Mechanisms of Authority.

I just passed a happy half-hour on the motorway thinking about authority.

As far as I could decide, auothority at base starts with ownership. As defacto owners of our bodies, by means of direct control over it, we could be said to have authority over its behaviour, and the ends to which it is put. The caveat of ownership being a means of adequate defence. You do not truly own what you cannot defend and protect. A kid with a gold brick possesses it only at the retraint of those around them.

Anyway, we cede that authority over ourselves to others in a number of cases - which I've loosely grouped into 3 basic types: Impositonal assumption of authority, intrinsic and situational. The lines between them are a bit fuzzier in real life, but then, they always are.

Impositional: This is the most powerful, and also the most useless way to assume authority over others. Brute force. The classic "I have a gun/sword/kung-fu, do what I say, or I will feed you your own spleen." means of assuming control over others. Effective, because whilst you hold the gun, others have no choice but to obey, useless, because they will not respect your assumed authority, and attempt to wrest it from you.

Why..?

Because as a species we naturally form fixed heirarcies and, unless that heirarchy is based solely on brute force and no other criteria, are quick to notice cheaters. Grabbing an automatic weapon and taking over a post-office is not the same as working there for long enough to go up through the established (merit-based) heirarchy to the level of postmaster general, or whatever. The gun-gambit, to use a very English metaphor, is a form of queue-jumping, and as such... Frowned upon in polite society - perpetrators to be brought low for their temerity.

At a conceptual level however, this kind of authority ammounts to theft, those who impose it effectively 'steal' our bodies from us, stripping us of the defence that supports self-ownership.

A second version of brute force is disguised by monopoly. If I control a vital resource, you are obliged to do what I say in order to achieve it. The brute-force bit here is indirect, because my monopoly depends on my ability to protect it from those who would take it from me, and the ownership of that capacity (for violence) guarrentees my ownership of the resource, which I use to control you.

It doesn't really need to be said that authority at the governmental level is of this sort, the irony being that the thing governments monopolize is the capacity for organized violence itself.

Institutional/Situational: This the most common means of assuming authority over others, one operating within an already established heirarchy/social infrastructure. Example: Me. I'm a teacher. But the question is whether or not my students (or rather those who find themselves occupying the space commonly accepted as that of a student) obey me in the classroom because I am me in particular, or because I simply occupy the space in the classroom where a teacher (to whom students are expected to cede temporary authority over their behaviour) would be.

How much authority is ceded, and how unswervingly that authority is obeyed is governed by socially inculturated archetypes. Imagine a generalized 'teacher', you'll find you have a fairly distinct picture, both in physical appearance and demeanor, already in your head. Statistically, a student judges the 'teacheriness' of a new teacher within the first few initial seconds of meeting them, and sticks to that first impression quite rigidly throughout their time together, acting accordingly.

In my profession, the main requirement is being able to 'fit' myself into that archetype. Actually having a clue about what I'm teaching is a plus, but secondary, at least from an authority-POV.

It is this same authority mechanism that makes us unthinkingly obey Doctors when they say "take off your shirt please madam", priests when they tell us to do penance for our sins, and parking-attendants when they say "move your fucking car please sir."

This kind of authority is largely impersonal, lent almost entirely by the situation involved, and as such transient. The magic rubbing off as soon as that situation is no longer at hand. Put a teacher in an ambulance, and his authority is overruled. Take the priest from the church, and put him in burning building, and some hulking guy with a fire-axe will boss him about. Put a parking-attendant almost anywhere, and they'll be ignored. It is also dependent on accoutrements - the trappings of power - whether it be a cloak and sceptre, or a pipe and a pair of leather patches on the elbows of your tweed jacket. Remove those symbols of position, and authority wears off. Superman without his cape is just some fucking douche journo, ignored, at least until he falls back on impositional authority and punches some guy through a wall.

However, institutionalized authority does rub off on the person occupying that place, if they spend enough time there. Leading us to the last version of authority.

Intrinsic: This, being the opposite of impositional, is the hardest to achieve, but the most useful. This is the authority assumed by natural leaders. It is asserted by physical and vocal presence, and a personality of utmost confidence - one that is so used to being obeyed that it behaves as if that act of submission has already occurred. The person involved, if you like, carries and generates the situation in which it seems natural to those around them to cede authority without question. Appearance-wise they 'fit' enough of the key qualities general to many of the archetypes of institutionalised authority of the time, enough at least to automatically impress.

This form of authority is useful twice, once because it alows the assumption of authority in many/all situations and is thus 'portable', and twice because those ceding authority over themselves to the person in question do so willingly, unresentfully in the main, and for a much longer period.