Authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since April 2007. |
| The phenomena called authority is at once more ancient and more fundamental than the phenomena called state; the natural ascendancy of some men over others is the principle of all human organizations and all human advances |
| -- Bertrand de Jouvenel |
In politics, authority (Latin auctoritas, used in Roman law as opposed to potestas and imperium) is often used interchangeably with the term "power". However, their meanings differ. "Power" refers to the ability to achieve certain ends, 'authority' refers to the legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that power. For example whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, such as through lynching, only the courts have the authority to order capital punishment.
Since the emergence of social sciences, authority has been a subject of research in a variety of empirical settings; the family (parental authority), small groups (informal authority of leadership), intermediate organizations such as schools, churches, armies,industrial and bureaucracies (organizational and bureaucratic authority) and society wide or inclusive organizations ranging from the most primitive tribal society to the modern nation-state and intermediate organization (political authority).
The jurisdiction of political authority, the location of sovereignty, the balancing of freedom and authority, the requirements of political obligations have been core questions for political philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to the present.
Contents |
[edit] Different perceptions of authority
Divine authority:
Every religion around the world, whether it is Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism or Christianity has always considered God as the supreme authority. All the religious scriptures have considered God to have authority and wisdom, which is far superior than what any human being possesses. They are the creator and therefore are more superior than ordinary creatures. Divinity, as presented in the religious scriptures, makes claim to the final authority for all truth and reality, and rules all of creation. The question of authority in such a system is "what does God want from me and how do I know this?" The source for answers to these types of questions in a divine authority consideration is variable in the human experience. Absolutism is often the result of receipt of what has been considered a divinely authored experience. The common experience of man is a religious history. Methods of understanding the connection to divinity are multiple, all seem to require some measure of faith in divinity and contemplation of perhaps multiple methods of communication.
For example, in Christianity, the act of observing the communion comes from a combination of direct divine command, approved apostolic example recorded in scripture, and necessary inference. Jesus directly states to his disciples that they are to partake of the commemorative examination (found in the gospels and rehearsed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians); there is an example of an apostle and others participating in this act of worship and obedience in the book of Acts, where the day of the observance is mentioned; as with all Bible references, the reader must infer or understand the direction from God to be applicable to today, and in the case of the regularity of the communion, a weekly occurrence of the first day makes necessary a weekly adherence to the blessing of communion.
[edit] Weber on authority
The word authority derives from the Latin word "auctoritas", used in Roman law as opposed to potestas. According to Giorgio Agamben (2005), "auctoritas has nothing to do with magistrates or the people's potestas or imperium. The Senator… is not a magistrate".
In Weberian sociology, authority comprises a particular type of power. The dominant usage comes from functionalism, defining authority as power which is recognised as legitimate and justified by both the powerful and the powerless. Weber divided authority into three types:
- Traditional authority which simply derives from long-established customs,habits and social structures. Passing of power from one generation to another is an obvious example of traditional authority.The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example.There are several examples in this regard. The Tudors in England, the ruling families of Mewar in Rajasthan (India)are some of the best examples of traditional authority.
- Rational-legal authority is that form of authority which depends for its legitimacy on formal rules, which are usually written down, and are often very complex.Their powers are usually mentioned in the constitution of the state. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority. Government officials are the best example of this form of authority which is prevalent all over the world.
- In Charismatic authority, the Charisma of the individual or the leader plays an important role. Charismatic authority is that authority, which is derived from "the gift of grace," or, when the leader claims that his authority is derived from a "higher power" (e.g. God or natural law or rights) or "inspiration" that is superior to both the validity of traditional and rational-legal authority, and followers accept this and are willing to follow this higher or inspired authority in the place of the authority that they have hitherto been following. One of the most prominent example of charismatic authority can be politicians or leaders who come from movie or entertainment background. These people become successful because they use their grace and charm to get more votes during elections. Examples in this regard can be NT Rama Rao, a matinee idol who went on to become one of the most powerful and successful Chief minister of Andhra Pradesh.
History has witnessed several social movements or revolution against a system of traditional or legal-rational authority, which are usually started by Charismatic authority. The careers of Lenin, Hitler, and Lech Wałęsa can be considered in this regard. Charismatic authority never lasts long (even when successful), it has a short span of life and it inevitably gives way to either traditional or to legal-rational authority which are more time tested and sustaining in the long run.
What distinguishes authority from coercion, force, and power on one hand and leadership, persuasion and influence on the other hand is legitimacy. Superiors feel that they have a right to issue commands; subordinates perceive an obligation to obey. Social scientists agree that authority is but one of several resources available to incumbents of formal positions. For example, a Head of State is dependent upon a similar nesting of authority. His legitimacy must be acknowledged not just by citizens but by those who control other valued resources: his immediate staff, his cabinet, military leaders and in the long run administration and political apparatus of the entire society.
[edit] Authority and institutions within the state
Every state has a number of institutions which exercises authority based on longstanding practices. The United States Supreme Court is one institution that exercises its power largely through the broad and longstanding acceptance of its institutional authority. It is moral and institutional authority on which the Supreme Court's power rests. The supreme court has neither the means of material force like control over the armed forces like the president of America, nor the power of the purse or any finance generation or allocation capacity like the Congress. It doesnot even possess any special privileged access to information like the President or the Director of FBI. The Supreme Court of America has been alloted the smallest budget of any branch of government. It was only after the September 11, 2001 attacks that they have a security force of their own. Previously they did not even have the capacity to defend themelves from a single armed attacker.In the field of information, the only information they hold is about their own current deliberations. This information comes to them from records of lower court trials, plaintiffs' and defendants' arguments, and amicus curiae briefs.
The Supreme Court relies on the executive branch of the government to implement and abide by its decisions. For example, in the Worcester vs. Georgia case, the Supreme Court asked the Georgians to respect the autonomy of the Cherokee nation and release the wrongly imprisoned Worcester. Also, it decreed that the laws of Georgia had no jurisdiction in dealing with the Cherokee who (at that time were a dependent domestic nation) as the latter had a treaty with the federal government, not with Georgia.
[edit] Authority and government agency
Every state sets up agencies which are competent in dealing with one particular matter.All this is set up within its charter.One such example is Tennessee Valley Authority.Another example can be a port authority like port of London authority. They are usually created by special legislation and are run by a board of directors. Several agencies and institutions are also created on the same lines and they exercise autonomy in certain matters. They are also usually required to be self-supporting through property taxes or other forms of collection or fees for services.
The use of authority by contemporary social scientists is not dispute free. According to Laswell and Kaplan, authority is formal power. But Friedrich rejected their definition and defined authority as the quality of a communication which is capable of reasoned elaboration. Laswell and kaplan believed that power is a form of influence whereas Friedrich maintained that influence is a kind of power, indirect and unstructured. According to him, it seems of unlimited value to pursue a definition of authority as a special case of power or influence. Social Scientists are by no means agreed on how the concept should be used. According to Michels, in the Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, authority is the capacity, innate or acquired for exercising ascendancy over a group.But Bierstedt argues that authority is not a capacity, it is a relationship. It is sanctioned power, institutionalised power.
See Special-purpose district and Public Authority.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (2005) and Homo sacer
- Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future (New York, Viking, 1961) "The Concept of Authority"
- Józef Maria Bocheński, Was ist Autorität? (1974)
- Karl R. Popper, On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance (1960)
- Max Weber
- Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
