The End of Automatic Authority
When knowledge is everywhere, expertise is no longer enough
For most of human history, expertise was valuable because information was scarce. The village doctor knew things others did not know. The blacksmith could repair and build. The lawyer, architect, engineer, and professor spent years acquiring information not easily accessible to most people…and teachers possessed knowledge unavailable to students.
As a result, authority was built on the notion of scarcity. Those who knew were entrusted to share with those who knew less. Education of any sort was costly, long, and demanded sacrifice on the part of learners, and generosity from those who knew.
Knowledge, authority, and experience thus became tightly intertwined, each reinforcing the other and shaping society’s understanding of what constituted expertise.
Today, that is no longer the case.
As any parent knows, a teenager can learn advanced mathematics online. Patients often arrive informed about diseases and treatment once understood only by specialists. An aspiring investor can learn more from a conversation with artificial intelligence than years of consultations with a financial advisor.
The relationship between expertise, information, and authority has not changed solely with the arrival of artificial intelligence, although artificial intelligence certainly accelerated the process. It began decades ago with the internet, search engines, online education, digital communication, and the gradual democratization of knowledge. Historically, institutional greed, for most professions, was defined not only as wanting more, but as fearing the loss of what made those who were knowledgeable more powerful. It continues today, as an entire generation that denies their power base is ephemeral clings to older structures, even as they are being actively replaced by a younger generation, armed with cell phones, the cloud, and the power of “compute” in their quest to drastically alter the world in virtually every professional endeavor.
More than three decades ago, futurist Alvin Toffler argued that knowledge would become the dominant source of power in modern societies. What he could not fully imagine was a world in which access to knowledge itself would become universal.
Today, knowledge is everywhere, and within reach of virtually everyone. The traditional relationship between expertise and authority must therefore be reconsidered. Increasingly, we see greater emphasis being placed upon discernment, judgement, accountability, and responsibility. For years, these qualities were bundled with those of higher learning, experience, and authority. Because they were usually found in the same individuals, we assumed that qualities and credentials were inseparable.
Now, a young professional may have access to information that dwarfs that of their colleagues’ decades older. Students can fact-check their professors in real time. Writers can consult artificial intelligence for research, analysis, and editing in ways unimaginable only a few years ago.
The relationship between knowledge and authority can no longer be viewed as automatic.
The difficulty is that we have long treated knowledge, authority, experience, and judgment as though they were inseparable. They are not. They merely happened to reside in the same individuals for much of human history.
A teacher possessed knowledge and therefore held authority. In many cases this was accompanied by respect. A physician accumulated experience and became skilled at exercising good judgment. That prompted gratitude and again, respect. A business leader occupied a position of responsibility and thus commanded influence. When used for the good of others, here too, appreciation and respect ensued.
Authority and respect often traveled together, and because they did, we frequently confused one for the other.
The democratization of knowledge is not merely transforming expertise. It is transforming the foundations upon which authority rests. For centuries, authority derived much of its legitimacy from unequal access to information. As that inequality diminishes, authority can no longer rely solely upon credentials, titles, or institutional positions. Increasingly, it must justify itself through other means.
What those “other means” may be remains unclear. Perhaps authority in the future will depend less on what a person knows than on how and when that person uses their knowledge. Perhaps it will arise from transparency and understanding, rather than from exclusivity and demonstrations of presumed power differentials. Perhaps it will reflect accountability and responsibility rather than status, and wisdom rather than credentials. Perhaps respect, once granted automatically, or demanded by existing powers from those who possessed information when information was scarce, will need to be earned through character, good judgment, and service.
This question affects teachers, parents, physicians, politicians, journalists, business leaders, scientists, and anyone who hopes to influence others. It affects anyone who recognizes how a long-standing assumption that expertise justifies authority has become increasingly unstable.
We have entered an era in which information is abundant, and expertise is increasingly accessible and verifiable. Traditional hierarchies can and will be challenged from every direction. The question, therefore, will no longer be who possesses knowledge, because knowledge is available to everyone. The more difficult question is who deserves authority, and why.
· Alvin Toffler. Powershift: Knowledge, Power, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century. Bantam Books (1991).