Rules, Rebels, and the Space Between

You don’t need to have read Arendt to join in, but here's the reading: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/uprising1313/files/2017/09/arendt_what-is-authority.pdf

Video review of the reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrMB2dsrN5Y

Authority: the word sounds like an antique chair — solid, a little stiff, maybe creaky. Hannah Arendt wants to know what that chair actually did, why it used to be trusted, and how we ended up sitting on a pile of IKEA parts instead. Her question isn’t the dinner-party version (“Who’s in charge?”) but the philosophical one: what kind of claim on us is authority — and what makes it different from being bullied or being charmed into agreement?

Arendt teases out three flavors of social glue. One is blunt force: rules backed by muscle and threats. Another is persuasion: people convincing each other through argument. Authority, she says, is the oddball in the middle — it asks for obedience without waving a sword or bargaining like friends over coffee. Historically, it drew legitimacy from things like founders, rituals, and shared stories — the sort of "because that's how we've always done it" that actually held communities together. But modern life, with its skepticism, speed, and appetite for reinvention, has unraveled those threads. The past has become a museum, not a handbook.

So what happens when the old fabrics wear thin? Arendt sounds a cautionary bell: if tradition stops anchoring us, the void doesn’t stay empty. It may be filled by charismatic leaders promising certainty, by ideologies that swallow nuance, or by sheer managerial rule where experts quietly decide everything. These replacements can deliver order — but at the cost of surprise, plurality, and the messy, creative freedom that makes political life interesting.

If that sounds ominous, don’t worry — Arendt isn’t asking you to resurrect a dusty throne. She’s inviting a diagnosis: we should figure out what useful functions authority once served (teaching newcomers a shared world, stabilizing expectations, preserving beginnings), and how to preserve those functions without trading liberty for obedience.

Alright — ready to test these ideas in the wild? We’ll start with simple, everyday stories about following and resisting, then use gentle thought experiments to see whether authority is friend, foe, or something in-between.
----
Arendt emphasizes that “authority” historically meant a kind of legitimacy that asks for obedience without threatening force or persuasively bargaining for agreement.

1. Who are some canonical authorities in your life or civil society at large? (teachers, parents, coaches, professionals)

• Follow-up: What made you accept or resist their guidance?

2. Some people obey because they’re forced; others because they’re convinced. Can you imagine a third, different reason people obey someone? A forth? What could make such obedience legitimate?
3. When scientists or experts say “trust us,” is that authority, persuasion, or something else? How should democratic societies treat expert claims?

• What safeguards keep expertise from becoming technocratic rule?)

4. Arendt distinguishes three kinds of rule: authoritarian (a structured hierarchy with some stability), tyrannical (one person’s will imposed by force), and totalitarian (a system where every layer dominates the one below). Which of these seems most dangerous to you — and why?
5. Arendt thinks education is the one sphere where authority makes the most sense: adults guiding children into the world. But she warns that treating adults politically like children leads to domination. Where’s the line between helpful guidance and condescension in society today?
6. Arendt links authority to the idea of founding or ancestry — that the past can authorize present rules. Do you find that plausible? Why or why not?

• What would be a healthy way to treat history when making current decisions?

7. Imagine a society with no common founding story, no shared cultural reference points. Could it still hold together politically? If yes, what would replace authority? If not, what would likely fill the vacuum?
8. Arendt worries that when tradition collapses, we fill the void with substitutes — ideology, force, even rituals that only look like tradition. Can you think of examples where a society clung to appearances instead of substance? What happened? What's the difference between healthy tradition and empty ritual?
9. How can authority be passed from generation to generation without losing credibility or legitimacy? Can you think of any examples of societies that kept healthy authority in place for generations?
10. After this conversation: how do you feel about authority? What is it, what makes it healthy or toxic, and how does society depend on it?
11. Name one practical thing a democratic society could do to preserve the helpful parts of authority while avoiding domination.