[ingliz]

Is it possible to possess authority without the power to coerce?

[El Gilroy]

Yes. 'Positive Authority', i.e. authority stemming from ability to do something better than someone else, is often thought to be an actual alternative to 'negative authority', which is basically just preventing people from doing stuff.

Granted, that's a kind of authority really just working on small scales, but I guess that's what Anarchism is partially about, in the end.

[HoniSoit]

Glad we have a new topic.

I think in political science, authority is a form of power that doesn't use coercion but persuades by virtue of 'credentials' (predicated on experience, knowledge, skills etc.) to influence people's behaviours.

So in theory, yes. And it can be powerful. Think of public figures like Martin Luther King. But the power of authority is either enhanced or restrained by other factors like popular movement etc..

[ingliz]

I agree a few charismatic individuals can sway a crowd but in everyday circumstances the exercise of authority would be almost impossible without the threat of coercion, as a last resort, not everyone is Martin Luther King. I don't think you can police a community on goodwill alone.

[Salve]

Not to mention there will always be defectors from these charismatic individuals.

[HoniSoit]

I agree a few charismatic individuals can sway a crowd but in everyday circumstances the exercise of authority would be almost impossible without the threat of coercion, as a last resort, not everyone is Martin Luther King. I don't think you can police a community on goodwill alone.

Yes, I agree.

A few issues (tho not necessarily related to your original question):

- Anarchism generally tends to avoid reliance on charismatic individuals, but whether this is possible in practice is difficult to tell. But at least in theory, it wouldn't be consistent if a society organised along anarchist principles is to have charismatic leaders.

- I think for anarchism to make sense, it doesn't necessarily have to oppose every case of authority but merely try to challenge it to see whether it can be justified to exist (a point that has been made a few times in previous discussions). Experts in their respective fields, for example, would be the kind of authority that doesn't use coercion, and can be justified to influence behaviours.

- I agree with you that it'd be difficult to not use any form of coercion in organising and maintaining a community which is why I think police and court might be necessary in an anarchist society (whatever it is).

Granted, that's a kind of authority really just working on small scales, but I guess that's what Anarchism is partially about, in the end.

I don't think this is necessarily true. It largely depends on the social conditions. To continue using the example of King, it did work on a national scale, but of course he couldn't have had the kind of influence he did if not for the popular social movements.

[FallenRaptor]

I always imagined that for a anarchist society to exist everyone would have to be able to satisfy their basic economic needs and wants. Otherwise, they'll resort coercion to get what they want and the anarchy will become chaos.

I wouldn't object to small militias controlled by local communities to keep the people safe just in case some crazy appears. There's no reason their can't be fair trials in an anarchist society either. Anarchism is mainly about being against unjustifiable authority, and I think militias & trials are justifiable.

[Suska]

unjustifiable authority

i dont think theres a theory out there that sets out to embrace unjustifiable authority. The concept of provisionality is however different than statism; in America we have a system through which people operate on each other and on the system itself, to some extent its bureaucratic and therefore theoretically necessary, but there is an obvious problem that you may take note of in reviewing the history of any institution thats been around for a couple generations including for instance the Catholic Church, every institution eventually gets around to serving itself and tends to spend more of its energy doing that than serving its purpose. Provisionality insists that no institution be considered a static entity - its existence once taken for granted, it becomes a target for abuses including inefficiency. If you cannot lose your job maybe you wont bother working and if there's a surefire way to make a system pay off youll go on milking it till it dies. Therefore no institution should be constructed on a permanent basis, it ought to serve a limited purpose and then be shut down. You may object that this is not useful regarding ongoing issues like managing an economy or policing a population but under the terms of Anarchy these issues aren't automatically assumed to require regulation.

Is it possible to possess authority without the power to coerce?

Its a tricky question, not because its a tricky issue, but by the way you phrase it. possibility is broad and authority is intangible. Coercion is easy to recognize but legitimacy can be bestowed - judging by history - by just about anything, and it needn't be a a chronic matter. The frame of mind that suggests an ugly duckling will always be an ugly duckling. Its the same thing to say the supreme court always has authority (is the same) whoever is in it, or in other words; that the system is right even if the people operating it are not. I dismiss this attitude almost entirely as it grants 'powers' by which I mean makes legitimate, and therefore can make something societally legitimate even where it is not in fact even worthy. In all there should be no titles, even honorary ones. No role should grant a person privilege.

