Good analysis of the dynamic the original quote is discussing. The authority figure is expecting ‘respect appropriate to their station’ and will give in return ‘respect appropriate to the other’s station’.
The non-authority expects to be able to reject the authority’s framework of respect and unilaterally decide on a new one.
The authority, quite naturually, does not take the lower status individual as their authority figure on the meta respect structure.
Unless the meta respect structure of multiple disconnected layers is imposed societally by high status decouplers (as most people are not much for decoupling, and decoupling is probably bad for your status a lot of the time), the authority figure is correct and the low status individual is wrong. Status is mostly bundled, respectful behaviour follows status and is mostly bundled, and demanding a higher status individual lower themselves to their status behaviourally by accepting the low status individual as an authority (or higher status) conceptually is highly disrespectful of not only the hierarchy but the individual as well
The non-authority expects to be able to reject the authority’s framework of respect and unilaterally decide on a new one.
The word “unilaterally” is tendentious here. How else can it be but “unilaterally”? It’s unilateral in either direction! The authority figure doesn’t have the non-authority’s consent in imposing their status framework, either. Both sides reject the other side’s implied status framework. The situation is fully symmetric.
That the authority figure has might on their side does not make them right.
You can call this “might” but in fact it’s attempting to change the default context (according to society) to lower the other person’s position.
The norm that one should not do anything that threatens the social status of those with high social status is, of course, highly beneficial to those with high social status, which gives them an incentive to promulgate said norm; and, having high social status, they have the ability to do just that. This fully suffices to explain why the norm exists.
The norm is you should give each person the treatment they deserve based on the social norms. A high status person treating a lower status person with less respect than is appropriate is exactly the same, except they can often get away with it due to might makes right.
Similarly, stealing from rich people is pretty similar to stealing from poor people, and the fact that rich people will be protected from thieves -with violence if necessary—is a feature not a bug.
That thieves don’t respect property rights does not make the rich protecting themselves with armed guards “might makes right”.
Good analysis of the dynamic the original quote is discussing. The authority figure is expecting ‘respect appropriate to their station’ and will give in return ‘respect appropriate to the other’s station’.
The non-authority expects to be able to reject the authority’s framework of respect and unilaterally decide on a new one.
The authority, quite naturually, does not take the lower status individual as their authority figure on the meta respect structure.
Unless the meta respect structure of multiple disconnected layers is imposed societally by high status decouplers (as most people are not much for decoupling, and decoupling is probably bad for your status a lot of the time), the authority figure is correct and the low status individual is wrong. Status is mostly bundled, respectful behaviour follows status and is mostly bundled, and demanding a higher status individual lower themselves to their status behaviourally by accepting the low status individual as an authority (or higher status) conceptually is highly disrespectful of not only the hierarchy but the individual as well
The word “unilaterally” is tendentious here. How else can it be but “unilaterally”? It’s unilateral in either direction! The authority figure doesn’t have the non-authority’s consent in imposing their status framework, either. Both sides reject the other side’s implied status framework. The situation is fully symmetric.
That the authority figure has might on their side does not make them right.
Higher status individual is socially decided, communication doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
If you wish to not treat them as higher status that’s leaving the social default.
You can call this “might” but in fact it’s attempting to change the default context (according to society) to lower the other person’s position.
The norm that one should not do anything that threatens the social status of those with high social status is, of course, highly beneficial to those with high social status, which gives them an incentive to promulgate said norm; and, having high social status, they have the ability to do just that. This fully suffices to explain why the norm exists.
That is pure, unadulterated “might makes right”.
The norm is you should give each person the treatment they deserve based on the social norms. A high status person treating a lower status person with less respect than is appropriate is exactly the same, except they can often get away with it due to might makes right.
Similarly, stealing from rich people is pretty similar to stealing from poor people, and the fact that rich people will be protected from thieves -with violence if necessary—is a feature not a bug.
That thieves don’t respect property rights does not make the rich protecting themselves with armed guards “might makes right”.