Innate Levels of Obedience
Dissent isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. While some find it natural others find it excruciating.
Some feel it’s wrong to complain in the first place, wince at any challenge to authority, wish that everyone would just shut up and put up with things as they are, as they do. But even among those who want to push for change many find the act itself uncomfortable. Full in the knowledge that justice can only be attained through protest many of us squirm at the prospect. While accepting that every cherished liberty was secured by people who refused to be cowed by power and authority it can still seem a lot easier to keep your head down.
Some of this seems innate or at least sewn-in so early it appears so. Throughout life some people exhibit an ingrained awe of power while others find it all a joke. Some children struggle with tears outside the headmaster’s office, others struggle with laughter. Some adults go cap in hand to their bosses, others are happy to shout and thump the table.
For most of us however deference levels rise and fall with the particular situation. It all depends on who it is we actually respect or fear and that can vary greatly. Some children are rude to their parents but in awe of their peers. Some adults are happy to spit in the face of a prince but still squirm at foul language in front of the priest.
In an ideal world it would all boil down to legitimate authority – we would only acquiesce to the authority of those who truly know better – but it isn’t as simple as that. In this unjust world many of us have to feign respect for cynics and bullies just to hold onto our jobs, or avoid a punch.
And even when there is no such clear threat we can still be cowed by the psychological social hierarchy we each carry within. As a time-served customer-service drone I’d like think I treat each caller equally, but I can’t deny the change that comes over me if it turns out I’m addressing a police officer or MP or minor celebrity, particularly if they try to ‘pull rank’ – “do you know who I am?!” While I can find no rational reason to modify my behaviour towards these people I can’t deny the pressure their supposed status exerts.
Origins of Obedience
The roots of such conflicts become clear if we consider the origins of authority and obedience. As social beings there really are times when it’s best to accept the authority of others and times when it’s best to rebel.
Children certainly must accept the authority of responsible adults if they are to grow up well adjusted, or get to grow up at all. But just as crucially they also need to learn to assert their own rights and desires if they are not to be crushed and cowed by others. The persistent power struggle between parent and child can be seen as the exercising of this capacity. Children test our will as a means of testing their own power in the world. They are constantly feeling their way around the power structure they find themselves born into, checking what they can get away with, deciding when it’s time to throw in the towel.
Like it or not this process of standing-up and climbing-down continues throughout adult life. Although some of us might tend to veer towards rebellion and others towards conformity every well-adjusted adult is someone who has learned to exercise both strategies. The spoilt child and the bullied child both grow up with inappropriate notions of their own power and importance. The perpetually rebellious and the perpetually subservient are skewered on opposite poles. Neither can lead a happy or useful life.
Pressure to Conform
Even for those with a well-developed sense of justice it can still be a struggle to stand up to the powerful. Power is by its nature intimidating. It instils fear, not least the fear of getting into trouble. While we often despise it we usually remain dependant upon its patronage. Power holds most of the cards and is in a prime position to punish those that challenge it. Organising a strike or sit-in always carries the risk of reprisal – loss of pay or promotion, a beating, or even loss of life. Keeping in the good books of the powerful is a major incentive to tolerate injustice.
Similarly loyalty and sense of belonging bind many to powers that are not in their interest. Ingrained faithfulness to church, royalty, military and country are all blocks to rational thought and rational dissent. Questioning the powerful can involve questioning the things we are taught to hold dear, an internal conflict prone to cause nausea. This effect is by no means the reserve of the working-class Tory. Even those who consider themselves progressives often cling to something or someone long past reasonable support, perhaps a hero politician or nation state. It is these sorts of loyalties that lead supposed socialists to defend Stalin or Mao or even the current Chinese regime as it batters Tibet.
And of course power is in an excellent position to propagandise on its own behalf, much more so than those who seek to challenge it. The corporate media is one long advert for the legitimacy of the powerful and the impertinence and blind idealism of those who dare to challenge it. Arms manufacturers, rapacious oil companies and tax-exempt media moguls can paint themselves as the rightful guardians of the world. Those who campaign against them are presented as idealistic fools. Who wants to be in that gang?
Such propaganda also fuels another strong pressure to conform – peer pressure. The Sun, Mail and Telegraph don’t just sedate their readership, they also serve to crush the spirit of colleagues and acquaintances. For every progressive in the workplace there are a host of naysayers, waving their tabloids and dampening dissent. The deferent will always be on hand tell you you’re being a troublemaker or associating with troublemakers, and that besides, resistance is futile.
Pressure to Rebel
In part this is driven by embarrassment at their own inaction. Once someone has decided not to fight for their rights the last thing they want to watch is someone else try. Better to throw cold water on it. For in truth, just as there is a strong impulse to conform to power there is also a great deal of respect to be gained by standing up for yourself. And just as there is a fear of being singled out by power as a troublemaker there is also the opposing threat of being seen as a ‘yes man’ or ‘yes woman’ by one’s colleagues.
It is this opposing pressure that leads to many of the tall tales one hears in the workplace. Those renowned for tugging their forelocks are usually the first to claim they take no crap from the management, forever recounting the times they confronted the boss. Conveniently enough these magical transformations always seems to occur when there is no one about to witness them – “You should have seen me in there!”
While most of us want to avoid trouble nobody likes to be thought of as a carpet. Self respect and a will to protect the rights of others is widely recognised as a virtue, even amongst the powerful. The mere act of challenging authority can earn its respect rather than its punishment, even earn its promotion. The shrewd underling is the one who knows when to say thus far, and no further. Bosses (both shrewd and stupid) often respect and value such individuals (if they don’t send them to the gulag.)
Doing the Right Thing
Worthwhile disobedience takes some thinking about. Unchecked, the dissenting mind is prone to wander into utopia. It’s easy to overestimate the potential for change, particularly after a small victory or rousing rally. Many a wannabe progressive has seen the seeds of global revolution in an anti-war demo or local pay dispute. While such visionaries do little to affect change they are a great target for those who seek to paint all dissenters as blind idealists. Small wonder so many ultra-leftists end-up disillusioned and arguing on the right.
Alternatively the unchecked conservative mind can become complicit with all sorts of injustice. The mere existence of an institution or organisation does not justify its existence or justify compliance with its rules. While it’s fine in principle to love the state what if that state is corrupt? What if its leaders are unelected kings or generals or emperors or chairmen? What if they are formally elected but in league with robber barons or psychotic corporations or Mafiosi? What sort of natural order is that to defer to?
Progressive dissent walks a thin line. Naïve revolt and naïve deference are gutters either side. Naïve progressives can glibly claim the whole system is irredeemably corrupt whatever it is. Naïve conservatives can counter that this is the best of all possible worlds and that to rebel is to meddle with the natural order. The best course of action must surely lie somewhere between the two. The question is, where?