1) We desire that our lives not be made habitual, or that our lives be governed habitually
2) We desire that no person have abstract authority with which to exercise power beyond the role they take in getting things done which need doing.

As for the matter of coercion, I do not grant that it is a matter of human nature that some men must be bullied. You may grant it as obviously so - but you base your experience of people on those themselves bullied about constantly in our current system.

[ingliz]

I do not grant that it is a matter of human nature that some men must be bullied.

If a man lives within society it is impossible for him to be free. Social interaction is characterised by 'deprivation' and 'reward', persuasion is a form of control, control is coercion.

Experts in their respective fields, for example, would be the kind of authority that doesn't use coercion, and can be justified to influence behaviours.

We shouldn't turn anarchy into a cult.

"Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. However identified, these programs are distinguishable from other elaborate attempts to influence behavior and attitudes, to socialize, and to accomplish social control. Their distinguishing features are their totalistic qualities (Lifton 1961), the types of influence procedures they employ, and the organization of these procedures into three distinctive subphases of the overall process (Schein 1961; Ofshe and Singer 1986). The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

The use of an organized peer group

Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations. Systems intended to accomplish these goals can vary considerably in their construction. Even the first systems studied under the label "thought reform" ranged from those in which confinement and physical assault were employed (Schein 1956; Lifton 1954; Lifton 1961 pp. 19-85) to applications that were carried out under nonconfined conditions, in which nonphysical coercion substituted for assault (Lifton 1961, pp. 242-273; Schein 1961, pp. 290-298). The individuals to whom these influence programs were applied were in some cases unwilling subjects (prisoner populations) and in other cases volunteers who sought to participate in what they believed might be a career-beneficial, educational experience (Lifton 1981, p. 248)."

[url=http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing8.html]Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.[/url]

[HoniSoit]

We shouldn't turn anarchy into a cult.

I didn't mean to suggest direct behaviroal manipulation if that's how I was construed - which upon second reading does sound very much like I was suggesting that.

I was more thinking along the line that it is possible for a group of people e.g. scientists to possess authority i.e. have potentially considerable degree of influence (in some sort of anarchist society) over how people think and behave which doesn't involve coercion.

[Suska]

If a man lives within society it is impossible for him to be free. Social interaction is characterised by 'deprivation' and 'reward', persuasion is a form of control, control is coercion.

Wrong. Along with provisionality there is also the concept of Volition - we are free to choose to embrace the mores of society, we need not be compelled to do so and as I understand it this concept is at the heart of Anarchic thought - the idea that without the volition of the people your society is screwed. This is our case in fact, the way an Anarchist describes modern America; the rules are in place and they get lip service but the fact is robbery and abuse. In which case we are not a nation nor a society but a Market, and any market outside the control of a responsible society is a black market therefore what America is is a mockery of democracy and merely the Las Vegas of world economies - not because its free(-ish) but because it only accounts for itself when forced to.

The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

This is the way America behaves because we have a genuine rural retreat, we laugh about European socialism but they have to sleep where they eat whereas competition in our cities can get very anti-social because the traditional notion is that Americans can escape the city. This has given rise to suburbanism, which is at best an uncomfortable compromise - what you seem to be calling thought control is just education with a competitive attitude and an agenda. But if you turn the heat down it doesn't remain some sinister subtle version of thought control, its just people trading information.

[ingliz]

what you seem to be calling thought control is just education

I think your attitude to education is edging very close to indoctrination and personally I feel that is not a price worth paying for society. My intellectual freedom is more important to me than an absence of rules. I would rather have the choice to break rules than be educated to conform, denied the ability to think for myself.

it doesn't remain some sinister subtle version of thought control, its just people trading information.

It depends: What information would you be allowed to trade?

[Suska]

i think we're not connecting properly ingliz

under principles of volition and provisionality its all a state can do to state the issues - other principle sets like law (as in the firm dont test it its the law sort of thing) are forbidden. Whatever form of state there was; say perhaps just a podium in the town hall, would require that a policy gain informed consent not just initially but constantly and most likely it wouldnt be a case of only requiring a majority - but a totality of everyone the matter substantially effects. You want your freedom you got it bubba.

