The Dangerous Nature of Authority: What Determines Legitimacy?
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published April 11, 2007, 10:07 am in Ethics, Morality, & Justice, Rhetoric.
I was watching a PBS documentary last night, a part of the American Experience series, and this one was about Jonestown and about Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of the People's Temple. The show traced the history of Jim Jones until the demise of Jonestown in 1977 and the death of over 900 people. They interviewed survivors of the mass suicide, of which there were only five that were actually there, but they also interviewed members of the People's Temple who just happened to be away that day. One of the foci of the show was the way Jim Jones was able to control the members. They used terms like "brainwashing" and "mind control," but really I think it's much simpler than that. This entire documentary made me think about two things: 1) the danger of religion and 2) the danger of authority.
The first one is pretty easy, although I happen to be more conflicted about it. I don't quite agree with Marx that religion is the "opiate of the masses," but I do think it can be used to lull or convince people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. But I'm a Christian, a member of a conservative Presbyterian Church of America congregation who goes to church every week and serves in several capacities within the church. I love my church, but I don't necessarily agree with absolutely everything they do. I agree with their theology and I agree with their mission. I don't agree with everything they spend their money on, though, nor do I agree with where they are building their building. But those things I have to trust them on, and this point is where it dovetails with the second problem--authority. I have to trust the leaders of the church, that they know what they're doing, and that they're doing things that they think are right. The leaders are prayerfully considering all options and then making informed decisions. As far as the little things I disagree about, I trust them on those. But if these were actually big things, I wouldn't hesitate to voice my opinion and then leave. If the church said that no more black people were welcome, I would leave, etc. I do not trust the authorities enough to allow them full control over every aspect of my life.
The second danger--authority--is a lot more nebulous and a lot more difficult. Authority is about power, but it's about legitimate power. An authority is a person who has legitimate power over us. My boss is my authority. He was given that authority by his boss. My mayor and local congressmembers are my authorities. My president is my authority. But we choose these people through accepting a job or voting for them. Even if we didn't vote for George Bush, he is still our authority by virtue of the fact that we live in and accept the laws of this country which include democratically elected (or appointed, as the case may be) officials that will control parts of our lives.
Legitimacy can also be granted through other means, and this is what scares me. Think of the pastor of my church (yes, it's an evangelical church, so we call them silly, nonpatriarchal things like "pastor," even though the meaning is itself patriarchal). My pastor was not elected, at least not this one. He's the one who started the church. He's the authority over the church because, well, he's the pastor, and that's about it. The larger governing body gave the authority to start the church and be the pastor, but I had nothing to do with it. However, I agree to it by staying in the church. His legitimacy is through the larger PCA, but it's also through charisma and force of will. What really gives him authority over us? Only the fact that we allow him to remain.
Think of a more human group, a clique or a small group of friends. There is usually a leader, even though the group may not consider the leader to be a leader. This leader is the one who decides what path is to be followed. This leader is the one who decides what bar to go to or what movie to see. Sure, everyone has an input, but this leader generally holds more sway. What gives the leader his or her legitimacy to hold power over the rest of the group? It could be anything, really. It could be his or her looks, or it could be the amount of money he or she has. It could be the fact that he or she makes it seem like they're really doing what everyone else wants. It could be the fact that he or she knows so many people in the city that they can provide compelling reasons to go where they want. Legitimacy doesn't have to be formal, you see. Authority comes in many forms, and the legitimacy of power can come for many reasons.
Let's now consider Jim Jones very briefly. Jones was charismatic, no doubt. He could speak to people. He also spoke in the languages they understood. To conservatives, he spoke the language of Christianity. He spoke of God and Jesus and doing God's will. He also spoke about moral authority and the desire to love and help people. This message also spoke to liberals. Jones at once seemed a conservative Christian and a liberal communist. He tried to create a communal compound at Jonestown, one that supported itself off the land and shared everything. What gave this guy his authority? Everything about him, everything that the people responded to. They believed in and trusted him.
But this kind of authority is doomed to fail, too. Jones couldn't sustain his control over the members of the People's Temple. What caused the fall was a Senator's visit to Jonestown and the attempted departure of lots of members. But power/authority cannot easily accept its downfall, either. He freaked out and attempted to have final control over his people by making them submit to death. No more questions of his authority, just its final legitimacy. In death, his people subjected themselves to him and crowned him as their true legitimate authority. Even if they thought they couldn't escape, there were other options. But they allowed themselves to give someone legitimacy who didn't deserve it.
So what do we learn from this discussion of legitimacy and power? Authority is easily gained but easily subverted, too. We must question the legitimacy we account to our authorities and consider whether those people deserve it. If they do deserve it, we should accept them and do as they wish until they no longer deserve it. But at that point, we have to know what's going on, to be diligent following and understand how our authorities are subverting their authority.
So let's consider the story of Jim Jones as a general cautionary tale. He isn't an allegory, nor is he a reflection of all authority. But he is a general story about power granted through unacceptable legitimacy. The members of the People's Temple placed their legitimacy in someone who didn't deserve it, and it destroyed them.
We can learn from that, I think.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment