cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/17079522
To keep it short the reason why some people are ok with authoritarianism is because most structures that we deal with on a daily basis are authoritarian.
Here is evidence that shows a significant amount of people are ok with authoritarianism:
This should be concerning.
And the thing is that it makes sense once you look at what are the most common systems that people interact with the most.
A clear example would be the Boss-Worker relationship. The boss creates a set of objectives/tasks for the worker and the worker sees them out. Rarely does the worker get the chance to set the higher level direction of what they are supposed to be doing with their time leaving them obedient to the boss and their demands.
Another example would be some Parent-Child relationships. Some parents treat their children as people that should show absolute respect towards them just because they are the parents not because they have something that is of value to the child (experience).
Even in the places where we do make democratic decisions those are usually made in ways that are supposed to be supplemental to authoritative decision making. An example would be how we don’t vote on decisions but instead how we vote on others to make decisions for us.
Once you add up all the experiences that someone has throughout their whole life you will see that most of them come into direct contact with authoritarian systems which means it makes that kind of way of thinking familiar and therefore acceptable.
Unlike democracy which is an abstract concept and something we only really experience from time to time.
If we want people to actually stop thinking authoritarianism is ok then we as a society are gonna have to stop using these kinds of systems / ways of thinking in our daily lives.
It’s interesting in these comments to see some people who are conflating leadership with authority. Leadership is about directing an effort. Authority is not inherently about directing anything, it’s simply a claim to power over something. It is often used to direct efforts, often badly.
A king can sit on a throne and do nothing, and their claim to authority (e.g. ‘Divine Right’) is not diminished, whereas a project manager who does not actually manage anything will be, by project manager standards, a failure. Of course, many leaders are granted authority, but it is usually contingent on them fulfilling their role as a leader, which is very different than an Authoritarian leader, where this is no one else they must answer to.
A team can select a team lead for a project to direct efforts, without needing to create the kind of structures of authority that exist in a large corporate setting, and this happens every day.
Someone in another comment mentioned watching a 9-person group at a university fail to make progress on a project because they lack a leader, and then suggested that authority was in fact what was missing… but no university group project members actually have authority over each other. The successful groups select a leader, not an authority figure. The group leader they select cannot fail the members, or kick them out of the group, or do anything else without the agreement of the other members or involving the professor (who actually has authority), and yet every day groups of students complete projects just fine, sans authority.
I highly recommend this piece from The Anarchist Library for a decently in-depth discussion of Authority (the piece is a critique of Engel’s “On Authority”, and dives into authority and hierarchy and the necessities of them for organization of social systems.
Authoritarianism is a fundamentally immature mindset. Every child thinks they could do things best, and should be in charge, and could fix it all if they had absolute power. But don’t take my word for it, Trump himself- the ultimate man-baby- has stated a couple times that he wants to be “dictator for a day” because he’d be able to achieve the stuff he keeps promising if he just had the sole authority to force everyone to do so:
But as we grow up, we (hopefully) come to understand that mutual agreement/ co-operation is the best way to achieve difficult outcomes. Authority is always based on a threat of some kind, and it inherently creates an antagonistic relationship, which is why most people think of a “good boss” as one that “leads”, like a coach, and a “bad boss” as one who “orders”, like a dictator. Good leaders build consensus, because consensus is how goals are most effectively achieved, and while authority can impose a false consensus under duress (e.g. the threat of job loss), it can’t make you want to achieve a goal.
I just want to say that I agree with the sentiment and want to point out that a leader is (at least from the way you framed it) just a conduit for the beliefs and goals of the group.
That’s why if the leader doesn’t align enough with what the group believes then over time they eventually get ignored and attentions shifts over to someone else that better represents the groups beliefs.
I believe that that is one way of organizing a group however I also think that we have the technology to circumvent even the need for leadership since the benefit of a leader comes from them being an outward expression of the group’s values that everyone can coordinate with, which can be replaced with specific communication technologies.