The Anti-Authoritarian's Dilemma

Anti-authoritarianism is a stance that rejects the top-down methods of authority. It is also an egalitarian and democratic ideological position, in the sense that it dislikes the idea of a few powerful people deciding things on their own.

I, Egusa, am also aware that I lean toward this anti-authoritarian position, partly because I dislike hierarchical structures and top-down management. However, there is a major dilemma in this anti-authoritarianism.

It is the ideological constraint that 'as long as one claims to be anti-authoritarian, one must not become an authority oneself.' It is natural for an anti-authoritarian to criticize and try to overthrow the current authority, but if they end up replacing that authority themselves, they fall into a contradiction in their position.

For example, the French Revolution was touted as an attempt to overthrow the authority of the 'monarchy' of the absolute monarchy era and aim for an egalitarian society by the people. However, it had a sad ending where the revolutionary government that emerged after overthrowing the monarchy led to a dictatorship under Robespierre. If you just replace the head of authority without dismantling the structure of authoritarianism itself, and even actively seat yourself in that position of authority, you cannot call yourself an anti-authoritarian.

In other words, if an anti-authoritarian gains enough influence to quickly change society, they have simply become a new authority themselves, and this is not a state where the ideals of anti-authoritarianism have been realized. Similarly, from a democratic, egalitarian perspective, if one becomes a charismatic influencer whose opinions everyone follows, they have gained a stronger position than others, which is neither democratic nor egalitarian.

To achieve rapid reform (revolution), one needs to have a certain amount of influence, and because one inevitably stands out, it becomes impossible to escape becoming an authority.

Of course, anti-authoritarians also want to reduce the power of authority in the world, so they certainly want to influence society. However, the way they exert that influence must not be through authoritarian behavior.

So, what conditions are necessary to avoid authoritarian behavior?

First, it is obvious that the person is required to have the humility not to act bossy.

However, even if the person themselves is humble, it is problematic if they are worshipped as an authority by those around them, so it is necessary that they do not look like an authority or an influencer at first glance. They should be a plain person who does not seem to have much influence at all.

If such a person, who is neither an authority nor an influencer, still tries to influence society, it must be a steady and slow process, like trying to change the color of a great river by adding one drop of paint at a time.

In other words, trying to change society significantly and immediately is something that should not be aimed for in anti-authoritarianism because of its ideological stance.

Ideally, it could be said that it is characteristic of anti-authoritarianism to exert influence in a way that the times finally catch up only after one's death, or even generations later. For example, figures like Christ or the Buddha could be said to have had a tremendous impact on the world as a result of taking their time over centuries or millennia after their deaths. Although, they too are ultimately worshipped in an authoritarian way in a sense, but please forgive me for using them as examples since I cannot cite anyone who is not a famous figure.
Therefore, the ultimate ideal for an anti-authoritarian is actually an unsung hero who 'has no name left in history, but was actually the first person to take the step to break down authority.'

Because of this, anti-authoritarianism is actually incompatible with hedonism, individualism, and presentism. It is difficult to connect it to attempts to change society in a hurry, such as wanting to make the present better or wanting things to be resolved while one is still alive.

A long-term perspective that involves the feeling of entrusting the future to others, such as 'I want to pass the baton of a better society to the future,' is necessary to maintain an anti-authoritarian stance.

Anti-authoritarians naturally dislike authority and want to promote anti-authoritarianism precisely because they dislike the current society where authority has a big face, but to advance those ideals without contradiction, one must accept that they will spend their entire life in this society of authoritarianism that they hate so much. This is a major dilemma for anti-authoritarians.

Unable to bear this pain, some try to stage a radical revolution as a gamble, and as a result, they become an authority or an influencer (or aim to become one). Such cases become one of the pitfalls for anti-authoritarians.

Well, it is a troublesome story, but a dilemma is a dilemma precisely because it is a troublesome story, so I think we just have to live with the trouble for now.

I think there are quite a few people who feel that 'I want to change the world, but it feels wrong to try to become powerful and influential,' so I hope this summary is of some help.

P.S.

That said, for the sake of completeness, one could argue that it is not necessarily definitive that "an anti-authoritarian must never become an authority." For example, one might claim, "I am intentionally assuming authority temporarily as a provisional measure to achieve the ideal of anti-authoritarianism."

This leads to the discussion of the so-called "dirty hands problem" in ethics, known through examples such as "Is it ethically permissible to torture a suspect to prevent a terrorist act that threatens a liberal democratic society that champions freedom and equality?" or "Is it permissible for members to gather by flying on aircraft that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases to attend a global conference on preventing global warming?"

It is the sentiment that "there are times when it is unavoidable to commit a small evil in order to achieve a greater good."

This, in itself, is a persuasive position.

However, things that are claimed to be "unavoidable temporary measures due to an emergency" often tend to become permanent, so I think the question of whether "this is just temporary authority" actually leads to the realization of anti-authoritarian ideals remains a practical problem.