Order & Authority

This article talks about order and authority and how they mix together. The video below is a story about a candy store. What does a candy store have to do with order and authority? Let’s dive in.

I have made a SocratiQ workspace which you can explore to gain intuition and get your thoughts flowing before reading this article. The workspace will always be there though, so you can go through it before or after.

Note: This video's story is used as an example in many places in this article.

In this world there are people with power. People who make decisions for others. People of authority. Richard, the candy store owner, is one of those with authority. He had authority in the store over the employee.

The employee was making the store disorderly in Richard’s eyes. However, Richard did not relent.

Okay, but doesn’t this type of situation happen in many places? What’s the significance of order and authority?

We can agree that order is necessary for anything to succeed. The candy store for instance. Maybe it would have succeeded anyways if Richard went along with the employee. But maybe someone would have found out that the new candy was of low quality, and people stopped shopping there. This brings us to the question: Can order exist without authority?

Yes? No? It’s a bit hard to tell right now. So let’s define order and authority separately before putting them together.

What does order mean? When you hear the word order you might think of the verb “ordering”, or “to order”. “Ordering food from a restaurant”, for instance.

This definition isn't too helpful for us. How else can we define order? Perhaps arrangement; when elements are in a sequence? Yes, arrangement fits a bit better, so let’s go with that.

Seeing a pattern

For things to be in a sequence, they need to follow a pattern. In other words, they need to be predictable. For example, [ 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 … ]. Each number is predictable because the pattern is adding 2 to get the next number (or counting the even numbers).

So we can say that things are in order when they are predictable. Let’s use a scenario to try and understand predictability: It’s going to rain tomorrow. Perhaps someone sees dark clouds in the distance and predicts that it’s going to rain, but some people won’t be able to predict it. However, a weather forecaster might be able to predict the rain ahead of time with full certainty.

Rain can’t be predicted by everybody. What does this mean? Is rain in order or not? This means that order is subjective. Rain could be in order for some people but not for others.

Since rain is only in order for some people, what is in order for everybody? It’s hard to tell. Maybe there is something, maybe not. Instead of everyone, let’s look at everything. When is everything - the whole universe - in order for someone? One person being able to predict every single thing doesn't seem possible.

Sometimes we are able to predict everything within a certain boundary. Weather forecasters predicting rain, for instance. Scientists in labs may be able to fully predict the actions of an insect. But it might be harder to predict the actions of a dog or a tiger, and even harder to predict other humans. Humans are higher beings than insects. So for something to predict a human, it needs to be a higher being than humans.

Defining Order

Now, that version of order was subjective. Can we find an objective version?

When we see even numbers in sequence, it is in order because it's predictable. But there’s one more thing. To see what it is, let’s change it up a bit first: [2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 … ]

The 7 there feels off, obviously out of place. For the list of numbers to be ordered, each number must be in place.

We have our second definition of order: When something is in place.

How do we decide what is in place and what is not? What about cave people hunting deer? Is that out of place? The issue with hunting is that killing is bad, but the cave people would starve if they don’t hunt. What else can they do? They could eat fruits, but the issue with that is it might not be enough. They need to hunt deer or some other animal to survive.

This is getting very muddy. It’s hard to tell what the right answer is. So instead of looking at the results, let’s look at the subject: the cave people. Why don't we analyze their thought process to see whether their actions were in place or not.

Optimal Process

1. Problem - They need food
2. Solution - Hunt a deer (have to harm a living creature)
3. Alternate Solution - Gathering fruits (not enough food)
4. Tolerance - Are the issues bearable (harm living creatures or go without food)?
5. Optimal Outcome - Which solution is worth executing, if any?
   
   

Going through this thought process and then executing the optimal solution is in order. If an individual has chosen a solution that has better alternatives, their action is not in order.

In this case, there is not much contest between the two choices. It's either hunt or starve. The alternate solution is not optimal. On the other hand, the first solution's issues are bearable and worth executing.

Next, let’s look at the Candy Store Story again. This time from a different perspective. Here is the employee’s thought process:

1. Problem - Need to increase store’s profit (not necessarily a problem)
2. Solution - Move low margin candy to the back, sell cheaper candy for a higher price (customers may stop visiting)
3. Tolerance - Are the issues bearable (no profit increase or lose customers)?
4. Optimal Outcome - Is the solution worth executing?
   
   In this case, the problem itself is not much of a problem, it’s just something that could be improved. The store was becoming bigger anyways. While the solution might increase profit, it might also backfire due to customers not buying anymore. We can see that the solution is not worth executing because of these two reasons. Staying at the current profit is the best option. So Richard was right to exert his authority.
   
   I believe that everyone goes through this thought process. Either consciously or subconsciously. The optimal solution derived from this thought process is what decides whether the action is in order or not.
   
   We have our definition for order now:
   
   

We’re done with order, now it’s time for authority.

The Power of Authority

How can we intuitively understand authority? Let’s start with the word itself. Authority has the word “author” inside it. Richard, the owner, is the author of the employee. Which means Richard has control over the employee.

Let’s look at a different example. A king and his kingdom. The king has authority and control over his citizens. If the citizens don’t like the king, they might band together and start a rebellion. In which case, the rebels will have control.

Doesn’t the king have control? No. The control is now taken by the rebels. But the king still has authority.

Can authority be taken too? If someone duels the king and wins, they become the new king. Have they taken authority?

In a different scenario where there is democracy and the kings are chosen by citizens, killing the king won’t make you the new king. Only election will. In the other scenario where someone dueled the king, they didn’t take authority. It was given to them. That’s because the “rules” of that kingdom say that if you win a duel against the king, you become the new king.

So control can be taken, whereas authority cannot.

Another difference between control and authority is that authority is a social hierarchy, but control is fluid. Control can keep changing, but authority is fixed.

How does someone take control? Especially when defying authority? One method might be threat. We can generalize this to be fear. Control by fear. In the previous example, the king was afraid of the rebellion. That's why he lost control. Is there a way to control someone without fear? There might be others, but here are a few:

• Manipulation: Controlling without the other side knowing they’re being controlled
• Persuasion: Convincing the other side
• Trust: When one side trusts the other and does the things they ask

Now back to authority. We’ve seen that control can overpower authority, but what about the other way around? Can authority overpower control? The employee of the candy store is trying to take control. But Richard asserts himself and gets the employee to stop, even though the employee was trying to persuade him. How did this happen?

It’s because Richard exerted authority. Authority is binary - there is either authority or no authority. But how authority is exerted varies. Depending on the amount of control the employee has, sometimes authority overpowers control. If the employee is just some random person, they have little to no control. So when they try to control the boss, their control can’t match his overpowering authority.

Authority should only be exerted when necessary. It would be disorderly if Richard exerts his authority all the time. He exerted it only when he saw that the items were in the wrong places and the employee needed to put them back.

Order and Authority

We’ve finished order and finished authority too. It’s time to put them together. Let's look at the definitions once more:

Order with Authority

Okay, we’re about to get to the big question. But before that: Can order exist with authority?

This is how it probably is in most places. Schools, offices, restaurants, etc. A person (or people) in a position of authority are there to maintain the order. They can do this in two ways:

1. Enforcement: By forcing people to do what they say. Possibly by having a punishment if they don’t listen, or just forcing them without one.
   
   
2. Persuasion: By making sure that people’s thoughts are in order. This can be done through discourse or explanation.
   
   In the candy store, Richard had authority. He maintained order using that authority by using enforcement and persuasion. He sternly told the employee to put the candy back the way it was (enforcement). He also explained why; that the store is not just a business, but it’s a community (persuasion).
   
   
   

The Big Question

We can finally answer this: Can order exist without authority?

Let's mix things up to see. What if 5 people started the store? If they have conflicting ideas, how will it get resolved?

One of them has to step up to keep things orderly. Someone has to rise up. That’s the thing about authority: Rising up. While this may seem contradictory to “authority is fixed”, it is not. That’s because the “slot” - the slot for authority - was always open, it just hadn’t been filled yet. The person who stepped up got promoted to a position of authority. Not by a boss, but naturally. Due to the disorder.

With 5 people, just one person of authority might be enough. If there were more people, such as employees, multiple people in different levels of authority could be necessary. How should authority deal with people?

In the candy store example again, the store was disorderly to Richard because the employee was trying to increase the store’s profit in ways that Richard didn’t want for the store. Richard fixed this by exerting his authority and getting the employee to stop.

However, is there a way to do this without exerting authority? One way is to make the employee understand the purpose of the candy store when he's hired: That it’s a community first and a business second, and that is why people like the store.

Summary

We talked about a lot of things, so let’s summarize.

An individual’s actions are in order if they go through the specific thought process mentioned earlier and execute the optimal solution.

Authority is a power that is directly linked with positions in a social hierarchy. Bosses, teachers, captains, etc. are a few who have authority.

People with authority are there to maintain order. They can do this by exerting their authority (enforcement), or without exerting (persuasion).

When it’s disorderly and there is no authority, someone might rise up as an authority to maintain order. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes, most likely with fewer people, they might become orderly again without authority. Perhaps by convincing others without any enforcement.

So order can exist without authority, but in some situations it might be better to have someone who exerts their authority in a controlled manner. Which is exactly what Richard and the employee are doing now that the employee understands the purpose of the store. Richard doesn’t exert his authority often, only when it is absolutely necessary. This way the employee, Richard, and the whole store can be in order.

I have answered a few questions in the SocratiQ exploration from earlier. Feel free to fork it and explore with me. I will continue exploring for the next few months, and I will update this article or add a new one based on what I learn.