F03 Authority Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

You must submit to every authority positioned over you.

OR

Authority must respond to needs for us to legitimately submit to it.

Anankelogy

This echoes the documented words of Jesus: “The Sabbath rest was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath rest.” Goes to show you that even in biblical times, authority tends to drift from its founding purpose to increasingly serve itself at other’s expense. Often at the expense of that founding purpose.

This is known as mission creep. Every authority emerged from a situation in which someone had to take charge. For example, when confronted by an enemy tribe or reacting to a sudden flood. Someone or some group was trusted to coordinate the larger group away from harm.

If this incipient authority proved trustworthy in this initial crisis, then it often remained in a position of social power to continue overseeing the needs of the larger group. An ad hoc committee can evolve into a professional force wielding considerable influence.

Sociology observes how authority tends to shift from primarily serving its founding purpose to increasingly serving itself. In a general sense, this given power corrupts those in charge as their priorities swing from sacrificially serving the urgent needs of the larger group to professionally serving in a role with certain privileges.

Over time, such authority posits itself as essential for the people’s wellbeing. Privileged authority tends to coerce individuals, now vulnerable to their influence, to unquestioningly accept their power. Authority may then invert the relationship, when demanding the served people now serve and submit to it.

Need-response

Authority operates from its recognized legitimacy, to be trusted to lead or influence others. The more a trusted authority undermines the needs of those they impact, the more they lose that trust. The less they are trusted, the less legitimate that authority.

Need-response recognizes the possibility of a new authority emerging to replace another that has lost its legitimacy. That effectively occurred with the American Revolution, as the U.S. Constitution emerged in response to the failing legitimacy of the 18th century British authorities.

As history appears to repeat itself, U.S. hegemony appears to privilege U.S. authority to act with fewer accountabilities for its impactful actions. Need-response counters with “responsive authority” that earns its legitimacy by measurably enabling society’s members to resolve their needs, remove their pain and restore their wellness.

Reactive Problem

Authority figures don’t know what they don’t know. Those under their care typically do not go out of their way to tell them. The influenced don’t know what the influencers don’t know, nor think to ask.

The influenced naturally avoid the risk of any retribution. They will at least appear to honor the authority figure’s apparently reasonable demands. An inherent adversarial relation keeps them alienated from each other.

Authority figures feel many of the same needs as those under their influence. They too need such qualities as empathy, kindness, grace, trust, and patience. But those of us under some authority rarely if ever think of the vulnerable needs of those in powerful positions.

We generally assume they must take care of those needs on their own, or with higher authorities. We rarely if ever consider how they need us to be patient with them, or gracious to them as they make some harmless mistake, or gentle with them when they lose resources to adequately fulfill their role. They hurt as we hurt, yet we typically expect them to not feel and just perform their professional role without complaint.

Responsive Solution

Authority figures typically seek to serve the needs of the people under their care, but lack awarenessof their actual impact. They require impact data.

They could design their own survey to gather such data. But they unlikely know what to properly ask to effectively serve your vulnerable needs. The less their questions speak to your needs, the less likely you will respond.

Need-response bridges this chasm of normative alienation with mutual regard. It’s how need-response incentivize powerholders to respond to the relatively powerless like you. It equalizes power relations.

You need to speak your truth to power, but you also need them to listen and effectively respond. They need your impact data to remain competitively competent, but they also need to answer to all their constituents.

POWERLESS NEEDS – POWERHOLDER NEEDS

SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER - LISTEN TO THOSE IMPACTED

Each side needs each other. Need-response creates an environment for both sides to honor the other’s sides needs to everyone’s benefit. Powerholder’s engagement with those impacted melds with the impacted providing social proof of their effectiveness of leadership.

Each side does their part to counter the disabling problem of avoidant adversarialism. Each side incentivizes the other to appreciate authority’s effectiveness stretches no further than each other’s affected wellness. Each side ensures authority faithfully serves our wellness instead of coercing our wellness to serve authority.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• Does this apply only to government or state authority, or to other “authorities” as well?

• How can need-response check the powerful from overreaching its authorities?

• What about overbearing authority of written laws?

• Honestly, it’s not easy to realize when authority coerces me into going against my actual needs.

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.