F06 Authority Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

Authority proves necessary in our lives to avoid slipping into chaotic anarchy.

OR

The more we can resolve needs on our own, the less we rely on authority.

Anankelogy

When was the last time you relied upon authority to enforce your need to eat something? Probably never. When was the last time you relied upon authority to enforce your need to access food safe to eat? Probably all of the time.

Your requirement for food that you cannot grow yourself triggers your social needs. And that goes for anything you require to function that involves others. Unresponsive authorities can have the most painful impacts on your vulnerable social needs.

The more you rely on others you do not personally know, like produce suppliers, the more authority creeps in to have a word about it. Laws exist to ensure your groceries will not kill you. Authorities exist to enforce such laws.

But all of this occurs on an impersonal level. The more vulnerable to the demands of authority to get what your life requires, the more authority can get in the way of what you actually need.

Modernity comes with the creeping normality of increasing vulnerability to authorities for everyday requirements. The less you can fully resolve your needs because of such impersonal authorities, the more your pain naturally increases. Authorities often step in to manage your pain, with little if any incentive to remove cause for that pain.

Anankelogy recognizes the current trend of growing disillusionment with the rule-based order. Much of the cynicism stems from the problem of avoidant adversarialism. Authorities likely coerced you to oppose what seems to be your immediate sources of pain. Yet the pain persists.

Authorities then encroach into areas where you could be free to resolve more needs, if only they were more supportive. Authorities rarely realize how their complicit in keeping you trapped in ongoing pain. Need-response can help you break free and find liberation.

Need-response

Need-response answers the problem of avoidant adversarialism with engaging mutuality. Authorities hold power over you in certain social situations. They tend to take an adversarial stance toward you, because they can. They tend to avoid the discomfort they cause you, because they can.

Need-response identifies the two sides in these power relations for analysis. It recognizes powerful authorities as “ascribed impactors” (AI). They impact the relationship more than impacted by it. If under that authority figure, you are recognized as a “reporting impactee” (RI). You tend to be impacted by the relation more than impacting it.

Need-response equalizes such power relations with its Impact Parity Model. It uniquely opens the eyes of each side to the affected needs of the other side. Needs are objective facts, so it pays to identify and address the needs of others you impact.

The more the RI affirms the inflexible needs of the AI, we anticipate less reaction from such impactful authorities. The more the AI then respects the affected needs of the RI. It’s a win-win relationship after that.

Reactive Problem

The more we settle for easing needs over resolving them, the more we stay in some level of pain. And the less we can fully function. The longer we cannot fully function, the closer we slip into painful dysfunction.

The less we can remain pain free by resolving all or most of our needs, the more we attach to ways to cope with the mounting pain. We may slip into outbursts to try to desperately get rid of the pain. We may even wander into behaviors infringing on others. We can become emotionally abusive, or perhaps even covertly if not overtly violent toward others.

Authorities then step in. The less your needs can freely resolve, the more authority seems absolutely necessary to pick up the pieces. The more you feel helpless to control your reactions, the more you likely acquiesce to authorities getting more involved.

In our culture of hyper-individualism, you feel utterly powerless. You likely see authority is unquestionably necessary to keep in check each other’s irresponsible reactions. You scarcely realize how these impulsive overreactions exist largely as a fiction of our own modernist creation. We wouldn’t suffer such malaise if our leaders encouraged more responsiveness to each other’s needs.

The more we suffer in pain, the more we overreact and infringe upon others. The more we overreact, the more we defer to authorities. The more we defer to authorities, the less our needs resolve. The less our needs resolve, the more we suffer in pain. Rince and repeat.

Responsive Solution

We can safely assume authorities typically remain unaware of their coercive influences. They will likely show how they mean well, but lack sufficient discipline to support resolving your objective needs.

Need-response facilitates a process to equalize this power relation. RI speak truth to power in ways that incentivize AI to listen to those impacted. Instead of relying on adversarialism, both sides apply character refunctions to convey mutual regard for each other’s inflexible needs.

• As you likely respond better to humility, you humbly relate to authority figures.

• As you likely respond better to empathy, you empathize with the needs of authority.

• As you likely respond better to grace, you’re gracious toward the shortcomings of authority.

• As you likely respond better to fair treatment, you fairly treat authority.

• As you likely respond better to honesty, you remain honest and open to authority.

Each RI assess the AI’s responsiveness to such demonstrated traits. Then rates the AI’s demonstrated reciprocity. Or demarks the AI’s reputation if reacting poorly. This translates into earned legitimacy.

Legitimacy favors the AI whose authority leads to the most resolved needs among the RI. AI earn more legitimacy the more they relate to the actual needs of those under their social influence. This process incentivizes authorities to cocreate measurable wellness outcomes.

That includes esteeming authorities more highly when they effectively transform social structures tobe more responsive to every one’s needs. Bonus points for enabling RI to freely and fully resolving their exposed needs. We vouch for their earned legitimacy the more the demonstrably help those impacted to more fully resolve their needs, remove their pain, and restore their wellness.

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:

• I cannot envision any authority figure that I know to ever go along with something like this.

• If power corrupts, isn’t the problem simply having too much authority?

• But what if I am truly helpless to authorities because of a disability?

• I need to see this work effectively for someone like me before I trust it could work for me.

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.