I was describing our current American system in terms of education/propoganda as an uneven thing made possible by vast wilderness and suggesting this as one possible explanation of why Europe is different - we focus our efforts intensely on our cities and that intensity is not possible when there is no place else to go leading to the socialist sentiments which seem to work quite well - when in doubt just dont. Northern Europe as I see it basically stands in that position, excluding England the govt is kind of useless and burdened but at least they dont have the time to consider lifestyle wars as we do and cant ignore ghettos and as opposed to the US they do mind when corporations try to beat a profit out of a useless mob, as I suggested, because they have to live with each other.

[ingliz]

I think I understand what you are saying but I don't believe you can be free under your system. Provisionality and volition sound very fine but without a framework to define your freedoms society itself becomes the instrument of oppression as shown in Arthur Miller's The Crucible.

[Suska]

that would be the main argument against Anarchy - human nature isnt up to it - but I dont believe in a steady-state human nature, I simply acknowledge that some people love to hate and they are a problem for any society, and bystanders are as free to interfere with the exercising of malice too. In an Anarchy the responsibility to interfere falls explicitly upon anyone whos up to the task whereas we are insulated in our systems and have them as an excuse if we want one to just let it happen. so I cant see its clearly going to work better, only that it doesn't misrepresent itself.

[kummi90]

Is it possible to possess authority without the power to coerce?

WOuldn't this be the accepted authority which has been proven to be usefu: ie in a family, in a school

[Wellsy]

Old thread but interesting discussion topic and this may be interesting to contribute examples of authority not based in violence.
https://acoup.blog/2021/02/19/collections-the-universal-warrior-part-iii-the-cult-of-the-badass/

We can dispense with the first question fairly quickly: is violence the supreme authority from which all other authority derives in actual societies? After all, we keep encountering historical models predicated on that premise and they keep being pretty bad, inaccurate history. But even shifting from those specific examples to a more general appraisal, the answer is pretty clearly no. Reading almost any social history of actual historical societies reveal complex webs of authority, some of which rely on violence and most of which don’t. Trying to reduce all forms of authority in a society to violence or the threat of violence is an ‘boy’s sociology,’ unfit for serious adults.

This is true even in historical societies that glorified war! Taking, for instance, medieval mounted warrior-aristocrats (read: knights), we find a far more complex set of values and social bonds. Military excellence was a key value among the medieval knightly aristocracy, but so was Christian religious belief and observance, so were expectations about courtly conduct, and so were bonds between family and oath-bound aristocrats. In short there were many forms of authority beyond violence even among military aristocrats. Consequently individuals could be – and often were! – lionized for exceptional success in these other domains, often even when their military performance was at best lackluster.

Roman political speech, meanwhile, is full of words to express authority without violence. Most obviously is the word auctoritas, from which we get authority. J.E. Lendon (in Empire of Honor: The Art of Government in the Roman World (1997)), expresses the complex interaction whereby the past performance of virtus (‘strength, worth, bravery, excellence, skill, capacity,’ which might be military, but it might also by virtus demonstrated in civilian fields like speaking, writing, court-room excellence, etc) produced honor which in turn invested an individual with dignitas (‘worth, merit’), a legitimate claim to certain forms of deferential behavior from others (including peers; two individuals both with dignitas might owe mutual deference to each other). Such an individual, when acting or especially speaking was said to have gravitas (‘weight’), an effort by the Romans to describe the feeling of emotional pressure that the dignitas of such a person demanded; a person speaking who had dignitas must be listened to seriously and respected, even if disagreed with in the end. An individual with tremendous honor might be described as having a super-charged dignitas such that not merely was some polite but serious deference, but active compliance, such was the force of their considerable honor; this was called auctoritas. As documented by Carlin Barton (in Roman Honor: Fire in the Bones (2001)), the Romans felt these weights keenly and have a robust language describing the emotional impact such feelings had.

Note that there is no necessary violence here. These things cannot be enforced through violence, they are emotional responses that the Romans report having (because their culture has conditioned them to have them) in the presence of individuals with dignitas. And such dignitas might also not be connected to violence. Cicero clearly at points in his career commanded such deference and he was at best an indifferent soldier. Instead, it was his excellence in speaking and his clear service to the Republic that commanded such respect. Other individuals might command particular auctoritas because of their role as priests, their reputation for piety or wisdom, or their history of service to the community. And of course beyond that were bonds of family, religion, social group, and so on.

