Authority

[Cybrweez]

So I've been thinking about this recently, and the "Nonsense" thread made me start this thread (hopefully, I can organize my thoughts)

Do you guys think that society today (and I can only speak for America really) has a general distaste for authority?

I think authority is in dire straits today. Many don't want to be under it, and many don't even want to have it. Also, many think authority itself is bad in some way.

I think of parents who don't believe they are in authority over their children, but should be their friend. Which in turn, teaches those kids not to respect authority. I've read some articles about the result in the work environment, especially when older managers have to deal w/younger people who don't respect authority, and it can really affect productivity, not to mention a healthy environment.

I think authority itself is misunderstood. The average person equates it w/dictatorship, or master/slave.

The Bible talks about authority. It says wives submit to husbands, and children submit to parents. So, mom and dad have authority over the kids, and dad has authority over mom.

Doesn't that make most of you cringe?

But what does the Bible say about authority? Husbands, love your wives - as Christ loved the church, in that He gave His life for her. And parents, do not "frustrate" your children (I can't think of exact passage there, I believe its in Proverbs). But when you look at the husband's authority over his wife, he is to be like Christ. Jesus said He came to serve, and if He is your master, how much more should you be a servant. So the husband has the authority to make decisions, which he does in serving his wife, and children. In this environment, its not hard for a wife to submit to her husband (he will make mistakes, but just remember, she's not perfect either )

To whom much is given, much is required. I think alot of men shirk authority b/c they don't want the responsibility. Or, they abuse that authority. And women want to ursurp that authority (man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck, turns the head wherever she wants).

I think this ties into many questions about God, b/c if we don't respect authority itself, than alot of what, at least from Biblical perspective, God says, we don't respect. We, like children, think we know better. We think our ideas make more sense, are more loving, are more just, etc. (We're studying the story of Joseph, when his brothers come to Egypt b/c of famine. A great picture of us in relation to God (Genesis 42-45)).

Ok, not very organized. Is it a good starting point? Any thoughts?

[aliantha]

I think authority is in dire straits today. Many don't want to be under it, and many don't even want to have it. Also, many think authority itself is bad in some way.

I think of parents who don't believe they are in authority over their children, but should be their friend. Which in turn, teaches those kids not to respect authority. I've read some articles about the result in the work environment, especially when older managers have to deal w/younger people who don't respect authority, and it can really affect productivity, not to mention a healthy environment.

Parents have been saying this sort of thing since the '60s, Cyberweez. And before that, too.

I think respect and authority are two different things. You can give someone respect without having to submit to him/her. I violently disagree with anybody who says that a husband should have authority over his wife.

There are lots of different kinds of leadership styles and ways of getting things done. One of the best, imho, is collaboration -- where nobody is nominally in charge, but everybody works together to get the job done. I think that's the best way for a couple to approach both a marriage and the job of parenting.

But that's just my opinion...

[Vraith]

Ditto everything Ali said.
Also, authority should not/does not mean the final arbiter (that's authoritarian...even the bible makes some distinction here...the 'I'm the boss' definition of authority is usually indicated by the word dominion. Multiple translations make this uncertain though)...it is a source of advice, (sometimes the ultimate source at a particular moment)...it is meant to be questioned, examined, expanded: to evolve. In some sense, men having 'authority' over women (by the accurate definition) was somewhat reasonable long ago (due to self-serving social structure) because the average woman wasn't allowed the education/life experience to make certain kinds of decisions. That's changed (for some, it actually changed long before society actually admitted it had changed...there are a number of brilliant female, and/or feminist works from as early as the 18th century at least, maybe earlier, not my period, in purely male fields like philosophy, religion, science)
Children should respect your authority...but this means precisely the opposite of how it's interpreted. It's the parents job to demonstrate caring, and that they have superior knowledge of the situation, and this is the reason for the rules...not obedience, but love and concern for their welfare. NOT having control of your children is a cop-out...but " because I said so!" is far more dangerous; it teaches only disdain and/or submission and accomplishes nothing else. And respect is far more important than authority. {I'd go so far as to say that without respect, there is no authority at all: respect is a necessary condition for authority} If your kids don't respect you, that is entirely your fault...and they will have a hard time respecting anyone, whether that person has authority or not. If you screw it up, they'll probably respect people you hate, if anyone. [I won't even get into the fallacy of 'respect is earned' and the problems it causes]
The downward spiral: step 1, you call your spouse a fat slob. Your kid loses respect for that parent. Step 2, you miss the kids birthday though you promised and say "quit whining, someone has to work." Kid doesn't respect either of you. Step 3 "I don't have time to waste with that idiot teacher, my jerk-face boss called a meeting." Kid doesn't respect teachers or bosses.

[SoulBiter]

But remember that although Christ is to be the master of your life he was also a servant. And he himself said that if you want to be a master then you must be the servant.

but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

He (Jesus) riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? 1Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

I think authority is in dire straits today. Many don't want to be under it, and many don't even want to have it. Also, many think authority itself is bad in some way.

I think of parents who don't believe they are in authority over their children, but should be their friend. Which in turn, teaches those kids not to respect authority. I've read some articles about the result in the work environment, especially when older managers have to deal w/younger people who don't respect authority, and it can really affect productivity, not to mention a healthy environment.

Parents have been saying this sort of thing since the '60s, Cyberweez. And before that, too.

I think respect and authority are two different things. You can give someone respect without having to submit to him/her. I violently disagree with anybody who says that a husband should have authority over his wife.

There are lots of different kinds of leadership styles and ways of getting things done. One of the best, imho, is collaboration -- where nobody is nominally in charge, but everybody works together to get the job done. I think that's the best way for a couple to approach both a marriage and the job of parenting.

But that's just my opinion...

I agree with that in a marriage and to some degree in the workplace. But there comes a time when someone will 'challenge' your authority. Usually its that person who doesnt show respect to anyone regardless of who they are. At that time you have to leave your 'collaboration' at the door and pick up your authoritarian hat. There does come a time when it comes down to, "if this happens again Im gonna show you the door, and the discussion is closed"

The military is another area where the collaboration thing doesnt work to a point.

[Cybrweez]

ali, your post is a little bit of what I'm talking about. You violently disagree? Why? And collaboration is vital for arriving at a good decision, but if there's no one w/authority to make that decision, I think you're in trouble. And I would say the '60s reduced respect for authority. It was a major theme.

[aliantha]

Well, "violently" seemed like a good choice of word last night. Maybe "vehemently" is better. That way nobody comes to blows, right?

Why does there have to be *one* person who makes the decision, Weez? It's certainly more cumbersome to govern by committee, but it's not impossible.

Actually, Vraith did a good job of expanding on my thoughts. I agree, in particular, that parents need to respect their kids. I rarely gave my kids a flat order, except in cases where their safety was at stake; there was almost always room for discussion. And I have to tell you that a lot of times, the kids would make a good point that I hadn't considered. I might even modify my directions based on their comments. I found that stuff got done with fewer complaints when everybody felt like they had been heard.

Oh yeah, I got flak -- in particular, from my ex-mother-in-law, and from the ex's next wife. I can't tell you how many times I was told that my kids would turn out to be pregnant high-school dropouts if I didn't take a firmer hand with them. Funny how it turned out, tho; next fall, my oldest will start grad school and my youngest will be RA coordinator for the freshman dorms. It's the ex's next wife who ended up with the pregnant high school dropout.

YMMV, of course. But it always seems to me that the the kids with the parents who ordered them around and took no backtalk, etc., were the kids who went apesh*t crazy as soon as they possibly could.

SB, I agree with you that collaboration doesn't work so well in the military, but that's largely because of the hierarchical structure of the organization. And yes, you are likely to run across some joker -- at work, in a volunteer organization, wherever -- who will use various tactics to undermine whatever authority they perceive that you have. The best strategy I have for coping with those kinds of folks is to put them in charge.

[sindatur]

I think authority is in dire straits today. Many don't want to be under it, and many don't even want to have it. Also, many think authority itself is bad in some way.

I think of parents who don't believe they are in authority over their children, but should be their friend. Which in turn, teaches those kids not to respect authority. I've read some articles about the result in the work environment, especially when older managers have to deal w/younger people who don't respect authority, and it can really affect productivity, not to mention a healthy environment.

Parents have been saying this sort of thing since the '60s, Cyberweez. And before that, too.

I think respect and authority are two different things. You can give someone respect without having to submit to him/her. I violently disagree with anybody who says that a husband should have authority over his wife.

There are lots of different kinds of leadership styles and ways of getting things done. One of the best, imho, is collaboration -- where nobody is nominally in charge, but everybody works together to get the job done. I think that's the best way for a couple to approach both a marriage and the job of parenting.

But that's just my opinion...

