I came across the subject of society’s relationship with Authority while reading Frank Furedi’s article “Celebrity Culture”.
According to the author, celebrities are empowered by our culture’s uneasy affiliation with Authority. He advocates that celebrities are endowed with moral influence, fulfilling a few of the authoritative solutions that our twenty-first century society demands: “(…) one of the ways that communities respond to the erosion of customs, traditions and formally authoritative institutions is through the charisma and personal atributes of unique individuals. (…) Celebrities may not possess heroic qualities but as highly visible role models they have become the object of imitation.” Furedi reflects on the celebrity phenomenon, questioning if those admired well-known people are always the correct choices to receive influential power, and how technologies have turned celebrities into objects of mass consumption. Whereas, I would like to focus on the following questions: Do we really need role models and authoritative figures? How can society demand and simultaneously hate Authority? Frank Furedi assures that society needs some form of authority to survive, stating: “One thing that is certain is that we cannot live without some form of authority. Those who reject some form of authority as illegitimate usually embrace others as acceptable”. In “Anarchism: Arguments for and against”, Albert Meltzer presents the reasoning against those, like Furedi, who assume authority as an essential element for society’s operation. For anarchists, freedom is the basis of our existence. Mankind is born free, with no duties, ideals, obligations,worships, submissions, etc. Therefore, those imposed creations are only lies. “All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the fruits of their labour.”, explains Meltzer, while defending how anarchists abolish property, perceive work’s organization method as slavery and government as tyranny. It’s not difficult to understand the anarchists logic. Humanity has inherent value in itself, and in theory everyone should be able to work and receive what their efforts were worth, without the requirement of control or surveillance. In theory, Authority would not be necessary, because everyone could understand their role in society and human intrinsic ethics would maintain order. This view of the world is evaluated as unfeasible or utopian by general critics. “How can workers run a factory without direction and guidance i.e. without authority?” That’s the Marxists perspective on Authority, which can be associated with Paul H.Rubin’s concept of Productive Hierarchy. (http://beatrizbagulho.weebly.com/critical-perspectives/hierarchy) Everyone having the same power and importance, all opinions affecting the process and the outcome, might seem ideal in theoretical terms. But practically the picture changes. Managing projects and communities with the abolishment of hierarchies or working methods, becomes a very confusing and demanding task. Without some amount of control, production and organization is less efficient. Understanding and reflecting on the role of Authority in modern society is of extreme relevance. How can Authority be so essential and simultaneously hated? Why does society have an uneasy relationship with Authority? “(…) authority has a very bad press (…).” - asserts Furedi - “(…) That the term authority is associated so readily with the act of abuse is symptomatic of western society’s disenchantment with the so-called authority figure.” What may be the origin for this lack of trust in authority and hierarchy? History presents us the answer for this interrogation. Since the introduction of organized human communities, authoritarian figures and elites have abused their privileges over the rest of their nation. Why does this happen and how can we control it? People need to be aware of how much power is put into specific hands, and how that power should be surveilled and dosed. But firstly, its important to recognize Authority’s importance in the management of our social, political, cultural and economical systems. “We have become far more able to demonise authority than to affirm it.”, says Frank Furedi. Without accepting Authority, is it possible to regulate it?
0 Comments
What is History?
After reading a selection of E.H.Carr’s book “What is History?” I was able to methodize this issue in a clearer way. What is a historical fact? Why are certain facts more relevant than others? How is the past arranged? These are a few of the questions which I had been reflecting for a long time. Now that I’ve understood Carr’s opinion and reflected on my interpretation of it, I can start to formulate an idea of how these interrogations might be oriented towards answers. The text’s excerpt starts with a reflection on what is an historical fact. “What is the criterion which distinguishes the facts of history from other facts about the past?”, asks the author. Through this simple question, one is introduced to the author’s perspective on the relation between History and the Past. The past is not History, even though the latter is based on the former. The past is everything that happened in time and space, all the events, actions, moments (nothing is excluded, the Battle of Hastings, the lady who sneezed on 13th November 1756, your last shower, etc). On the other hand, History is only a restrictive selection of those past events. Emphasizing this distinction is very important when analyzing reality: without it clearly organized, one will perceive the world in a more constrained way, only seeing a smaller fraction of how it really was/is. Which is the process that determines which past events are “historical facts” and which are “irrelevant moments”? History is simply based in stories. However, not all stories are accepted by historians as valid and significant, not every fact belongs to the elite club of historical facts. To start with, even the stories which are at the historians’ disposal are specific perspectives and selections of the past, the appraised Documents. These were “preselected and predetermined by people who were consciously and unconsciously imbued with a particular view and thought the facts which supported that view worth preserving.” Resuming, these documents that the historians have access to, and base History on, are no more than enclosed stories describing moments of the past in specific points of view. The stories have value and importance, help us shape ideas about the past, but are not entirely accurate. As the author later explains, “No document can tell us more than what the author of the document thought- what he thought had happen, what he thought ought to happen or would happen, or perhaps only what he wanted others to think he thought, or even only what he himself thought he thought.” Every document is embedded with subjectiveness, therefore believing that there are historical facts existing independently and objectively from the interpretation of its contemporaries, is a fallacy. The same applies to the post-interpretation of the documents and facts: it is the historian’s job to decide which facts to give importance to, and in what order or context, attempting to find patterns and coherence in it. This selection process is merely an interpretation, it’s not objective, depends on the current perspective of reality, what matters to society in the present time. In Carr’s words, “All History is a History of the Present”. It’s the process of consensus -The facts that are highlighted about the past depend on the position from which the past is being observed. The most effective way to construct and manipulate opinions is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts to sustain those reasonings. This happens frequently within contemporary modern-life. The media holds control of the majority of our access to facts and information, with television, journals, social media, news-reports, etc. That access is not organized randomly, it is the media’s most powerful tool, since it shapes our view of the world: the issues that we care about, the people we talk about, the nations that have value to us, etc. Wether that tool is used for our benefit or not, it’s a matter of personal opinion. But it’s impossible to deny how much this selection of facts motivates our perception of reality, influencing our values, ideas, concerns, etc. History is constructed: The past, the present, and the future. It is of extreme importance to be aware of this process, and reflect about it. (based on E.H Carr’s “What is History?” - chapter 1, pages 10-16) “Hierarchy”, an essay by Paul H. Rubin, focuses on the different types of hierarchical organization developed in human and non-human societies throughout the History of evolution.
The author’s main purpose in this paper is to point out the distinction between Dominance hierarchies and Productive hierarchies, since humans often confuse the two types and it is important to understand the difference for analytical and political concerns. Dominance (or consumption) hierarchies are common in most social species (group-living animals), including primates and humans. This form of hierarchical organization is evolutionarily old, and predates humanness. The main features of this kind of hierarchy is that the group sizes are small, there is only one hierarchy per group per gender, and the only way of leaving it is by leaving the group. All individuals benefit from group-living (even the low-ranked members of the hierarchy) because it facilitates access to resources and offers protection against predators. However, the dominant members (the high-ranked elite) have preferred access when it comes to how the resources are allocated. These Alpha members often have greater access to food and reproductive possibilities (biological success). Productive hierarchies are purely human, and have its origin in the paleolithic transition from hunter-gatherer nomads to agricultural sedentary societies. Humans based on the classic dominance form of hierarchy and adapted it to new uses, converting the mechanism that dictated social organization in order to increase productivity and efficiency in contextualized structures. These hierarchies are used to better coordinate specialization and division of labor for complex tasks, such as the activities in business firms, film studios, factories, governments, universities, etc. For example, an animation studio’s administration is grounded on hierarchical policies because of how much this production method elevates the quality of the final outcome. The division of avocations adds greatly to the project’s productivity, since each individual focuses on only one specific skill (including the management/director task) and becomes a specialist on the subject. Membership in these production hierarchies is voluntary, so individuals must be sufficiently compensated (with beneficial goods and services) if they are to take subordinate roles. Volunteering is the feature in which Government hierarchies don’t agree with the productive stance. There is only one government hierarchy per society, and everyone in a society must be subject to the government regulations, even if its not in their perceived self-interest. In certain situations it is quite difficult to distinguish between the two types of hierarchies, and this usual mistake can lead to a misunderstanding of ideals. In the writer’s words: “Productive an dominance hierarchies have many features in common. In both, bigger-ranked individuals receive more resources than, and can issue commands to, lower ranked members. Therefore, humans (…) often confuse the two uses. For example, the Communist Manifesto, a major policy document, clearly confused the two.” According to Rubin, the appeal of Marx’s belief is “based on the human opposition to dominance hierarchies, inappropriately applied to productive hierarchies”. Whereas, I think that Marx’s position was a confirmation and awareness of how dominant behavior and other features of the Consumption Hierarchy were being applied to production areas, damaging the values of productive hierarchical organization. Reading this text was fulfilling. Even though it’s quite a heavy subject, this essay lets the reader apprehend a little more about how humanity works, reflecting on the evolution of political preferences and social norms, which is of extreme relevance. After all, the only way of predicting and building the future is by understanding the past. |
Archives
February 2017
Categories |