Toward a definition of authority

Abstract

Authority is a perspective, not an absolute. One may examine a set of relationships from the perspective of communication, or sexuality, or some other perspective, and always with some profit. Another perspec tive from which we may profitably examine many types of relationships is the perspective of authority. There are many ways of thinking about authority, and many usages of the term. We speak of the authority of the police or the government with its implications of coercive power. We speak of an expert as an authority. We speak of authority as some thing that influences us, as the authority of the New York Times. We speak of authority as that which we respect and look up to, but without necessarily any connotation of power over us.1 In everyday speech, however, we most often speak of authority as synonymous with power. We say, "He has the authority to go ahead," or "She has the authority to fire me," or "He exercises his authority high-handedly." This is one way to speak of authority, a way that has become legitimatized by common usage and that has a value of its own. However, to speak of authority as some kind of power that one pos sesses or does not possess and can exercise at will is to obscure the deeper meaning of the term. Authority is more properly understood as a mutual relationship between two or more persons; it is dynamic rather than static, as the common definition seems to imply. When one explores the psychoanalytic literature in search of a deeper understanding of authority, he finds, surprisingly, that little system atic thought has been devoted to this concept. Many writers refer to authority as a basic concern, but it is usually dealt with in passing and is rarely defined with any care. Others, like Erik Erikson, may be This paper is a preliminary study in a long-range project, a study of the problem of the minister as an authority figure or bearer of authority. So little has been written and so little research carried out on this problem that any sugges tions, criticisms, or other aid would be welcomed by the writer. This paper was one of the by-products of a year of study as a post-doctoral Fellow in Psy chiatry and Religion at the Menninger Foundation, Topeka, Kansas. It is with gratitude to the Foundation that the author presents this very preliminary state ment.