Can't argue with you about the Husband wife authority thing. But, in society, especially work, and Gov't, someone has to be charge. Not everyone will ever agree with decisions, so at some point, someone must have the authority to make that decision. And, it's true, kids of today, are far more disrespectable of authority than they were when I was growing up. When I was growing up, you didn't back talk to your parents or you walked away in pain. And this translated into a respect for the authority of Police and a boss. Many of those kids have decided to be their childrens' friend and have forgotten that at some point they do need to express authority, many kids of today have no respect whatsoever for their parents, and when theya re allowed to get away with that, the problem multiplies. Now, certainly you need to leave a little wiggle room for negotiating, because even the authority figure isn't always right, but, dissent with a decision doesn't need to be made with disrespect (IE: yea, a kid can voice their opinion why they disagree with you, but, can't be allowed to hit you or scream at you in disagreement, especially if you don't hit or scream at them)

While it's true, that I agree the best management style is to make your team a team, and allow the rules to form around that team, at some point decisions need to be made and discipline problems need to be dealt with, or it infects the whole team, deteriorating the effectiveness of the team.

[aliantha]

Now, certainly you need to leave a little wiggle room for negotiating, because even the authority figure isn't always right, but, dissent with a decision doesn't need to be made with disrespect (IE: yea, a kid can voice their opinion why they disagree with you, but, can't be allowed to hit you or scream at you in disagreement, especially if you don't hit or scream at them)

I agree 100%, sindatur.

I keep thinking about this lyric:

A patrol car passing by
Halted to a stop.
Said officer MacDougal in dismay:
"The force can't do a decent job
'Cause the kids got no respect
For the law today (and blah blah blah)."

"Save the life of my child!"
Cried the desperate mother.
"What's becoming of the children?"
People asking each other.

I read or heard a quote the other day about this idea, too -- youth having no respect for authority -- that could have been written today, or in 1968. Except the author was somebody in ancient Greece or Rome. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun....

[sindatur]

Now, certainly you need to leave a little wiggle room for negotiating, because even the authority figure isn't always right, but, dissent with a decision doesn't need to be made with disrespect (IE: yea, a kid can voice their opinion why they disagree with you, but, can't be allowed to hit you or scream at you in disagreement, especially if you don't hit or scream at them)

I agree 100%, sindatur.

I keep thinking about this lyric:

A patrol car passing by
Halted to a stop.
Said officer MacDougal in dismay:
"The force can't do a decent job
'Cause the kids got no respect
For the law today (and blah blah blah)."

"Save the life of my child!"
Cried the desperate mother.
"What's becoming of the children?"
People asking each other.

I read or heard a quote the other day about this idea, too -- youth having no respect for authority -- that could have been written today, or in 1968. Except the author was somebody in ancient Greece or Rome. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun....

True, there has always been a certain element of youth having a disrespect for authority, but, I see much more of of it these days then I did before "divorcing your parents" and "punishing your children is child abuse" became regular beliefs amongst parents.

[Vraith]

SB, I agree with you that collaboration doesn't work so well in the military, but that's largely because of the hierarchical structure of the organization.

Yea, the military has some special needs, rigidity is completely necessary in certain conditions...and when you're not in those conditions, you're practicing to be in those conditions. It's also more flexible than non-vets might guess, in some ways.

And yes, you are likely to run across some joker -- at work, in a volunteer organization, wherever -- who will use various tactics to undermine whatever authority they perceive that you have. The best strategy I have for coping with those kinds of folks is to put them in charge.

Damn! Is that why [when I worked for others] they kept making me the boss? Even the military did it to me. I don't like you anymore, Aliantha, or anybody who looks like you.

[aliantha]

And yes, you are likely to run across some joker -- at work, in a volunteer organization, wherever -- who will use various tactics to undermine whatever authority they perceive that you have. The best strategy I have for coping with those kinds of folks is to put them in charge.

Damn! Is that why [when I worked for others] they kept making me the boss? Even the military did it to me. I don't like you anymore, Aliantha, or anybody who looks like you.

[rusmeister]

I guess the things that come up in my mind first are that
1) Since individualism - the absolute authority of the individual to be ultimate arbiter of truth - rules in our society, the natural result is that most rejects any authority unless the authority says what they want to hear.

2) On things like the family, speaking from within a context of traditional Christianity, one big thought is that if wives are always usurping that authority, then the husbands are, generally speaking, left with the options of assuming the wife's role or abandoning the family (leaving out things like 'power struggles', which always ignore guidelines of Christian authority and miss the point of why the family is structured that way). It certainly explains the peculiar 20th century+ phenomenon of wide scale abandonment of responsibility by the man - if the wife doesn't let him lead (most often because she has been taught to see things in terms of that false concept of a 'power struggle'), he can hardly take responsibility for the state of things. To paraphrase Spiderman, "with no power comes no responsibility".

