I'd like to start off by saying sorry for the lack of recent posts. I promise that will change, as I've just managed to throw off the shackles of the esso petrol station - almost. They give you a shitty tie to wear but in return they take your soul. For some bizarre reason I've agreed to still work there on Sundays - I think there may be a mild amount of brainwashing involved. So I'm pretty much free now - looking for agency work, trying to get some comedy written and practising grade 6 guitar. Looks pretty easy so I'm gonna do the grade 6 exam, then the grade 8 and hopefully start some teaching.
So anyway - time to reject some accepted thinking. Also, allow me at this point to apologise for my excessive hyphenation - but I'm pretty stoned and I'm digging it right now.
I would like to call into question the socially cemented concept of authority. I have to be honest, authority confuses and somewhat frightens me.
The very idea of authority (as opposed to superiority, an idea I find no inherent fault with), the idea that there are people or systems that you have to obey without question - is an idea that I find nonsensical. It completely goes against a natural right so completely lodged in my whole being that I would die to protect it - freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is the one thing that no-one; ever; anywhere; should be able to take away from us.
We should always think for ourselves and not be told what to think - not by anyone. If someone tells you to do something, you should always question it. Of course, there will be people in positions of responsibility, such as police officers, whose opinions must be given some weight, but I would go as far to say that people in those positions who assume authority over people are in fact abusing their responsibility towards them.
It is only by questioning that we can ever learn, and I urge that we continue to question and to learn; in any situation, and from any experience.
And of course, you should question everything that I say as well. I consider myself to be a protector of intelligence, but I am certainly not its master.
On that note, I will soon be posting an article in opposition to my previous article arguing for the legalisation of all drugs. What, you thought I was just gonna give one side of the story and leave it at that? Well, like a great friend once told me: leave your preconceptions at home. There is never just one side to any story. Remember - truth is absolute but knowledge is subjective. And fuck it, I'll do a post explaining that last sentence as well in the next couple of days - it will be sick***
xx peace out
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It seems from your entry that you have a very different notion of authority to what you called 'the socially cemented concept of authority'. It seems that the authority you speak of is absolute authority, beyond absolute authority in fact. This is the only kind of authority that you obey without question, and in the majority of cases this type of authority doesn't tell you how to think, merely how to act. An example of this may be in the armed forces, where orders are issued and soldiers are expected to follow these; this is not a decision made on a whim, it aids the running of an organization that makes life and death decision in split seconds.
I would also like to point out that excluding brainwashing and indoctrination, no-one can take away freedom of thought. Freedom of speech, writing, action; sure. Freedom of thought? How can they possibly take that away? They can tell how you should think, but that doesn't mean you have to. Unlike the case with restrictions on speech, whereby a person could be imprisoned or punished by speaking out in public, there are no thought police, who could punish you for thinking a certain thing. Even with the case with indoctrination, people can (rightly) question what they are being told and taught from a young age. It may be idealistic to think that young people can resist this, but think of the example of Christianity in the UK. Now I'm not saying that they indoctrinate young people, but it is the case that if your parents and community is Christian, it is far more likely that you will be Christian yourself. But, it is clear to see that this is not a foregone conclusion, and there are those from Christian backgrounds who reject the faith. Without a dysotopian future of mind reading thought police, individual thoughts can never be curtailed. Even under a system that restricted your actions vastly, your thoughts would still be safe. It’s great that you say you’d die to protect your freedom of thought, I just don’t think you’re going to be fighting anyone for a very long time.
You argue as well that authority is opposed to superiority, which it clearly is not. Authority is not arbitrary; managers at the workplace, police officers, politicians; these people are not granted power randomly. The reason why you might obey what these people propose is because of the issue of knowledge. Consider the manager in the workplace. You obey them because you assume (rightly) that these people have been granted a position of authority on merit. They know more about the business, have been adequately trained to be in a position of authority. To obey them is just to accept the fact that they know more about how the place of work functions and what needs to be done, and constantly questioning this would only slow the process. It may also be the case that you don't need to question orders, since you can see the rationality in their thinking, and agree on what to do next.
The same applies with police officers; who are ordinary citizens trained to aid in reducing crime, and given adequate power to do so. You seem to be suggesting that if they assume authority over someone, they are abusing their responsibility towards them. Does this mean to say that a police officer arresting a murderer (assuming authority granted to them by arresting an individual) is abusing their responsibility toward them, and the rest of society? Police officers don’t assume authority, they are granted it by law; laws which are agreed to by society for it’s own benefit (I don’t want to enter into a debate about the nature of law and whether all laws benefit society, I am merely stating that the vast majority are in place for a reason, and the end is usually to benefit society).
Politicians exist because citizens do not have enough time to go about their daily lives and still have time to gather the knowledge to make informed political decisions on every issue that exists. We trust in their decision because it is their job to be informed and represent the onions of the masses. We accept their decisions because we presume they know more about issues then we do. If they appear not to, or make bad decisions, we vote them out. It’s why democracy exists. We can speak out through rallying, demonstrations and voting. Authority it seems, stems from superiority, that someone is more wise in the ways of progression in whatever position they hold. That’s legitimate authority, and we consent to it.
The authority you seem to be pondering, that there are people or systems that you should obey without question, doesn’t need to be pondered. We should question authority, but we do anyway. Absolute authority is nonsensical, but we know that anyway.
Onions of the Masses? Didn't mean that obviously, meant opinions. But it's a great slogan...
Post a Comment