Authority!
Without a structure of authority that guides group behavior in the soft, delicate, physically defenseless, human species; cooperative life , even primitive cooperative human life would not have been possible and the species Homo sapiens would never have evolved. Cooperative behavior was and is essential for the development of civilization. And It is the organization of a social structure through defined levels of authority that is necessary for formation and survival of a functional and successful community. In the larger sense this allows tribal to national assemblages of individuals to work, play and wage war as a cohesive society.
The functional base of authority, however, is the granting of allegiance to that authority by the individuals that compose that society. Authority claimed by brute force and fear of death for disobedience is difficult and costly to maintain. Rebellion is always just one insult away; and rebellion by those who would in turn, in one way or another, claim absolute authority is the ultimate expression of what is termed “human nature". However if the authority figure is only but the representative of an all powerful supernatural being(s), then the individual or group that claims all powerful authority, stakes that claim not directly as the “be all, end all" of human authority; but instead as an intercessor for an all powerful, supernatural entity, then the absolute authority claimed and given to this supernatural being(s) is wielded by its intercessor(s) and representative(s). Even when the authority of the supernatural being is muted by the rise of secularism, a very recent development in the flow of human history, the power, glory, and beneficence of this/these supernatural entity(s) is requested and interpreted by and through its worldly representatives. “In God We Trust" is more than a slogan, it is one of many symbols of the granting of authority and usually worldly goods to the representatives of whatever god is professed by those who claim authority over the life and talents of the community.
I think we are slowly discovering that authority is not “God’s gift to humanity" but just a survival tactic for civilization. And it is a tactic that we must learn to wield, not to support irrationality and give ourselves over to supernatural myths, but as a powerful tool of reason and analysis for the fair and progressive development of human societies. We have known this in a limited and conflicted way ever since the Magna Carta was chartered in the early 13th century, and more clearly after the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. The American Constitution enacted March 4, 1789 elucidated the concept that for the common good, authority must be defined by the people without supplication to a supernatural God, consultation perhaps, but only if one is so inclined, and never with a demand for universal supplication. Hopefully we will continue on this path.
Martin Moe
Authority! ...I think we are slowly discovering that authority is not “God’s gift to humanity" but just a survival tactic for civilization. And it is a tactic that we must learn to wield, not to support irrationality and give ourselves over to supernatural myths, but as a powerful tool of reason and analysis for the fair and progressive development of human societies... Martin MoeI can agree with that.
Horse pucky!
Horse pucky!Do you have something more elucidating to say on the subject? Or do you wish to stand pat with "Horse pucky!"?
Chuckle, I thought about that… After all, everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone has a right to disregard the opinions of others, especially opinions that are not worth considering. There really isn’t anything there that requires a reply.
Horse pucky!Do you have something more elucidating to say on the subject? Or do you wish to stand pat with "Horse pucky!"? I'm sticking with it.
think we are slowly discovering that authority is not “God’s gift to humanity" but just a survival tactic for civilization. And it is a tactic that we must learn to wield, not to support irrationality and give ourselves over to supernatural myths, but as a powerful tool of reason and analysis for the fair and progressive development of human societies. We have known this in a limited and conflicted way ever since the Magna Carta was chartered in the early 13th century, and more clearly after the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. The American Constitution enacted March 4, 1789 elucidated the concept that for the common good, authority must be defined by the people without supplication to a supernatural God, consultation perhaps, but only if one is so inclined, and never with a demand for universal supplication. Hopefully we will continueI agree in principle with your contention and understand your generalization of the definition of "authority" as it relates to civilization. After all, the first civilizations ancient Sumeria and Egypt were in essence theocracies. Deities were always invoked when establishing a political power base and the concept is universal. However, after the Enlightenment political philosophers began to turn away from that concept and embrace a more democratic ideal, still invoking "god" but now meaning nature's god, a pantheistic philosophy and less personal, in a sense handing the reigns of political power to people and not a supernatural entity. The U.S. constitution is a perfect example of this ideal; separating the powers equally and enabling the common man to control the leaders by recalling or voting out potential totalitarians while mentioning no specific religion or god as you stated in your post. Unfortunately a right wing cadre of politicians seek to abuse their power and redefine the laws to return to this supernatural power base. So, the struggle continues and let's hope that we don't slide back into a theocracy of ignorance and intolerance. IMO invoking a god for any reason, even consultation would have dire consequences. Religion and politics are like mixing nitro and glycerin. Secularism allows for a more democratic society and effectively blocks a potential tyrant's "appeal to heaven" for power over the people who would willing give it up in order to placate a deity. Cap't Jack
TimB, Well, OK, perhaps my comment was too glib and dismissive, but I still contend that that was all that was called for. I can’t contest “Horse Pucky" because there are no specifics but I can explore you r possible motives for making the comment.
First, perhaps you may feel that my little essay lacked scientific credibility, contained flawed analytical reasoning , and given the complexity of human evolution was far to simple an explanation for the complicated authority structures in human cultures. And if so, and if you can express your views cogently, I’d be happy to consider them and probably learn something in doing so.