The assumption that "I know best" is the child's/teenager's dream come true. Only the parent sees the holes in that daydream.

CS Lewis's article "The Funeral of a Great Myth has a wonderful treatment of how we imagine that we know better than our ancestors (see the references to Wotan, etc) - this is readily applicable to authority within the family as well, or to any authority.

[aliantha]

2) On things like the family, speaking from within a context of traditional Christianity, one big thought is that if wives are always usurping that authority, then the husbands are, generally speaking, left with the options of assuming the wife's role or abandoning the family (leaving out things like 'power struggles', which always ignore guidelines of Christian authority and miss the point of why the family is structured that way). It certainly explains the peculiar 20th century+ phenomenon of wide scale abandonment of responsibility by the man - if the wife doesn't let him lead (most often because she has been taught to see things in terms of that false concept of a 'power struggle'), he can hardly take responsibility for the state of things. To paraphrase Spiderman, "with no power comes no responsibility".

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Cybrweez: Why does *one* person have to be in charge?

[Cybrweez]

I thought I answered? And others as well. One person responsible to make the decision. Again, ali, you think in terms of power struggle (like that phrase), so you think "in charge". You think power struggle, so you think, why should I be under the power of another. Ok, you can even think of it that way. But Biblically, the one whose power you are under makes decisions for your benefit. And when you are willingly in that position, it actually helps the one w/power make those decisions for your benefit.

[StevieG]

On the subject of family, I believe that parenting is a partnership - both parents are equally responsible for the upbringing of their children. To give one (the father, say) the ultimate authority just seems like a ridiculous concept to me.

No doubt there are countless arguments to the contrary, but I just can't see how one partner in a relationship having the authority (disguised as the 'responsibility') or power to make the final decision can be healthy. Discussion, negotiation, compromise, mutual respect, planning etc, all contribute towards a healthy relationship between parents, and between parents and children. IMO

[aliantha]

On the subject of family, I believe that parenting is a partnership - both parents are equally responsible for the upbringing of their children. To give one (the father, say) the ultimate authority just seems like a ridiculous concept to me.

No doubt there are countless arguments to the contrary, but I just can't see how one partner in a relationship having the authority (disguised as the 'responsibility') or power to make the final decision can be healthy. Discussion, negotiation, compromise, mutual respect, planning etc, all contribute towards a healthy relationship between parents, and between parents and children. IMO

What he said.

I never said anything about a power struggle, Weez. And you still didn't answer my question. You're thinking inside the box: "There has to be one person in charge because one person has to be responsible for making the decisions." I think the technical term for that is tautology -- saying the same thing in different words. I say again: why? Why can't both people in the marriage be equally responsible? Why can't marriage be a true partnership, with both partners in charge?

Here's another example (other than Congress, I mean ). I work for a law firm. It's a big firm. We have hundreds of partners. When they get together in the fall for the big partners' meeting, they vote on stuff (like, for instance, who's going to make partner next). Every partner gets one vote. Everybody has an equal say in the running of the firm. Who's in charge? Who's the one guy in this scenario who's responsible for making the decisions? Answer: there isn't just *one* guy. The responsibility is shared equally. And things seem to work just fine.

And as for men making decisions for women's benefit: Yeah, historically, that's worked *real* well. For the men. For the women, not so much.

[Vraith]

I guess the things that come up in my mind first are that
1) Since individualism - the absolute authority of the individual to be ultimate arbiter of truth - rules in our society, the natural result is that most rejects any authority unless the authority says what they want to hear.

This is because authority is nothing but arbitrary heirarchy/power competition without respect...which is why I said respect is a necessary condition of authority [and again, I cannot emphasize enough that authority is knowledge based..authoritarian is power based, one is open, the other rigid.] And the REASON people disrespect authority is NOT individualism, it's because it's not authority, it's not explained, it's authoritarian. More importantly: every human has always been the absolute authority in matters of truth, and always will be...it's just that in some times and places it's acceptable to say so, in others it's not.

2) On things like the family, speaking from within a context of traditional Christianity, one big thought is that if wives are always usurping that authority, then the husbands are, generally speaking, left with the options of assuming the wife's role or abandoning the family (leaving out things like 'power struggles', which always ignore guidelines of Christian authority and miss the point of why the family is structured that way). It certainly explains the peculiar 20th century+ phenomenon of wide scale abandonment of responsibility by the man - if the wife doesn't let him lead (most often because she has been taught to see things in terms of that false concept of a 'power struggle'), he can hardly take responsibility for the state of things. To paraphrase Spiderman, "with no power comes no responsibility".

