Authority and the Self

While thinking about the different types of authority we have discussed throughout this year, I realized that all authority shares something in common.  No matter what external pressures society or an authority places on an individual, it is his or her choice whether to conform to the norm or to break it.  The most powerful authority is the self, Freud’s superego, the conscience, the little voice in your head telling you what not to do.  If one can break away from always conforming to the expectations of society and taboo, one can begin to carve their own path in life.  Even if one must conform to the norms of society against ones will for whatever reason, just being aware of the ludicrousness of some facets of authority rather than remaining ignorant is the first step to challenging it.  If more people could become educated and aware of some of the hypocrisies and misinformation of some forms of authority, society would be well on its well to change.

The Authority of the state on private affairs

The Authority of the state on private affairs

            There has been an enormous amount of controversy surrounding government invasion of privacy during the recent history of the United States. The threat upon national security leads government officials to claim legitimate right to enter the homes of every American through tele-communicative and surveillance methods. Protestors of this type of defense claim that the government has no authority to do so because the constitution does not explicitly say so. The government claims inferred authority through more vaguely worded clauses. This brings up the question how can inferred powers be taken without the consent of the population?

A classic example of vague justification for the expansion of power would be that the preamble of the constitution gives the government the responsibility to “provide for the common defense.” The citizens of that country who affirmed this clause could not have conceived that defense would take on such invasive spying because of the technological advancements of the modern era. That being said representational democracy is built to engineer just these sorts of decisions that the masses cannot make. If the legislators are de jure in their appointment, then so their actions become unquestionable so long as they do not violate the preconditions set out in the constitution.  Since privacy is not a protected right, citizens have no choice but to accept all of their actions as authoritative or none of them.

Social Norms and the Law

Social norms are dynamic – slavery, racial segregation and sexual discrimination were all considered morally acceptable in the past but are now not only morally unacceptable but are also against the law. Meanwhile there is a growing acceptance for gay marriages, use of marijuana, perhaps even prostitution.  All of these were condemned by society in the past and many people still do have a problem with it but there is a large section of the public that thinks otherwise. My first question is – do social norms change faster than laws? There was a large swing in public opinion a long time before slavery, racial segregation and sexual discrimination were deemed illegal. At the same time gay marriages, prostitution and the use of marijuana is still illegal. One of the perfect examples of social norms changing before laws is the ability for people of different sexual orientations to serve in the military. While it was illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military in the past, this changed as social norms on sexual orientations changed and thus came the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy which allowed closeted homosexuals to serve in the military. Only recently were openly gay people allowed to serve in the military legally. So what other things would would be legal/illegal in the future based on changing social norms?  

Equality is Relationships

Some people strive for authority, some are born into it, and some come into contact with it, but what about those that think they inherit authority based on their sex? In many relationships the male feels as though he is the authority figure. In our society we look as the male as the breadwinner, the disciplinarian, and the leader of the household, but why? Society has conditioned us to look at relationships this way. The female is the lesser in the relationship and has less of a say, but this authority stems from nothing concrete. Today, women work and often their income keeps a household going and are often more influential in a child’s life then the male is, so they deserve, at least, to be viewed as as an equal. As a society we have taken big steps towards equality, but the fact still remains that women are not always viewed as equals in relationships. Though progress has been made, it should not be forgotten, that we still have a long way to go.

Headline: Media Possesses a Unique Form of Authority

Although we did discuss the authority that authors and experts have in class, we didn’t discuss the specific authority that the media has over us. Most people place their trust in the media, just as they  place their trust in academic experts. In some cases, this is appropriate, as the events or issues being discussed in the newspaper, online, or on the television may require specific technical knowledge.

The problem is that many media experts use their expertise in a field as a way to present their biased opinion regarding an event or issue. The most obvious example of bias is political news, especially around the time of presidential elections. However, other types of media can be full of bias, too. Often, bias can be hard to pinpoint, but it still exists and affects the sources of information that are available to the public.

In addition to allowing bias to enter into the equation, the media often exercises its authority by selecting what information is available to the public. Media outlets tend to focus on whatever they deem to be the “hot topics”. These topics are written about more than others, which creates a flow of information that is weighted towards a select few topics. Although these topics may also be the ones that the public is most interested in, there exists a danger that there will be shortage of information available to the public. For example, the media may focus all of its efforts and resources on a political race or a hot button controversy, while simultaneously failing to adequately inform the public about other events, or failing to uncover problems which they should be uncovering, as a part of their role as informants to society.

Practically, the media is an excellent source of information. It would be utterly impractical to be present at every presidential debate or to witness international conflicts, first hand. The media provides a streamlined method for the distribution of news and information. However, the public needs to be cautious of the information that they receive from the media. This doesn’t necessarily mean that one should refuse to accept the information provided by the media as true. It does mean that consumers and the general public should be educated about the bias that can be propagated in the media, and people shouldn’t rely too heavily on any one source of information. They should instead consult multiple, reliable sources, and form their own perspective on important events and issues. In many cases, it may even be necessary for the public to take the burden of gathering information upon themselves, to uncover problems or to make sure that their opinions are heard.