Second, perhaps you strongly disagree because my comments do not recognize the absolute power and glory of a supreme being, do not support the concept that a supernatural being is “large and in charge" of , well, everything, and that it is Satan himself that is sitting on my shoulder and putting such awful ideas into my brain. And if that’s the case, then I respect your right to have and express this opinion but I have no respect for that opinion and I don’t see the need for defending my comments against that simplistic attack.
Third, there is a possibility that you are a creature of the modern culture, fostered by the anonymity of the internet, that enjoys and needs the attention obtained by indulging in disparaging and insulting comments at every opportunity, regardless of the subject at hand. And it that is the case, well, I hope not, but again there is no point in a dialogue.
“Horse pucky!” was Handy Dan’s comment and, apparently that’s all he has to say about that. I cited the part of your essay that I agreed with. I rarely indulge in disparaging comments except in the case of clear nonsense, or in retaliation, and sometimes, not even then. I don’t recall Handy Dan ever being particularly disparaging to me, (perhaps he has, and I so successfully ignored it that I don’t even remember it) so I don’t know where he’s coming from either.
Perhaps he views your essay as just so much mental masturbation. But I have no problem with masturbation, mental or otherwise. So carry on.
Now, if you ever need to know anything about history, Capt Jack is your guy.
TimB and Cap’t Jack, thanks for your comments. I did get a bit mixed up with the “handles" on this one, sorry about that… In my scarce spare time, I do like to think and write about things such as, human behavior, evolution, and the effects of religion on human culture to mention a few. And these forums are a good outlet for that. Most of it is opinion and speculation, but I like to think that it is based on rational thought about what science and history tells us.
There was a very interesting article in the latest Scientific American by Curtis Marean, A professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University, titled “The Most Invasive Species of All". The premise of the article is that a genetic trait appeared unique to Homo sapiens about 70.000 years ago that provided for cooperation between unrelated individuals, and this cooperation advanced development of weapons and allowed domination and subsequent extinction of megafauna and other Homo species. The article uses what is known about the expansion and social behavior of early humans to support this hypothesis. Religion is not mentioned in the article. I had not seen this article before writing my “mini essay" but it does strengthen my argument. It seems to me that cooperation in itself lacks direction. Authority , granted to the leader by acquiescence of the followers or imposed by those in authority is needed to provide unity of purpose in human groups larger than a family, and even in a family group, there is a leader, usually a male that provides the role of leadership. Religion has always been either the very essence of leadership or played a supporting role by backing the authority claimed by the leadership. Of course this is very broad brush with which to paint the structure of human culture. But even Hitler and the concept of lebensraum that provided authority for expansion of the Third Reich found backing in the Catholic Church. Of course the relationship of authority and religion is sometimes strong and sometimes apparently weak, but religion is always there, sometimes soft, sometimes hard, sometimes in opposition, sometimes hand in hand, but always ready to direct the development of human cultures.
Welcome Martin BTW, enjoyed your posts and I hope to see more in the future. The article you read correlates with the prevailing views of leading Paleoanthropologists re cooperation in large groups, e.g. Chris Stringer. After the development of a descriptive language by Cro Magnon a hierarchy naturally developed that eventually led to a staid form of proto-government after crop development led to final settlement, ca. 12,000 ya although the date is being pushed back a bit. I agree that what we would term religion played a large role in that development, otherwise there would have been no Pharaoh to direct pyramid building (among other megalithic projects!). However, I see that role diminishing due in part to what I mentioned earlier; we could call it “the dropping of the pilot” so to speak. The religious influence in the political sphere is slowly vanishing in Western Europe and despite what the Evangelicals here believe, it’s slowly losing it’s influence in American politics despite the push back from fundamentalist groups, e.g. Gay marriage is an acceptable practice now and the LGBT community is accepted now more than ever. Once again, I look forward to a totally secular society, even if I don’t live to see it. But then again I’m an optimist and if a mega disaster hits we could go back to square one. No Zombie apocalypse though!
Cap’t Jack
My tendency is to look at many topics from the perspective of the analysis of behavior. Religion, in a nutshell, I would suggest is an outgrowth of 1) inherent tendencies for organisms to behave in superstious ways, and 2) for humans, once we developed complex language skills, to develop cultures that evolve and sustain themselves by being more successful than competing organisms and cultures, (with religious dogma often being a key if not overriding factor in that success). Responding to “Authority”, I would suggest, similarly, is a component of inherent instinctual urges, as well as a key component of the relative success of cultures.
With the development and success of relatively secular cultures, religion remains a powerful component of many human cultures, but is becoming less necessary for some cultures to maintain themselves and to thrive.
But as we humans are highly social creatures, responding to authority, remains, and I think will remain a key component of any “successful” culture (i.e, one that maintains itself and thrives over time).
A thought that occurs to me that may exemplify one aspect of our residual instinctual “responding to authority” is, for Americans, we tend to elect the taller of the two candidates in a Presidential election. (Not always but way more than by sheer chance.) So in the light of your topic, I would say that this particular vestigial behavior (that is probably, mostly a factor of our genetic inheritance, moreso than of our cultural development) is not particularly rational. As it is unlikely that the height of a Presidential candidate is particularly relevant to his/her conducting the duties of his/her office, optimally.