Authority and Legitimacy in the Philosophy of
The Numinous Way
The Legitimacy of Authority
Authority is: (1) the direct power to enforce compliance and
obedience upon others, 'the subjects', or (2) the indirect power of
(a) manipulating others so that they are compliant and obedient, or
(b) having influence over others of such a sufficiency that others
are compliant and obedient.
It is from such power - however obtained, presumed, or acquired -
that someone, or some many, assume or claim they have a mandate to
rule, govern, and command, and thence also claim that they, and
those appointed by them, represent or are an, or are the,
legitimate authority, and thus claim to possess the moral right, the
duty, to command, lead, and decide what is lawful and unlawful and
punish those who do what that authority has decreed is unlawful.
Thus, what is legitimate and what is lawful is or become what those
who have power decide or decree is legitimate and lawful, with there
being the expectation, the assumption, or the demand, that 'the
subjects' accept what is, in effect, this imposed legitimacy.
Before the rise of the now almost ubiquitous nation-State [1],
power was most usually direct power, acquired by individuals and
groups through physical force; for example, by victory in combat or
war or by the violent removal of someone or some many who already
had power over others in a certain geographical area or territory.
Once obtained by such means, such power was often legitimized and
transferred by those having power decreeing that their progeny - or
those appointed by them - were 'the rightful rulers'/the legitimate
authority, with such decrees, and the authority of the powerful,
being enforced if necessary by the use of physical force, the threat
of such force, and the punishment, by execution or imprisonment, of
those actively opposed to such a transfer of power.
That is, those with the authority acquired by such force - initially
or subsequently - relied both on their subjects being compliant and
obedient, and on the use or the threat of physical force in order to
enforce such compliance and obedience.
With the
rise and the development of The State direct power has, for the most
part, been replaced by indirect power; that is by some person or
some minority influencing or persuading or manipulating a sufficient
number of people to accept some
leader/clique/minority/representatives as the legitimate authority.
One of the mechanisms developed to enable some person or some
minority to so gain and exercise power is the abstraction that is
modern democracy where political parties compete for votes (from
those entitled to and interested in voting) with such party
representatives - said to be 'of the people' - being invested with
power and influence usually by gaining the most votes, and with the
leader of the political party that gains the most representatives
usually assuming the primary role in governance.
However, the authority of those who acquire power by such indirect,
non-forceful, means is - like the authority of those who acquire
power through physical force - still an authority where there are
subjects who are expected to be compliant and obedient to 'a higher
authority', and where there is the use or the threat of physical
force in order to enforce such compliance and obedience.
For elected governments always reserve to themselves, and their
appointed officials or functionaries, the right, should they deem it
appropriate, to use physical force, and imprisonment, as a means of
curbing dissension and unrest among the subjects (the citizens) of
The State. That is, those with such power regard themselves as the
legitimate authority and thus as invested with the lawful and moral
authority necessary to use force to quell public disorder. In
addition, they invest themselves with the authority to declare war
on another State or States, so that a legitimate (or just) war is
considered to be one declared and fought by such State authorities.
In effect, therefore, The State/the government is of necessity
predicated on the assumption of the obedience/acquiescence of
individuals; that is, on the assumption that individuals within the
territory controlled by The State accept its authority and accept
that such authority is legitimate - whomsoever is deemed to be or
appears to be the government - even though most of the individuals
in that territory have given no formal personal pledge of allegiance
or pledge of loyalty to the ruling authority.
In practical terms, the subjects of The State - just as much as the
subjects of some potentate, tyrannos, or some monarch - are expected
to defer to those in authority in certain and important matters of
judgement. Hence it is The State - on the assumption that the
government is the legitimate authority of the territory of The State
- which judges when the people should go to war or when its armed
forces can use lethal force in some land in pursuit of some goal or
aim. [2]
Indeed, The State increasingly expands the matters on which, and
where which, it expects its authority to be obeyed (on pain of
arrest and punishment). Thus in a modern State such as Britain the
individual is expected to defer to the authority of the government
in all manner of personal matters; for example, where, when (or even
if) they can assemble to protest; in what places they can smoke
cigarettes or a pipe of tobacco; in what and what is not 'an
offensive weapon'; if and under what exact circumstances a parent or
a teacher may discipline an unruly child or pupil; and so on
etcetera.
Judgement, The State, And Authority
This usurping of individual judgement and this presumption or
imposition of authority by others on individuals - be these others
some government, some State, some monarch, some 'people's
representative', some military commander, in the 'name of democracy'
or whatever, and be such usurping, presumption or imposition done by
direct or indirect power - is a perpetuation of a primitive way of
life and a concealment and suppression of our true human nature.
