Who doesn't deserve your respect?
Authority—the unseen force gently steering us through life. It’s in the air we breathe, woven into every institution from classrooms to corporate offices, whispering that respect for authority isn’t just expected—it’s moral. We often accept this without question.
But here’s the twist: none of this is innate. Respect for authority isn’t natural; it’s taught, packaged, and ingrained in us from the moment we take our first steps. We were barely out of our diapers when we learned that compliance isn’t just a virtue—it’s a currency.
Think back to childhood: “good kids” follow the rules; “troublemakers” ask questions. The reward system was clear—gold stars and approving smiles for obedience, labels and side-eye for dissent. Social theorist Erich Fromm argued that obedience is a learned behavior, reinforced through societal norms that become so ingrained they feel like common sense. By adulthood, this quiet code of respect has settled so deeply into our psyche that questioning authority feels as radical as questioning gravity.
For marginalized children, this conditioning isn’t just about good manners; it’s about survival. W.E.B. Du Bois described the concept of “double consciousness,” where Black individuals navigate the world through a lens of constant self-awareness, balancing their authenticity with the expectations imposed upon them. Black kids grow up knowing that questioning authority can be risky; for queer kids, blending in becomes a means of protection. The unwritten message is chillingly simple: obedience isn’t just expected—it’s necessary for safety.
If you’ve ever watched a crime drama like Law & Order, you’ve experienced this cultural conditioning firsthand. Media does a fantastic job of framing authority figures—cops, CEOs, politicians—as noble guardians and protectors of order. Cultural theorist Stuart Hall argued that media doesn’t just reflect reality; it shapes it, reinforcing the status quo and legitimizing authority. Questioning authority? That’s often portrayed as the domain of misfits and cynics.
But for those who’ve been on the wrong side of this “heroic” authority—Black communities facing police brutality, LGBTQ+ individuals marginalized for simply existing—it doesn’t feel heroic. It feels oppressive. Media isn’t interested in telling that version of the story because it might prompt us to question why we’re so quick to obey.
“Why Does Everything Feel Off?” explores how media reinforces authority, making resistance feel radical and isolating.
Then there’s religion, perhaps the oldest trick in authority’s book. Passages like Romans 13:1—“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities”—carry an implicit command: don’t ask questions. Foucault discussed how institutions like religion can exert control by defining what is considered normal or deviant. In this framework, questioning authority isn’t just frowned upon; it’s seen as sacrilegious.
Who benefits from this interpretation? Certainly not the marginalized, who are often told to bear injustice as a sign of faith. The alignment between faith and authority makes obedience not only expected but righteous, adding another layer of control.
The Workplace: Authority’s Advanced Course
As we age, the workplace steps in as an advanced level in this game of compliance. Here, “loyalty” becomes a virtue—loyalty to the brand, the mission, the unspoken rules. Max Weber noted how bureaucracies enforce authority through hierarchical structures and rules that demand conformity. Don’t ask why things are done the way they are. Don’t be a “bad fit.” Just stay quiet and keep the machine running.
For marginalized workers, conformity isn’t a suggestion; it’s survival. Speak out and risk being labeled “difficult.” Blend in, and maybe you’ll get by unscathed. All this time, loyalty and respect are just code for silent obedience.
Social Media Algorithms: The New Gatekeepers
Social media—the supposed haven of self-expression—is its own kind of authority. Algorithms are the new gatekeepers, feeding us mainstream, popular takes while pushing dissent to the fringes. Safiya Noble’s work on algorithms of oppression highlights how platforms prioritize content that reinforces existing biases and power structures.
If you’re scrolling through Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, you’re not exactly stumbling upon radical ideas; you’re getting a spoon-fed diet of what’s already approved and adored. Dissenting voices don’t fit the formula, so they’re buried. The platform gives us a comfortable, curated reality and calls it free speech. But real freedom isn’t in following the algorithm’s lead; it’s in actively seeking perspectives that don’t make the popular cut.
The Myths That Justify Authority
Underlying these authority structures are myths designed to keep us compliant. Here are three of the most pervasive:
Meritocracy: The idea that “anyone can make it if they work hard enough” is a comforting lie that overlooks systemic inequalities. Sociologist Michael Young, who actually coined the term “meritocracy” as satire, noted how it disguises inequality as personal failure rather than a structural issue. This myth keeps us from questioning barriers like racism, classism, and discrimination, subtly absolving authority from responsibility to create a more equitable society.
Justice as Punishment: We’re taught to equate justice with retribution, reinforcing a system that prizes punishment over rehabilitation. This punitive mindset feeds mass incarceration, particularly for marginalized communities, and leaves little room for restorative justice or healing. Authority uses this myth to control communities through fear, punishing those who fall out of line.
Economic Growth as Progress: The idea that rising GDP equals a better life for everyone is a myth that masks inequality and environmental ruin. It distracts us with promises of prosperity while we ignore who actually benefits. This myth makes inequality seem acceptable, even desirable. The impact of prioritizing growth over genuine well-being is examined in “The Right to Provide Care”, critiquing how profit-driven systems exploit these narratives.
These myths aren’t just stories; they’re tools crafted to make injustice seem normal, even inevitable. Recognizing them for what they are is like finally seeing through a rigged game—you realize you’re not losing because you’re not good enough; you’re losing because the rules were designed to keep you out.
Selective Defiance: Choosing When to Respect Authority
So, what do we do with this knowledge? Dump authority? Not exactly. That’s too simplistic. The real rebellion is in selective respect—choosing when to follow the rules and when to question them. Jacques Rancière’s concept of “disagreement” suggests that questioning authority is not only a right but an essential democratic practice.
Automatic respect is authority’s greatest weapon, but when respect becomes conditional, authority loses its stranglehold. It’s not about tearing down every institution; it’s about refusing to give blind respect to any of them. Imagine a world where questioning authority isn’t seen as chaos but as critical thinking. Authority loves to tell us that questioning leads to disorder, but maybe they’re just scared we’ll see the cracks in the system.
This isn’t a call for overnight anarchy; it’s a call for awareness. Authority depends on our silent compliance, but awareness gives us choices, and choices give us power.
Reclaiming Power: Authority as a Choice
In this envisioned world, authority isn’t a command; it’s an option. Respect isn’t something you owe; it’s something they have to earn. Imagine if every authority figure—every leader, every law, every system—had to prove itself worthy of respect. That’s not rebellion; that’s balance. Authority as a demand is exhausting; authority as a choice? Now that’s a power shift.
We’re not here to smash the system—just to ask one simple question: Why should I respect you? And maybe that’s the real freedom—not chaos, not rebellion, just finally, blissfully saying “no” to what has always been an automatic yes.