Obedience and disobedience

Obedience and disobedience

Obedience refers to the performance of an action under orders provided for by an authority figure (Schulweis, 3). It is a type of social influence where somebody will act in response to a given order from another person. In this case, the person giving the order is likely to be an authority figure. For this reason, it is possible to assume that the individual would not have to act in such a manner without the order. Obedience entails a hierarchy of status or power, which means that the person issuing the order is likely to be of a higher status than the receiver is. On the other hand, disobedience refers to the refusal or the failure to heed to a given order. It is the rebellion or the disregard of an order (Schulweis, 3). Despite the likelihood that the person giving the order might be an authority figure, the individual on the receiving end will not agree to perform the order.

According to arguments by Erich Fromm, who is one of the distinguished thinkers and writers of the twentieth century, there are different types of obedience as well as disobedience. In his article from the year 1963, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” Fromm presents a discussion of his views on aspects to do with obedience and disobedience. He argues that the possible destruction of humankind can be a result of disobedience, which is a common factor that most people would not believe (Fromm, 259). In the article, Fromm presents a discussion of the initial act of disobedience, which is from the biblical story of Adam and Eve. He states that history in this context begins with the breaking of the bond between man and nature (Fromm 259). For this reason, he argues that through acts of obedience, it would be possible for the individuals to terminate human history.

The common belief among a majority of the people is the fact that disobedience is a vice. According to the norms in society, a disobedient individual is considered as a deviant since the act of disobeying is a societal vice. Fromm emphasizes on this point thereby stipulating that disobedience is not a virtue and obedience a vice. However, he takes note of the fact that in a case where there are irreconcilable principles between obeying and disobeying, it is possible to determine that an obedient act in reference to one principle is likely to be a disobedient act to another principle. The opposite view of the irreconcilable principles is also true. He provides an example in light of this argument by indicating that by obeying some of the inhuman laws that are party to the State, an individual will in actuality be disobeying the laws of humanity. Consequently, by obeying the laws of humanity, the individual will be disobeying the inhuman State laws. For this reason, he argues that an individual is a slave if he can only obey. On the other hand, an individual will be considered as a rebel if he can only disobey since his actions are influences of resentments, anger and disappointments, but not the through principle or conviction.

Fromm attaches a number of qualifications to the differentiation of the different types of obedience and disobedience, which is a factor that looks into the elimination of the confusing terms. Heteronomous obedience accorded to an institution, an individual or to a certain power is submission. This type of obedience means an individual will relinquish any form of autonomy and will accept the external will in place of the person’s own will. The other type of obedience is autonomous obedience, which is obedience to an individual’s own conviction or reason. This is not a submissive type of obedience, but it is obedience based on the person’s affirmation. Autonomous obedience is applicable in a metaphorical sense since the individual would rather follow his or her own judgment than submit to other people’s judgments. This case is different in comparison to heteronomous obedience.

There is also a possibility of determining the distinctions of obedience by looking at the concept of an individual’s conscience as well as the concept of authority. The understanding of the concept of consciousness is an expression of two distinct phenomena. On one hand, conscience can be used to depict authoritarianism, which is considered as the voice of authority that an individual might either be afraid of displeasing or might be eager to please. Most people have this conscience when they obey their own convictions. Sigmund Freud identifies the authoritarian conscience as the super-ego (Cleveland State University, 25), which is a representation of the internal commands in an individual. By embracing the principles of power internally, an individual will be in a position to obey any power or authority that comes from outside.

On the other hand, there is the humanistic conscience that is based on an individual’s intuitive awareness of what is human and what is not. From the intuitive knowledge, the individual is likely to determine what order or instruction is destructive to life and what is conducive. This conscience serves as the basis of the developing the human side of an individual. However, Fromm argues that a person might find it difficult to disobey, following personal convictions that he or she would feel safe through obedience. On the same note, he further argues that his through obedience an individual, including himself, is part of the higher power.

Coinciding with the idea of an individual’s conscience, Fromm indicates that either the rational authority or the irrational authority, which are concepts that indicates that the individual has accepted the authority figure. In the case of rational authority, the receiver can be able to obey without being submissive. Additionally, the furtherance of obedience that emanates from rational authority considers that the individual is a subject to the power or authority. In irrational authority, the subjects have no obligation but to obey the power. It is possible to describe the power behind the obedience as authoritative in nature since the authority benefits at the expense of the receiver (Fromm, 261).

On the aspect of disobedience, Fromm argues that the ability to disobey emanates from the individual’s courage that directs him or her to sin. With this consideration, he indicates that an individual would be afraid of disobedience due to the authority surrounding him or her. The fear of disobedience originates from the fact that the virtue of obedience is ingrained in the minds of individuals, and they would not want to defy any form of authority or power. This means that a person that chooses to disobey is courageous, depending on the individual’s state of development. The state of development in this case is the acquisition of the capacity to think independently, which enhances the individual’s ability to resist the influence of power. Apart from the capability of thinking independently, individuals are likely to disobey an authority figure in order to be free. The ideas of freedom as well as the courage to disobey authority are inseparable concepts since an individual will disobey an authority figure in order to gain freedom (Fromm, 4).

One way of establishing obedience in a given entity is through using force. One characteristic with this consideration is that individuals forcing submission are likely to be fewer than the receivers of the orders they might be giving are. With this consideration, it is possible to determine that the biggest disadvantage of the forceful demand for submission is that the majority of the people, who are the receivers of the orders, might be able to obtain means for overthrowing the few figures of authority forcefully. This case is mainly applicable to provisions to situations that are characteristic of irrational authority since the authority figure gives orders in order to benefit, which is usually at the expense of the receiver of the order. For this reason, Fromm suggests that obedience that is entrenched in fear should be transformed into obedience entrenched in an individual’s heart. This means that the authority or power should adopt a position that enhances an “All-good” stance, thereby becoming a pillar that regards disobedience as a sinful thing. From the adaptation, it is possible to determine that people will be willing to accept obedience since it is a good thing, and reject disobedience.

Works cited

Schulweis, Harold M. Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vt: Jewish Lights Pub, 2009. Print

Fromm, Erich. The fear of freedom. Great Britain, 1942. Print.

Fromm, Erich. “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Eds. Thomas E. Leahey and Christine Farris. New Jersey: Pearson, 2009. 258-263. Print.

Philosophy in Context. Cleveland, Ohio?: Cleveland State University, Dept. of Philosophy, 1972. Print.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Disobedience+as+a+Psychological+and+Moral+Problem+erich&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Disobedience+as+a+Psychological+and+Moral+Problem+erich+pdf&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CHUQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Frealsociology.edublogs.org%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2Ferich-fromm-the-fear-of-freedom-escape-from-freedom-29wevxr.pdf&ei=KAnqUsiENaa84ATK3oDQBA&usg=AFQjCNHMHdQR20ur9HD-fjFqIDWJTkz5vg&sig2=rZv9cOC_YMYn_OXQOlxYvw&bvm=bv.60444564,d.bGE