Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The nature of authority
The nature of authority
The nature of authority
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The nature of authority
The concept of authority is tied to an original source or a genesis that stands at the foundation upon which other structures are based on. This idea was offered a further credence by Hannah Arendt and her discussion on authority in the context of Roman experience. In her essay on ‘What is Authority’ Arendt argued that the word autoritas was coined from, a Latin verb augere or augment, and those in authority augment the democratic foundations of a state such as the ancient Roman polis. She argued that those who are in authority obtain their power by descent and by downward transmission from those who founded it. Coining from the political philosophies of Plato, Arendt argued that while the leaders amplified the foundations of authority, they are not the original creators. Rather, authority is based beyond the creation and control of rulers, kings, and philosophers, being analogous to natural laws or God’s commands. The mystical authority made it legit the exercise of power and the enforcement of obedience. Arendt sets an authority against both violence and non-violence by staging an opposition to authority as persuasion as well as coercion. Authority, neither entails the use of external force, so that, …show more content…
According to her, the authority has vanished from the face of the world. An immediate rejoinder to this eccentric claim could refer to the proliferation of the authoritarian administrations throughout the modern age, ending eventually as it happened in the devastating totalitarianism of the mid to late 20th century. Such a response could then continue to quest whether Arendt is perhaps in bad faith. Is she really making serious claims that authority has been evacuated from the world? In what scenario does she mean by referring to the world. And if the authority vanished from the world, where did it head
In this essay, I will define authoritarianism and discuss the differences and similarities between Adorno et al.’s and Altemeyer’s approaches towards authoritarianism. Authoritarianism refers to the obedience and strict adherence to rules and figures of authority, as well as this, an authoritarian personality can be characterised by hostility towards groups or individuals who differ from what they perceive as normal (The Open University, 2015, p23).
In the 17th century, every leader embraced Machiavelli’s, “power at all costs.” The meaning of Sovereignty is to have complete control over something, and the components that make up a government’s sovereignty are two things. The government has complete control over the military, and all of the operations that it does, and that all legal actions are also under the control of the government, meaning that they make and also enforce the laws. Absolutism means that the sovereignty of the government lie in the hands of one person, and that absolute ruler is not limited by any laws, not limited by others, not limited by religion or religious groups, and had gained control of nobility. In an absolute state, the ruler believed that they were to be the incarnation of the state.
Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel laureate and de-facto leader of Myanmar’s civilian government, has long been hailed as a protector of human rights in her native country. It has thus, been incredibly surprising to witness her reaction to the recent forced exodus of nearly half a million minority Rohingya from within her regional borders. Despite being championed as the great savior of her country, she failed to condemn the atrocities for nearly a month; and, when she did finally speak up against the human rights abuses, she refused to address the United Nations accusations of ethnic cleansing. The Rohingya have been stateless since Myanmar’s 1974 Constitution and 1982 Citizenship Act excluded the minority Muslim group as a ‘national race’ . In The Origins of Totalitarianism , Hannah Arendt explores the idea that the interests of the nation state infringe upon the Universal Rights of Man. The
...e ruler only holds power as long as his subjects obey his punishment commands. The sovereign does not determine the question of obedience to his commands, because that is ultimately a question the subjects determine for themselves, based on their assessment of their best interests and welfare. It therefore follows that the people as subjects, in due course, establish the very existence of the sovereign, which is dependent on obedience to his commands.
The theme of power manifest itself in several texts in both Mosaic I and II, whether it is through an institution such as religion, science and politics or even on an individual level. In regards to these institutions, power has the ability to establish or demolish a society and this is portrayed throughout these texts. One is also able to see that it is not power itself, but a legitimation of the lust or love of power, that corrupts an individual and an example of this is seen the text Antigone.
Among the books discussed over the duration of the course, the most recurrent theme has been the dominance of power relationships and the construction of institutions driven by power. The framework for these socially ingrained power relationships that has been transformed over time has been laid out by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. According to Foucault, power is everywhere, dispersed in institutions and spread through discourses. The state functions on a number of dispositions which are hierarchical, naturalized and are the modes of power for the power elite. The result of this social and economic control is observed in nations and across nations through the beauty myth, the prison system, the creation of informal systems or the overarching cultural hegemony and attempted reform of the non-western world. The key to the success of this has been through the misrecognition of the constructed systems of power which are instated through very fundamental mediums that they are not questioned. These structures of control by the state are adopted and reproduced from the base of the familiar, through arrangements and dispositions that pose themselves as natural, as they are embodied and programmed in the play of language, in common sense, and in all what is socially taken for granted. In this essay I will examine these above mentioned structures of the power and how these models are used to discipline individuals and states.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
C. Wright Mills in his article “ The Structure of Power in American Society” writes that when considering the types of power that exist in modern society there are three main types which are authority, manipulation and coercion. Coercion can be seen as the “last resort” of enforcing power. On the other hand, authority is power that is derived from voluntary action and manipulation is power that is derived unbeknownst to the people who are under that power.
“Authority cannot afford to connive at disobedience” writes Sophocles in Antigone. This is also a central concern to Aristotle who establishes the importance of ‘Authority’ in the opening lines of his treatise Poltics:
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
Hannah Arendt was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. After witnessing the atrocities of both World Wars and the worldwide tension during the Cold War, no concepts or theoretical understandings of the crimes and events that occurred were developed, inciting Arendt to comment on political violence. She considers these events to be a failure of politics and tradition. However, On Revolution seeks to provoke revolutionary thought, ideally with society reverting to the opulence of public life and politics as seen in Ancient Greece. Modern warfare echoes that of Roman antiquity, as we begin to see justifications of these conflicts, with rationalisation of violence accepted by society, seeing the amalgamation of violence and politics, as Marx highlights. Therefore, this structural violence must overcome with an overhaul of the political realm, with emphasis on speech, conversation and debate, creating radical upheaval and reform. Arendt emphasises this separation of politics and violence with great conviction, as politics in the modern world has greatly failed humanity as evidenced through the atrocities of the 20th century. This goes against the theories of Marx, who argues that the ruling class’ violence struct...
It is commonly believed by both lay people and political philosophers alike that an authoritative figure is good and just so long as he or she acts in accordance with various virtues. If the actions of a ruler are tailored toward the common good of the people rather than himself, then that ruler is worthy of occupying the status of authority. By acting in accordance with social and ethical norms, the ruler is deemed worthy of respect and authority. Niccolò Machiavelli challenges our moral intuitions about moral authority in his work, the Prince, by ruthlessly defending the actions made by the state in an effort to preserve power. In particular, all actions made by the state are done in order to preserve its power, and preserving the state’s power preservers its people. In doing so, whatever actions the state exercises are justified with this end goal in mind. Although such reasoning may seem radical, it is practice more readily that most people are inclined to believe. Machiavelli's moral philosophy is deeply embedded in the present day justice administration. Due to this, Machiavelli’s political thought can serve as a reference for illustrating how today’s administrators can benefit from following the examples of other great leaders, such as on matters of global warming.
There are several sources of power, some of them are authority, reward, expertise, and coercion.
Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political