That last line is a cop out. No different than "I'll take my ball and go home." [in it's uselessness, and falseness, not as a parallel situation] For the rest...I'll just say it only works within the context you say, and as an ideal within that context. As others [as well as myself, indirectly] pointed out, it doesn't have to be one choice...either authority OR power struggle. That's just a variation of the myth that we're like wolves...one leads. [which, btw is a myth even when applied to wolves.]

The assumption that "I know best" is the child's/teenager's dream come true. Only the parent sees the holes in that daydream.

Another myth. This may be a soundbite of the teenage world, but adolescent development doesn't work this way. It has little to do with "I know best" and everything to do with "Who am I?"

Short summary statement: Real authority is earned and temporary and meant to be challenged/engaged [even by the "authority" him/her/itself if they have any sense]. Real respect is from everyone to everyone as recognition of common humanity. [doesn't need to be earned, but can be lost...similar to rights under US constitution]. Everything else is power games.

[SoulBiter]

Here is how it works at my house.

WE.. my wife and I make the decisions. My decision cannot trump hers and neither do hers trump mine. I respect the decisions that my wife makes. If I dont agree with them then we discuss them and we decide where we go from there. We might decide to stick with it and we might decide that it needs to change. But its WE... not ME.

My wife respects that biblically I am the leader but I respect the fact that I dont know everything and the best way forward is for us to agree on which direction that is. I may make a decicision. But my wife might not agree. As a compromise we may try her way and see if it works and then if that doesnt work we will do it my way...who knows, maybe neither works. And the reverse is also true.

But that was two married adults.

When it comes to kids and teenagers, I agree with Rus. Its the parents duty to look after their kids in the best way possible. Kids sometimes make awful decisions. Sometimes its best to let them make mistakes so they learn from them. Other times its best to make a decision and they have to live with that decision. And in those cases its a authoritarian rule. Speaking of rules, with kids thats also authoritarian. My wife and I make certain rules and for the most part those rules are non-negotiable. There is a bedtime, there are limits set on the computer, when being on a date there is a certain time they have to be home. We all eat together at the table. You cant use a cell phone at dinner time. etc etc etc.

[aliantha]

Re rules with the kids: I understand what you're saying, SB, and as I said above, rules governing safety are non-negotiable with kids. As for some of the other rules you cite (no cell phone use at dinnertime, for one), I would say that some of that falls under "that's just how our family rolls". One of my house rules was no TV during dinner; to make sure it was never an issue, the TV went in the basement and we always ate in the dining room or kitchen. Except for pizza night, which proved the exception to the rule.

As for the way you and your wife share power --

[rusmeister]

2) On things like the family, speaking from within a context of traditional Christianity, one big thought is that if wives are always usurping that authority, then the husbands are, generally speaking, left with the options of assuming the wife's role or abandoning the family (leaving out things like 'power struggles', which always ignore guidelines of Christian authority and miss the point of why the family is structured that way). It certainly explains the peculiar 20th century+ phenomenon of wide scale abandonment of responsibility by the man - if the wife doesn't let him lead (most often because she has been taught to see things in terms of that false concept of a 'power struggle'), he can hardly take responsibility for the state of things. To paraphrase Spiderman, "with no power comes no responsibility".

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Cybrweez: Why does *one* person have to be in charge?

That question can be answered simply or in a more complex manner. In a great many family situations, it may not really matter whether anyone is "in charge" or not, so I exclude these situations off-hand. But there are times when it is critical that someone have a "tie-breaking" vote, and this applies to any kind of union, be it business, government or family (Note that the traditional family is a type of union that can stand up to the others - with its tight definitions and loyalties - and weakening the family would strengthen the hand of the others to control and ultimately enslave individuals). Without that tie-breaker, you have some form of collapse or anarchy. In government, the Senate has this safeguard in the form of the "President of the Senate (the VP). This prevents deadlocks and allows practical decisions to be made, even if those decisions are unpopular with one half of the populace. So it must be with the family if the family is to be a viable union. If one parent is absolutely set on sending a child to day care, and one against it, or one spouse emphatically wants to live in NY and the other in FL, who (after all discussions and arguments have led nowhere) makes the final call? In cases where compromise is not possible (the only ones I am talking about), where there can only be one or the other, then one person's wishes must dominate and they must take the ultimate responsibility for that. You can try to create artificial schemes to juggle that responsibility around, but the question of why you would want to must come up.