It is a primitive way because it involves the control and
manipulation of individuals by others, and the use of or the threat
of using physical force and punishment in order to ensure or obtain
compliance, obedience, or acquiescence. It is primitive also in that
the main method of punishment employed is imprisonment and which
imprisonment is the praxis of the bully and the abandonment of those
imprisoned to a life governed by primitive instincts, brute force,
intimidation, and physical restraint and control. All modern
nation-States employ and indeed rely on imprisonment as a
punishment, as a 'deterrent', and as a means of social control.
This usurping of individual judgement and this presumption or
imposition of authority by The State is a concealment and
suppression of our true human nature because we possess the ability,
the potential, be make our own decisions using our own judgement. To
so make and to so exercise our own judgement, to act honourably, is
the basis of our freedom as human beings: that is, of being free
from servitude and being responsible for ourselves [3].
For, in practical terms, The State - as did potentates, monarchs,
and others of that ilk - treat people, their subjects, as children.
Restraining them; manipulating and influencing them; telling them
what they can and cannot do; threatening to punish them if they
misbehave; deciding how and in what manner they should be
'educated'; placing restrictions of where they can and cannot go;
making judgements and decisions on their behalf; and so on. That is,
it is those in authority who manipulate, influence, and who
constrain us, and who decide what our liberties will be, and who
possess the power to restrict or deny such liberties when it suits
them or when their judgement (not ours) deems it necessary.
Abstractions As Manipulation
The indirect power of modern governments - and thus of nation-States
- and thence their presumption of authority, is mostly the result of
two factors: (1) the manipulation of people by a minority by means
of causal abstractions [4]; (2) the influence of such
causal abstractions on people. Once power is attained, such
abstractions are used to enforce compliance and obedience; that is,
to provide some sort of assumed moral legitimacy for the actions and
the policies of those who have gained or assumed power.
Thus, abstractions are used to provide a pretext for authority, with
some abstractions being regarded as having or as representing a
certain moral worth which other abstractions do not possess.
Thus, the system of governance that is called democracy [5]
is regarded, by its theorists and supporters, as possessing a
certain moral worth and indeed as representing what is 'good' and
allowing for, or producing, or promoting, a way of life which it is
said is preferable to and/or better than that produced or promoted
by others means of governance. Hence these theorists and supporters
of democracy invest this system of governance with a higher moral
value than, for example, what has been termed anarchism [6]
with many further claiming that democracy is the only moral,
legitimate, way of governance so that a nation-State with a
democratic government has the moral authority to not only declare
war (a 'just war') on those considered to be non-democratic but also
a duty to instigate 'regime-change' and that such violence as is
used, and such suffering an deaths as may be caused, are morally
justifiable [7].
Basically, abstractions have been and are used as a means of
control, as mechanisms of manipulation and compliance. Thus, instead
of some person - some monarch, prophet, or some tyrannos, for
example - being said to have some 'divine right' or some 'destiny'
to rule and thus being possessed of authority, it is said that some
abstraction has worth and authority. Then it is assumed that those
individuals striving to implement this abstraction are imbued with
its authority so that what they do is 'right' and moral - provided
their actions are in accord with, are a mimesis of, or approximate
to this abstraction - and that they and others like them have a
'right' and a moral duty to lead and to govern and thus to exercise
authority on behalf of this abstraction.
Among such moral-giving abstractions are and have been democracy,
the Führerprinzip,
capitalism, socialisme (society-before-self),
communism (collective ownership), and religions such as
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Authority In The Numinous Way
For The Numinous Way, it is the exercise of the judgement of the
individual - arising from the use of empathy and the guidance that
is personal honour - that is paramount, and which expresses our
human nature.
That is, it is honour, the understanding that empathy provides, and
the judgement of the individual, that are legitimate, moral,
numinous, and thence the basis for authority. This means that
authority resides in and extends only to individuals - by virtue of
their honour, their empathy, and manifest in their own personal
judgement, and therefore this always personal individual authority
cannot be abstracted out from such personal judgement of
individuals. In practical terms, this is a new type of authority -
that of the individual whose concern is not power over others but
over themselves, and which type of power is manifest in a living by
honour, and thence in their self-responsibility and in how they
interact with others.
Hence, The State, and all governments - elected or unelected - are
not considered a legitimate authority since there can be no
compliance to others other than that which is mutual, agreed, which
arises from a personal knowing and a mutual personal respect, and
which allow for the exercise of both empathy and personal honour.
For it is honour and empathy - not the authority, the laws, of some
government or some State - which set the mode, the boundaries, for
such agreement and such cooperation between individuals, and in
practice this means a co-operation on a non-hierarchical basis, with
empathy providing the personal knowing of another while honour
determines how that knowing is made real through one's personal
behaviour and interaction with others.
