The Varieties of Authoritative Experience

What makes a trustworthy authority? For that matter, what is an authority?

Dictionary.com offers the following definition:

-the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
-a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency
-an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
-an expert on a subject
-right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence
-a warrant for action; justification.
-mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music

That suggests three major components of authority: understanding, capacity for action, and social validation. The involvement of social processes tips us off that various world views are probably involved, so let's look at it through the lens of Spiral Dynamics.

Each meme has its own validity claim –- a statement that gives legitimacy to certain sorts of knowing and doing. From the point of view of any given meme, an authority is someone who, in varying measures, knows about the world as that meme sees it, can manipulate and change that world, and is acknowledged by others. In order to be socially acknowledged as an authority by a particular meme, an authority's knowing and doing must involve the sorts of epistemic and ontological objects that are legitimated by that meme's validity claim. That is to say that, one has to understand and be able to work with the things that a particular meme believes in. These “believed ins” or “concerned withs” vary rather dramatically across the spiral dynamics memes, and I'll consider each in turn. What follows is my interpretation of the approximate attitudes of each meme toward authority, along with some musings on an integral perspective on authority.

Purple lives in a magical world, containing good and evil spirits who have the power to affect the world. In order to gain the favor of these spirits (or ward them off), certain procedural rituals are performed. For purple, an authority is someone who knows the proper rituals and when to perform them, who understands omens and signs, and who is blessed by the spirits.

Red lives in a world of power gods, who meddle in the affairs of humans but only partially control it. Humans, then, can gain a measure of control by exerting power over others. For red, an authority is someone who knows how to gain and use power, who exercises their power without losing it, and who appears to have the favor of the gods.

Blue lives in a world with a pre-given set of rules and roles that must be obeyed. This often goes along with monotheism – it's easier to defend one set of rules and roles against another when there's only a single source of divine legitimation. For blue, an authority is someone who knows the rules and roles, who acts in accordance with the their position and the moral code, and who holds a social role that is awarded a measure of authority.

Orange lives in a world of natural causes that can be determined through experience and rationality. This is often associated with either atheism or the watchmaker interpretation of God. For orange, an authority is someone who knows about the cause of events (i.e. has experience), who makes sense of that experience through rational thought, and who acts in ways that can be understood rationally.

Green lives in a world of multiple irreconcilable (and therefore equal) perspectives. In theory, this makes each person an absolute authority on their own perspective. In practice, this means that identity becomes the relevant criteria for authority. If you want to know about a particular group, the only trustworthy authorities are people who belong to that group. If you want to know about astronauts, you don't ask a dairy farmer; if you want to know about the British, you don't ask Swedes. If you want to know about femininity, you don't ask men; if you want to know about blackness, you don't ask white people.

(Like all the others, there are upsides and downsides to this approach to authority. An astronaut has the obvious benefit of experience when discussing astronauts. On the other hand, it's hard to see yourself the way others do -- simply by virtue of being an astronaut, one can't speak authoritatively about how astronauts appear to non-astronauts. Perspectives of identification and non-identification with a group both have their own blind spots, and both are arguably quite relevant for each of the qualities I mentioned. Mutually exclusive groups [e.g. men and women] know themselves in ways that outsiders do not, and the groups also know a heck of a lot about each other in ways that neither group knows itself. Awarding validity only to perspectives of identification with a particular group cuts out this second source of knowledge.)

Yellow lives in a world of inter-related and interacting perspectives and contexts, which give rise to various interpretations. The interpretations can be evaluated according to a number of criteria, which often concern form (e.g. self-consistency), content (e.g. comprehensiveness, inclusiveness), relationship (e.g. how well an interpretation co-exists with differing interpretations), or utility (e.g. relevance, explanatory adequacy, the degree to which it motivates effective action.) For yellow, authority is derived from an awareness of and familiarity with the process of interpretation itself, as well as the variety of interpretive possibilities (including those of the previous memes.) In this view, an authority will consciously select or construct interpretations that are helpful in making sense of their experience, and that motivate appropriate action. In contrast to previous memes, yellow's perspective on authority shifts from being based on identity to being based on process and product.

(The natural question, then, is: When should yellow accept and use the claims to authority of the previous memes? When those are the best interpretive possibilities available! I'll suggest that, since the reason for the emergence of each successive meme is the explanatory inadequacy of the previous meme, one ought to use the most developed perspective on authority that's feasible in a particular situation. Feasible is the operative word. In a situation involving other people who accept the validity of, say, red authority but do not accept authority derived from subsequent memes, orange authority isn't particularly feasible -- it just won't get you very far. If you doubt this, try using orange-based authority with a three year old!)

Given the variety of interpretations of authority, it's important to make it clear which interpretation one is using -- and why. If I accept, due to the situational necessity of interacting with others, authority derived from a meme I've developed beyond, that's fine. When talking with Catholics centered in blue, I'm likely going to have to accept that what the Pope says carries weight with them, even if it doesn't with me.

It's perfectly valid for someone to hold any of these perspectives on authority, but an acceptance of that position doesn't mean that I need to adopt their perspective for myself. If I uncritically accept all varieties of authority when selecting or constructing my own interpretation, I end up sabotaging the process. The result of accepting any (and every) authority is an eclectic -- but not necessarily integral -- perspective.

In order to integrally evaluate the competing explanations given by shamans, kings, priests, scientists, and philosophers, it's necessary to use some discrimination regarding the sorts of authority I'm willing to accept, the conditions under which I will accept their conclusions, and the manner in which I accept them.