The State Within Us (III)

The tension between authority and anti-authority—both of which have deep roots in our psychology—begins in childhood and continues throughout our lives. We oscillate between the “good,” which makes us admire what is presented to us, allows us to merge with the other, and fulfills our needs, and the “bad,” which disappoints us, leaves us feeling lonely and helpless. It is this amalgam of “good” and “bad” images that shapes our general image of authority, determining our experience of authority, what we label as authority, and how we respond to it.

The “bad” and “good” aspects of the general image of authority in our individual psychology are the motivating force behind the “anti-authority” within us. If the attitudes of authority (and the state) do not correspond to the general image of authority in our individual psychology, the “anti-authority” sides of our inner world are activated; affirmation turns into criticism and rebellion. A well-functioning state structure absorbs the criticism and rebellion directed at it by taking necessary measures, correcting itself in a way that eliminates such criticism, and—like a good parent—repairing the individual’s damaged sense of justice in family and social life. If, instead of adopting such a healthy stance, the state turns a deaf ear to the demands of the community of citizens and becomes an “external power” that only guards its own sovereignty and enforces obedience by force—in other words, if it fails to develop the “good” in the general image of authority held by the great majority of the community of citizens—it also initiates a process that works against itself. Authoritarianism is a sign that the dialectic between authority and anti-authority, or more generally between the state and society, has broken down. The disturbed balance then begins to be restored through impositions based on pressure, force, and manipulation.

Authority is good, authoritarianism is terrible!

Authority has no relation to “authoritarianism,” which means governance through oppression and tyranny; on the contrary, it possesses a positive content. In the world of science, thought, and medicine, those who know a subject best are referred to as “authorities in their field.”

“Authority” is not similar to or the same as “authoritarianism”; in fact, it is its opposite. Authority evokes respect and gratitude in others. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is based on blind obedience and fanatical attachment, and when this desire is not fulfilled, it threatens with oppression. Authority is earned only through the recognition that the other is superior in judgment and precedes oneself in authority. When understood this way, it becomes clear that no one can bestow authority upon another; it can only be attained through “dialogue.” Likewise, one immediately realizes that true authority can never be irrational or arbitrary. Irrationality and arbitrariness are the marks of authoritarianism, not of authority.

Authority is associated with legitimacy and prestige derived from thought, knowledge, experience, and talent. Human beings exist through relationships with others and, in their very nature, require dialogue. Authority also arises in the course of dialogue; it does not impose itself by force, but rather reveals itself. The parties spontaneously, without coercion, acknowledge who holds authority in which domain.

The same characteristics apply to authority in the relationship between the state and society. In the final analysis, the state is the general authority that society can generate from within itself. Therefore, the very existence of a state in a society is proof of a collective mind and a healthy, functioning dialogue within that society. But just like in interpersonal relationships, the authority of the state can only be established if it is deserved and based on the voluntary consent of the people. If rulers have reached their positions through merit and act in harmony with society—as its organic representatives—then society affirms their authority. However, if their rule lacks the voluntary consent of the society, if they behave arbitrarily rather than legally, and if they continuously emphasize their superiority over society and adopt an arrogant attitude, then they are not true “authorities,” but “despots” and “authoritarians.”

Authority is solid and enduring because it is deserved and built upon a sincere foundation, whereas authoritarianism follows the opposite trajectory. Neither in interpersonal relationships nor in the relationship between state and society can ultimate sovereignty be sustained through despotism, oppression, domination, or manipulation. Our intolerance of authoritarianism is directly connected to the existential character of our psychology. You cannot permanently shape people’s lives or subjugate human dignity through physical pressure and domination.

At times, in environments of overt violence, one might adopt a psychological defense mechanism such as identifying with the aggressor in order to protect oneself—but this state, known as the “Stockholm syndrome,” is partial and incidental in terms of human psychology. The human self restores itself at the first opportunity and reverts to its original state. Simply by virtue of being human, people carry the potential to reject the oppressor—even if they cannot always overcome them. The saying, “Those who prosper through tyranny meet a miserable end,” is the shortest expression of what we are trying to convey, one that is deeply embedded in historical consciousness.

So, what is guardianship?

One of the most frequently confused concepts with authority is “guardianship.” Although authority and guardianship may appear similar, they are in fact quite different. Unlike other living beings, the human offspring goes through a prolonged period of dependency. Throughout infancy and childhood, we are in need of and dependent upon the care, custody, and guardianship of our parents. Our parents—who know what we do not, do for us what we cannot, and understand our needs better than we do—are both our guardians and the first authority figures in our lives. At the outset, parental authority encompasses guardianship, but as we come of age and become competent persons, guardianship disappears and only the imprint of parental authority remains from our childhood. Once we come of age, our relationship with our parents (provided, of course, that our gratitude and respect toward them remain intact) transforms into a relationship between equals. As we become free, autonomous adults, the true meaning of authority in our lives begins to settle into place.