Thus The Numinous Way is the way of such numinous authority - of the
individual authority of empathy, of personal judgement, of honour,
and of personal responsibility. A way quite different from that of
religions, States, governments, potentates, monarchs, and others of
such ilk, who and which all expect and who and which often demand
the compliance and obedience of individuals, on the threat of
punishment; who and which expect/demand that individuals forsake
their own judgement in favour of that of some 'higher authority';
and who and which place their own manufactured un-numinous laws
before the natural human and numinous principle of personal honour.
David Myatt
November 2011 CE
Notes
[1] The State may be defined as the concept of both (1) organizing
and controlling – over a particular and large geographical area –
land (and resources); and (2) organizing and controlling individuals
over that same geographical particular and large geographical area
by: (a) the use of physical force or the threat of force and/or by
influencing or persuading or manipulating a sufficient number of
people to accept some leader/clique/minority/representatives as the
legitimate authority; (b) by means of the central administration and
centralization of resources (especially fiscal and military); and
(c) by the mandatory taxation of personal income.
The State thus divides people into those so governed and
controlled – subjects – and those who govern or who are employed
by those who govern to organize and control the subjects, with
both subjects and those who govern or who are employed to organize
and control the subjects being regarded as citizens of The State.
In addition, The State designates and decides what is public and
private (for example, in relation to land, or particular places)
as it appropriates to itself the authority to control what it has
so designated as public.
Given that the modern State controls and assumes authority over a
certain geographical area, and given that these geographical areas
are described by the term nation, a useful alternative term for
The State is the nation-State.
[2] Thus do the politicians and functionaries of The State echo the
sentiment and words of Augustine, written over one and half thousand
years ago, in Contra Faustum Manichaeum (XXII, 75): "The
natural order, which would have peace amongst men, necessitates that
the judgement about and the authority to declare war should reside
in those who have authority over others [a monarch/prince]."
[3] Honour is an expression of our nature as individuals, as free
human beings. It is honourable to use our own judgement, be
responsible for ourselves, and not to submit to those who would
oppress or constrain us. It is honourable to defy those who use
force in an effort to obtain our obedience, and honourable to defend
ourselves when attacked.
[4] An abstraction is:
"A manifestation of the primary error of conventional
causal thinking; that is, of assuming only a causal linearality –
of using causal reductionism: that simple cause-and-effect that
excludes the acausal knowing that empathy provides and which
knowing the numinous is a manifestation of. Implicit in
abstractions is the notion of – the illusion of – the separateness
of beings.
An abstraction is the manufacture, and use of, some idea,
ideal, “image” or category, and thus some generalization, and/or
some assignment of an individual or individuals – and/or some
being, some “thing” – to some group or category with the
implicit acceptance of the separateness, in causal Space-Time,
of such being/things/individuals. The positing of some “perfect”
or “ideal” form, category, or thing, is part of abstraction.
Abstraction-ism – and the ideation that derives from it – can be
philosophically defined as the implementation, the practical
application, of ὕβρις." A Glossary of Some
Numinous Way Terms. 2011 CE. Version 1.03
[5] The ideal of modern democracy is somewhat difference from the
reality as manifest in modern nation-States. In reality, it is not
government by the people for the people, but rather government by a
rather privileged oligarchy in the interests of that oligarchy, in
the interests of implementing some dogma or some political
programme, or in the interest of some vested often hidden lobby
group.
It is not even a fair and reasonable vote, since topics the
oligarchy, the privileged elite, and the Media and the vested
interests do not want to discus are not discussed, and voters are
shamelessly manipulated, lied to, and shameless appeals are made to
their instincts, their prejudices, their fears, with the elected
government seldom if ever being truly representative of the people
it governs (for example in terms of gender, occupation (or lack of
it), ethnicity, standard of living) and most certainly most or all
elected representatives being personally unknown to most of those
who vote for them, and often or mostly voting 'along party lines' or
according to what may benefit some interest group or lobby rather
than according to the views of the majority of those who elected
them.
It also happens that those who form the government - and thus who
make decisions 'on behalf of the people' - do not represent the
majority of voters, often receiving less votes than the combined
votes of opposition parties.
In particular, all candidates of major parties liable to form a
government have to undergo a rigorous 'selection procedure' by their
already elected peers in order to ensure the loyalty of the
candidate to the status quo. Thus, the candidates that the people
get to vote for have all or mostly been pre-selected according to
criteria which ensures they will represent their party - or some
vested interests - first, rather than the people.
[6] A loose definition of anarchism is that it is that way of living
which regards the authority of The State as unnecessary and harmful,
and which instead prefers the free and individual choice of mutual
and non-hierarchical co-operation.
[7] This was the type of argument used by the governments of America
and Britain for their invasions of and occupation of Iraq and
Afghanistan.