The Authority of Money

The authority of money is interesting. It can buy us essentially every materialistic thing we desire from the nicest house, clothes, cars, pets, and even serve as bribery for certain positions. When it comes down to it, money is actually just a piece of paper or a scrap of metal with special engravings or designs. Of course all currency is backed up with gold, or supposedly it is but where does the authority of money actually come from? In disaster movies, you often see that money has no value. Instead, people will barter for items needed since money essentially becomes useless and what is needed are actual items such as food, water, blankets, or shelter. The bartering system was actually the first economic system employed by society where skills, services, and goods were traded among individuals. Slowly, gold and silver coins were used to buy things and then actual paper currency was used because it became troublesome carrying pounds of coins. Money and currency replaced the bartering system and the authority of money is actually derived from us as humans. We value money so much that it has become a source of greed for many individuals although in reality it is actually just a piece of paper. If humans refused to use money to buy items and insisted on bartering and trading then money would hold no significance in society.

What if we couldn’t get caught?

Internet piracy is becoming increasingly acceptable in American society, raising interesting questions about the nature of the authority of social norms. Many of us do not see copyright infringement as a moral issue, but would be reluctant to commit small scale theft like shoplifting.

Very few of us would seriously contend that stealing is not wrong. Even keeping the contents of a lost wallet would be morally objectionable, if we could identify and locate the owner. Internet piracy is just as much stealing as shoplifting from a video store, but it does not carry the same sort of stigma.

I see two possible explanations for this difference: First, internet piracy does not involve actively stealing from a location–it is not tangible deprivation in the same way that shoplifting is. To some, copyright infringement may feel like a victimless crime, as there is no store clerk or door guard trying to prevent you from stealing.

Second, internet piracy does not carry with it the same kind of risk as shoplifting. While some pirates are caught and prosecuted, nobody is trying to stop you. And even if you are caught, nobody physically will grab you, and tackle you to the floor. Just as it is hard to conceive of a victim, an internet pirate may find it hard to conceive of an authority figure trying to stop him.

Why are so few people bothered by the act of internet piracy? Is it because they do not feel they are hurting anyone, or they do not feel they will be punished? Perhaps it is a combination of the two–pirates do not feel they are hurting anyone, and are not worried about negative consequences. It is the fear of hurting someone, or being hurt, that grants most norms power, which may explain why there is no strong social norm against this piracy.

The Authority of Gender Norms

Even one’s own gender tends to possess authority over a person, limiting one’s choices through social and behavioral norms. Although modern people do not adhere to these constructs as rigidly as in previous times, males and females continue to follow certain norms based on gender-specific standards of acceptability. From birth, children learn to associate certain professions, characteristics, behaviors, and even colors with their own gender. For example, the media depicts men as being strong, stoic, and emotionless, invoking the association of excessive emotion with females and even homosexuals. In contrast, women are expected to be empathetic, kind, and modest, while men supposedly possess “masculine” traits such as aggressiveness and arrogance. Sports and politics are realms that historically belong to men, while women dominate the fields of education and nursing. In previous times, men inhabited “breadwinning” roles, consisting of professional careers, while women stayed at home and cared for the children. This dichotomy between masculine and feminine social norms has somewhat diminished in modern years, in that more and more women attain high levels of education and pursue traditionally “male” careers. In the workplace, professions such as medicine and the law no longer have such a great association with masculinity or femininity; 50% of graduate students enrolled in law school are women. Gender norms continue to influence standards of acceptable behavior for men and women, but it is certain that these gender norms have diminished in modern times, especially with regards to professions, education, and family dynamics.

The Authority present in parenthood

It seems that every kid goes through a stage in their childhood where they constantly disobey their parents. They reach an age, whether it be in the early middle school years, after receiving a driver’s license, or during the college years, that the kid feels he or she may challenge the authority of the parents. A middle schooler may think he/she is too old to be given a bedtime, while a high schooler may feel he/she is too old to be given a curfew. A college kid may feel he/she is too old to be told what to do since they are living on their own and responsible for their own actions. Nevertheless, this child is in a constant debt to his or her parents. He/she would not have even been born had it not been for the marriage of his/her parents. Countless hours of time and energy is spent by parents on the development of their kids. Not only that, but much of the parents income is spent on their children. And while this is true, the kids still complain when they don’t receive exactly what they were hoping for Christmas or a birthday. It is the kid’s responsibility and duty to respect their parents and  be obedient to them.

What Can We Do?

Turn on any news station and you will be flooded with news covering the primary elections for the Republican Party.  And that’s it. However, what if you are one of the many Americans that are unsatisfied with any of the options, including President Obama?  Our current two party system is so entrenched it is unimaginable for a third party to do more than spoil an election.  In fact, it is becoming hard to learn about third party candidates, much less support them. So what is an independent voter to do?   For instance, if you would rather support a third party candidate, but find yourself closer aligned to Democrats than Republicans, is it better to stand your ground and vote for the Independent, knowing your vote will ultimately not count and could possibly even hurt your interests, or make a decision to vote for the lesser of two evils and at least get a government you partially support?  I have no problem with Republicans and Democrats continuing to win elections. However, under the current system they seem to be winning by default, not merit.