And these are, to be clear, two societies run by military aristocrats as described by those same military aristocrats. If anyone was likely to represent these societies as being entirely about the commission of violence, it would be these fellows. And they simply don’t.

If I may indulge in one more rather American example of such authority, in March of 1783, with the American Revolutionary War winding down, a number of officers within the victorious Continental Army suggested that the army ought to take some broader action against the Continental Congress; essentially a coup. There was quite clearly considerable support for it among the officers. George Washington, then commander of the army responded by calling a meeting of the officers. He had some fiery words for the conspiracy, but what broke the matter was when he went to read out a letter from the Congress and – drawing a pair of reading glasses confessed, “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.” The balance of violence was not in Washington’s favor – had his officers chosen to act, he could not have stopped them. What he instead mobilized was what any Roman would have recognized as auctoritas, the authority Washington had earned by his self-sacrifice.

So while it is true that the state derives its power from violence (as in Mao’s famous quip that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”), the state is not the only center of authority within a society. And indeed, even the state cannot run entirely on violence; this is the point that Hannah Arendt makes in the famous dichotomy of violence and power. In many cases, what Heinlein’s premise does is mistake violence for power, assuming that the ability to violently compel action is the same as the power to coordinate or encourage action without violence. But in fact, successful organizations (including, but not limited to, states) are possessed not of lots of violence but of lots of power, with much of that power rooted in norms, social assumptions, unstated social contracts and personal relationships that exist entirely outside of the realm of violence.

And so in both theory and practice, Heinlein’s premise fails to actually describe human societies of any complexity. There are no doubt gangs and robber-bands that have functioned entirely according to Heinlein’s premise (and presumably some very committed anarchists who might want such a society), but the very march of complex social institutions suggests that such organizations were quite routinely out-competed by societies with complex centers of authority that existed beyond violence, which enabled specialization (notably something Heinlein disapproves of generally, ‘specialization is for insects’) and thus superior performance both in war and in peace. Kings and empires that try to rule purely with force, without any attention paid to legitimacy or other forms of power (instead of violence) fail, and typically fail rapidly. As with almost any simple statement about complex societies, Heinlein’s premise is not merely simple but simplistic and so fails.

And while things are complicated ny the later point of whether violence is not present in the last instance. This doesn’t negate the character of other forms of power and authority. In fact, having to use violence is exactly when one lacks authority to bring about a desired end through others. It can signify the impotence of one’s authority as its not actually recognized in that instance l.

But then I think of some teachers who have consequences and are consistent are seen as authorities to students. But this is often mixed with rapport, rewards and respect, and when these fail one may resort to consequences. But good classroom management tends to be smoother based in respect than fear. But then that is also small children without proper self regulation and in need of structure. Though my impression is authority can stem from the power to enforce such consequences.

And in employment one sees the threat of losing ones means of money to survive is the threat in the background. But if this was all that motivated people, you end up with the shit one sees at run down companies where workers are just depleted. Money can only make one stand so much, and people will quit their job over wrongs to someone they hold in high regard like a supervisor who covered their employees asses against the higher ups and so on.

[Morgan Le Fey]

RE: the OP. I agree this is good. Especially fundamental.

No, I don't believe authority is possible without some form of coercion. I know humans can operate collaboratively without need of a "leader", however.

[Rich]

I always imagined that for a anarchist society to exist everyone would have to be able to satisfy their basic economic needs and wants. Otherwise, they'll resort coercion to get what they want and the anarchy will become chaos.

The majority of people will never satisfy their basic needs and wants, because basic needs and wants will always expand to negate any increase in society's prosperity. If you asked your average Chartist in the 1840s to define basic needs and wants, the overwhelming majority of modern Britons will have them.

[Morgan Le Fey]

The majority of people will never satisfy their basic needs and wants, because basic needs and wants will always expand to negate any increase in society's prosperity. If you asked your average Chartist in the 1840s to define basic needs and wants, the overwhelming majority of modern Britons will have them.

You don't understand the definition of basic needs. Wants, I could care less about. Lets go with meeting people's basic needs as they relate to Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Need.

That doesn't change, isn't arbitrary, and means something significant about a society that gives them without debt.