by guest James Martel, political scientist at San Francisco State University and author of Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat. James posits that there are two types of authority: vertical authority, which is top-down and hierarchical, and horizontal authority, which is collective. He believes that we often rely too much on vertical authority to affect change and that anarchy is desirable because it only relies on collective authority which, in turn, can accomplish everything that members of a society might need. Josh and Ken push back on this, naming Brexit as an example where collective action led to an unfavorable outcome and raising the concern that collective action breeds conformity, respectively. James grants that there can be better or worse forms of collective authority but neverthless argues that good implementations of collective action are more desirable than good forms of vertical action.
In the final segment, the philosophers discuss the merits of a mixed form of politics in which the governing body recruits both regular citizens and those with expertise to be involved. James believes that the fact that some have better developed political skills than others merely reflects the lopsided nature of our current political system — something we can and should change such that everyone is equally competent at “doing” politics. He ends with the optimistic sentiment that although engaging in the political process may seem difficult at first, people generally enjoy it after taking part.
Josh Landy
Does the collapse of top down authority mean the rise of anarchy and chaos?
Ken Taylor
Or can there be authority without hierarchy?
Josh Landy
Who needs authority anyway?
Comments (5)
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, April 5, 2019 -- 12:06 PM
John Searle might refer toJohn Searle might refer to one application of authority as 'institutional rules'. However, he has said far more than this, as you well know. Authority has been around, for as long as humans knew they had to achieve order, in order to have anything like social stability. Much of this consciousness gained traction and codification through the Church and its own institutional rules. Humans, now, can think for themselves, more clearly and logically than two thousand years ago---they do not need 'voices; oracles; muses and (or) gods to tell them what to do'---bicameralism* is, as a practical matter, 'comaTOAST'. Authority is in a heap of trouble, seems to me... (*see also, Julian Jaynes) Maybe Ken SHOULD run for president?; philosophers and kings, kings and philosophers and all that...
Tim Smith
Wednesday, August 25, 2021 -- 6:58 PM
Anarchism is fine, but pleaseAnarchism is fine, but please keep it inside your own house. It's much easier to paint a circle A on the police station than your own college dormitory. When our local mayor asked a private college to discipline their students they referred this to the student government. That doesn't cut it in my horizontal view.
I could use a little more vertical and a lot less horizontal given the amount of trash and graffiti I have to wade through in my own relatively progressive community. There is a sense of entitlement to these anarchists that smells like hypocrisy to me.
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, September 3, 2021 -- 7:31 AM
Had not thought of anarchistsHad not thought of anarchists as believing or 'feeling' they are entitled. Considered them ignorant, if not outright mindless. Their whole premise seems to be based on origins, most of which are archaic at best. On reflection, though, hypocrisy fits as well as any other sort of mindlessness. Thanks for the insight.
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, October 7, 2021 -- 5:49 AM
An aphorism for the topic:An aphorism for the topic:
Authoritarians will ever insist upon authority and the aegis to authorize. Resistance is the province of the resistant. These are diametrics, as old as their proponents. Whether the objectives are suppression or freedom themselves or adjunct aspects, the opposing goals are eternal. Some would say, infernal....just exactly so.
pitcherposse
Wednesday, November 15, 2023 -- 6:36 PM
I had never consideredI had never considered anarchists to feel or think they are entitled. thought them to be illiterate, if not completely stupid. Their entire idea appears to be predicated on origins, the most of which are, at most, antiquated. Upon closer inspection, though, eggy car hypocrisy is just as appropriate as any other form of ignorance. I appreciate your insight.