If we consider democracy to be the best method found in modern times for the voluntary transfer of authority by citizens in the functioning of the state, then authoritarian governments can be placed in direct opposition to this. In this context, we may liken a tutelary (guardianship-based) state to an authoritarian parent who, despite the child having come of age, refuses to take their existence seriously and does not tolerate disobedience.

Foundations in Social Psychology

The famous Milgram experiments in social psychology regarding authority and obedience support what we have been saying so far. Let’s take a look. In one of these experiments, “Subject A is instructed to give orders to another person, Subject B—who is actually an actor playing the role of a participant—to complete a task and to punish him if he fails to perform it properly. The punishment consists of administering an electric shock to Subject B, ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts, the latter known to be lethal. Before the experiment begins, Subject A is shown how 45 volts affects a person. During the experiment, however, no actual shocks are administered; the actor playing Subject B only pretends to receive them when Subject A decides to apply them.”

According to Milgram’s findings, a large proportion of the individuals used in the experiments—sometimes on their own initiative, but often prompted by subtle cues from the experimenters—administered very high levels of electric shock to Subject B. Apparently, they were aware of what they were doing; they also knew, or thought they knew, that they were delivering potentially lethal shocks to the other subject. They were also aware that the punishments were merely part of an experiment concerning education and learning.

According to John Forrester, author of Truth Games (published by Ayrıntı), “Milgram began these experiments due to his interest in how the Nazis implemented their plans to exterminate the Jews. However, Milgram’s experiments soon became famous for a very different reason than being an empirical example of submission to authority: they also became a case study in the questionable ethics of social scientists who deceived their subjects from start to finish… Milgram’s experiments became a lesson not in submission to authority, but in deception.”

In our view, aside from Forrester’s valid observations, the Milgram experiments reveal that the roots of authoritarianism lie in uncertainty and manipulation. When the state loses its balance with society—namely, when it is weak—and resorts to repression, coercion, and manipulation, similar conditions give rise to authoritarian surges within individual psychology as well.

Having thus examined the place of the state within our inner world, let us now move on to the sources of authority that exist outside the state and stand in competition with it.

Non-state sources of authority

What constitutes other sources of authority varies depending on the historical moment and the structure of society. The placement of state-society relations and other authority sources differs significantly between developed capitalist countries and underdeveloped ones.

Speaking specifically of our own country, the most evident manifestation of dislocated state-society relations is not that the state is powerful and large—as is often assumed—but rather that it is cumbersome and weak. Far from being strong, the state cannot even collect taxes and must constantly accommodate the demands of international financial circles with every step it takes. As a result, the weak state is left with no choice but to stage displays of how “solid” its body supposedly is. Every center of power tries to fill the void left by the state in its own manner. Anti-social sociopathic gangs attempt to generate income from dispensing justice on their own terms; the poorest segments of society cling to religious beliefs, hoping that justice will at least be realized in the afterlife; and dominant economic circles disseminate—especially through “certain media outlets”—the belief that prosperity and peace will come to society through the charitable spirit of entrepreneurship. The authority of the state, the authority of sociopathy, the authority of tradition, and the authority of money have spread throughout the social fabric by seizing whatever empty space they can find. The sorrowful scenes depicted in the introductory vignette stem from this fragmented and competing dispersion of authority throughout society; just as raw sewage gushes from the streets of municipalities that fail to maintain their sidewalks, so too does authoritarianism burst forth from every place that is stepped on.

In developed capitalist countries, despite numerous lines of tension, the relationship between the state, dominant economic circles, and civil society has been established on a contractual basis and has acquired a legal framework grounded in human rights. The outcome of this process is a very strong organizational capacity; the capability for organization itself has become almost synonymous with authority, and authority has been internalized. Both public officials and ordinary citizens are aware that the overall organizational capacity is stronger than they are, and thus they fear the laws and the system that produces those laws. As a result, “authoritarianism” has ceased to be an imminent danger in these social formations.

The more pressing threat in such contexts is liberal despotism, which, in the name of “natural law” derived from the “state of nature,” seeks to push the poor, the sick, the marginalized, Black people, and—especially in the last quarter of the past century—Muslims, foreigners, refugees, and immigrants out of public life. It is another undeniable reality that liberal despotism is evolving into a form of techno-fascism day by day.

In societies like ours, which were latecomers to the train of modernity and emerged from a very different historical background, the configuration of the state, civil society, and non-state sources of authority is extremely complex. When poverty, imperialist pressures and demands, and the complications of rapid and forced modernization are added to this confusion, the resulting picture becomes utterly impenetrable.