for this inequality; thus his version ofnauthority has as many potential basesnas there are grounds of human differentiation.nAge, wealth, sex and variousnforms of status (elected office, worknrole, family ties and credentials, fornexample) all form potential bases fornthose pursuing some form of dominationnover others.nOennett has a desire to display hisnown claim to authority, of course, andnthat display necessitates trotting outnanecdotes from assorted literati andnphilosophers to complement his clinicalnexamples. He uses learned writers asnvehicles of support for his own points,nand not necessarily with regard to thencontext or the particular points that thenother writers advanced. He manages tonrelate Dostoyevsky’s parable of Christ’snconfrontation with the Grand Inquisitornwithout considering the element ofnChrist’s divinity. Hegel’s “master-servant”ndialectic becomes a means ofnachieving balance through negation, althoughnSennett has not succeeded innconveying any convincing sense of whynthe dialectic should stop at any particularnbalance point. In particular, despitenhis unquestioning embrace of democracynas an “ideal,” he appears unawarenof the senses in which democracy isnmerely a means of legitimating powern(and can never be a source of authority)nand the ways in which democracy hasndifficulty accommodating true authority.nSennett persists in the academic habitnof finding current power in the few,nthat is to say, the wealthy or the great.nIn simple terms, this is a childish conceptionnof power in the modern age. Onenneed only contemplate the numerousnbases of support that must be nourishednto cultivate power in a modern societynto realize that the wealthy and powerfulnindividuals in democracies are subjectnto continuous whims of majority sentiment.nTurning on those who appear tonbe succeeding is one of the surest routesnto democratic power. Those who trulynsucceed in our society maintain theirnstatus most effectively by hiding theirnachievement from an envious public.nThe American Founders, in contrastnto the experience of all previous democracies,nbelieved that complex electoralnmechanisms could enable averagencitizens to elevate the best of their fellowsnto public office. If democracynworked this way. it would be capable ofnsecuring fundamental human rights,nand thus live down the shame undernwhich it had been cast for centuries.nThey chose a large republic becausenonly a large republic could offer the potentialnfor national strength that is annessential element of modern politics,nand because only a large republic offeredna potential control for the problemsnof majority faction that had plaguednprevious small democracies.nSennett retains a nostalgia for smallncommunities, but he appears unawarenof any dangers of majority tyranny. Henwants people to feel comfortable withnthe leaders in whom they vest powernthrough democratic processes, and henbelieves that the feeling of legitimacynwill enable us to accept that power asnauthoritative. Yet Sennett never confrontsnthe question of the ends towardnwhich majority power might be directed.nUndoubtedly he would not like a Hitlernor a Stalin, but if these tyrants provedncapable of making majorities comfortable,nSennett offers no ground to challengenthe power that majorities mightnvest in them.nTrue authority, on the other hand,nrarely makes people feel comfortable.nOne does not lose his fear of the Lord,nespecially as He becomes close and familiar,nbecause he realizes that the Almightyncan set standards that no merennnmortal can attain. He remains capablenof inflicting eternal punishment on usnfor violating His law, even if all othernmortals find that standard too exacting,nor, as we are wont to say, “antiquated.”nSimilarly, few of us feel comfortable innthe presence of those who really know ansubject, because their knowledge is alwaysncapable of exposing our ignorance.nAll of us have been acquainted with thenteacher who was so well informed thatnhe did not suffer our foolish questionsnpleasantly. The truth of that teacher’snanswers never depended upon the abilitynof average students in the class to understandnthem.nIn effect, Sennett has given us a versionnof authority stripped of any author.nIt might be vested by majority sentiment,nbut it can be no more stable thannthe sentiments of the majority supportingnit. This is the reason that, as wenmove toward a democracy responsive tonpublic-opinion polls, our leaders are unablento develop anything resemblingnstable programs. True authorities neednnot base their power on such quicksand.nAuthority requires an element that peoplencan respect, which is to say that itnmust be based upon an appeal to thenhighest human faculties, and point towardnstandards above those of merenmortals.nIn a manner fitting current fashions,nSennett attempts to derive his notion ofnauthority from the lowest common denominatornof human experience. In doingnso, he has left a void at the spiritualncenter of human existence. Around thatnhollow core, Sennett analyzes a varietynof processes to make people feel comfortable.nWhatever comfort readersnmight derive from his ideas of authoritativenrelationships will collapse once anTrue Authority asks these hollow peoplento justify their lives. One doubts thatnHe will be pleased with accounts ofnpleasures experienced in a bestial existence.nThe vacuum at the core of Sennett’sndiscussion will do people a favornonly if they become aware of the omittedncore. •nSeptember/October 1980n