Gadamer and Authority

Posted on November 20, 2008
Filed Under Philosophy, Religion |


There was an interesting discussion on authority over at LDS-Phil this week. Of course authority is a constant concept under investigation in LDS theology given that one of our main differences from other Christians is the notion of authority. Yet at the same time we sometimes get unfairly criticized for being blind followers whereas to me most people are pretty thoughtful. Sadly too many intellectual discussions (especially on blogs) are rather poor. As Nate Oman put it, “we have inane exchanges in which one side says ‘follow the brethren’ and the otherside says, ‘People like you are what led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.’”Jim Faulconer in the discussion suggested we look at Gadamer’s notion of authority. For Gadamer authority is a matter of prejudice in the more literal sense of that term. (i.e. literally pre-judging) In other words it orients the burden of proof.

It is primarily persons that have authority; but the authority of persons is ultimately based not on the subjection and abdication of reason but on an act of acknowledgment and knowledge - the knowledge, namely, that the other’s superior to oneself in judgment and insight and that for this reason his judgment takes precedence - i.e., it has priority over one’s own. This is connected with the fact that authority cannot actually be bestowed but is earned, and must be earned if someone is to lay claim to it. It rests on acknowledgment and hence on an act of reason itself which, aware of its own imitations, trusts to the better insight of others. Authority in this sense, properly understood, has nothing to do with blind obedience to commands. Indeed, authority has to do not with obedience but rather with knowledge. (Truth and Method, 281)

There is thus a burden of proof change since there is the presumption that a certain group is more likely to have knowledge. Of course this can merely highlight the tension when there is debate over whether that group really is more likely to have knowledge.

Comments

5 Responses to “Gadamer and Authority”

It seems to me that this is the perspective that ought to prevail with authority but it ignores the realities of some very real power structures. I have many authorities who have positions of power over me, that were not chosen vis-a-vis their knowledge. I suppose you could say that I in turn respect and allow power as an act of ‘acknowledgement’ because I value employment, citizenship, etc. But that’s stretch Gadamer further than I think he intends. But this ‘acknowledgement’ of authority comes not from my perception of their superior knowledge, but because they have real power in most of the ways we typically mean that. In fact some relationships based on power have an inverse relationship to knowledge I’m afraid. A recent president comes to mind.

Clark, are you sure it was LDS-Phil? The only discussion I saw this week was a discussion on contracts and covenants. I suppose it is possible that I only get some of the posts, which would mean that I simply did not receive the ones you are referring to, in which case, please just delete this post.

Whoops. It was LDS-Herm. I have my mail client put them in the same folder. My bad.

Steve, I agree it avoids the question of power relations. I suspect the question then would be do we accept authority epistemologically because of power relations? (Or rather should we) That is it seems there’s a difference in looking to authority for obedience versus knowledge. A soldier, for instance, may think his Captain is an idiot and not to be trusted but recognizes the power relationship and does what the Captain asks.

I think Gadamer is looking more at epistemology although I’d have to look up the reference to be sure.

I had just started attending church in Salt Lake. We had a member going to the MTC and we were asked to raise our hand and sustain him. I couldn’t raise my hand. I looked around to see, everyone else had raised theirs. I had doubted what I knew. I was new to the Church new to the ward and I didn’t know this brother so I reluctantly raised my hand. Not five minutes later the bishop interrupted and said his entrance to the MTC was going to be postponed for a week. As soon as he said that I knew by the spirit why he couldn’t go and just assumed I was being tested or taught.
It was fifteen years later or about three months ago I realized things in the church weren’t as I thought. I thought every one chosen magnified their callings. I thought everyone called to pray or teach did so in the spirit. I thought bishops and high priest had all of the gifts required to do the work of our Heavenly Father. I quit going to church because I could no longer exercise all these gifts any time I was called. I thought everyone had the gift of discernment and knowing a persons heart. I was embarrassed to go to church thinking everyone would know every commandment bent or fractured.
I think in a more perfect world, not a perfect but a more perfect world when we are asked as members to raise our hand in order to sustain the people who are called to new callings we do it in the spirit. We know it is the will of God. We know that the ones selecting the callings are worthy. If they are dumb as a rocks but filled with knowledge by the spirit you know they can only do what is required.
I think what I am trying to say is it starts with us. There should have been more than me to not raise their hand.

I think learning that everyone in the Church are often very flawed is important. Once you get called to a leadership position then you learn that much quicker! (grin)

With regards to sustaining I don’t think that necessarily means we agree with the person or think the person is competent. Rather to sustain is to support them as they attempt to struggle with their call. Sometimes, I’m convinced, we’re given callings to teach us. To generate a response in us. When we look at Church as a bunch of people there to serve us we’ll always end up in trouble. It’s an infirmary run by the infirmed.

Leave a Reply