Chapter 5c
The Democratic Paradox of Autonomy
Organization IS hierarchy


Those who argue for ‘direct democracy’, (as opposed to a hierarchical representative democracy), focus much of their argument on the loss of ‘autonomy’ that is inherent in any hierarchy. These arguments fail to account for the ‘democratic paradox of autonomy’.

To understand this paradox of autonomy, it is very useful to think of individual people, and organizations, using the simile of living cells, and organisms. An autonomous individual person is like a single celled creature. This simplest living ‘organism’ is itself an intricately hierarchical ‘organization’ of molecules and sub-cellular structures, but the cell itself is autonomous as it functions in its environment.

More highly developed ‘organisms’ are, (obviously), more intricately and complexly ‘organized’. In higher organisms, groups of individual cells are ‘organ’ized. They form themselves into ‘organs’ that have specific functions to perform for the greater well being of the entire organism. These organs are, in turn, ‘organized’ into an ever more complex hierarchy of functions that make up a higher organism.

A cell that lives as part of a hierarchy of functions that comprises a living organism has sacrificed its autonomy. It can no longer live as an autonomous single celled creature. In return, that cell enjoys the protection that the organism provides for it. Each cell is provided with nutrients, for example, without having to search for them. Each cell is provided various advantages that are superior to the harshness of living independently and unprotected.

This paper is a proposal to form a democratic ‘organization’. As an ‘organism’ is made up of cells, an ‘organization’ is made up of individual people. To function as an organization, individuals must be organized into a hierarchy of functions within that organization. By the very act of becoming organized, by the act of becoming a part of an organization, an individual, (like that single cell), must sacrifice some measure of autonomy to function for the greater good of the entire organization. In return, (and much like the cell does as part of an organism), the individual receives many protections and/or advantages from the organization.

The greatest degree of autonomy obviously lies in no organization at all. Lacking all organization, every individual remains an autonomous free agent. Independent of all organization, every individual is like an individual single-celled creature. Lacking organization, each individual’s autonomy is not in any way limited by, or dependent upon, the co-operational strictures on autonomy that are inherent in organization itself. Organization is inherently, a priori, (and virtually by definition), the imposition of a functional hierarchy that restricts, to some degree or another, the free autonomy of individuals.

Many will surely recognize that all this is just breaking down plain old ‘common sense’ into its logical parts. We all surely know that when you join an organization, you agree to abide by its rules, which means that you are no longer autonomously free to do as you please.

An individual cannot be ‘independent’ (autonomous), and part of an organization, (at least not in the same sphere of function), at the same time. Autonomy and organization are opposite poles. An individual can enjoy measures of autonomy in relation to specific functions within an organization, but the ultimate purpose and object of that autonomy is to benefit the purpose and goals of the organization. If a person who is granted autonomy within an organization uses that autonomy in a way that harms the organization, or even just in a way that does not benefit the organization, the organization, if it is well organized, will either re-direct that autonomy, or take it away, or even, especially in the case of it being used to do harm, expel the person from the organization. Being ‘well organized’ intrinsically requires having some ultimate means and degree of restriction of the autonomy of the individuals that make up the organization.

In undertaking this daunting task of building a truly democratic organization, and in trying to encompass this democratic paradox of autonomy, it might be helpful to consider the more basic concepts and implications of these terms.

‘Organization’ itself is obviously not ‘Democracy’. Most organizations are not democratic. Most organizations, (businesses, military units, kingdoms, dictatorships, gangs, etc), have a hierarchy of top-down (chain-of-command) authority, with a ‘boss’ at the top. Chain-of-command type organization lends itself well to many purposes, but we have agreed (we hope) that Democracy is superior for the purposes of governance. One thing that should be obvious is that although all organization is not Democracy, all Democracy most certainly is organization, and as such, it requires that individuals must sacrifice a significant measure of autonomy.

Chain-of-command organizations make no apologies, and waste no concerns, nor have any conscience at all, for taking autonomy from individuals. But democratic organizations are built on the idea of ‘power in The People’. The word democracy itself, (as mentioned previously), comes from the Greek ‘demos’, meaning ‘the people’, and ‘kratia’, meaning ‘power’ or ‘rule’. How can we provide for ‘power in The People’ by taking autonomy away from individual persons? Therein lies the democratic paradox of autonomy.

As we discussed earlier, Democracy, in its simplest sense, is a means of sharing power. In fact, if one thinks one’s way into it, Democracy is the only means of sharing power. To share power implies giving up power. When we share something, rather than possess it whole for ourselves, we are giving up a portion of what we share. When we share power, we sacrifice a measure of our autonomy by giving power to others. Democracy is an agreement by which we share power with others, and they, in turn, sacrifice their own autonomy to share power with us. In a True Democracy, the power we give to others must equal the power they give to us.

By this mutual agreement to sacrifice our individual autonomy to share power, we gain the power of ‘the whole’, which is far greater than the ‘sum of its parts’. We create a ‘group’, which is an ‘organ’ of function, i.e.: an ‘organization’. When we agree to sacrifice our autonomy to ‘organize’ ourselves into a functioning group, we do so to gain the power of the group, which is far greater than our own individual power. Thus, we must give up power to gain power. That is the crux of the paradox. We must give up a measure of our individual power, our autonomy, to gain the power provided by organizing ourselves into a group.

So Democracy inherently involves a sacrifice of individual autonomy to share power. The democratic paradox of autonomy lies in the dialectic, (and seemingly contradictory), opposition of concepts that require that even though Democracy demands a significant sacrifice of autonomy by individuals, keeping power closer to the individual, in the hands of The People, is crucial to Democracy.

This overarching concept, ‘The People’, is made up of individual persons, to be sure, but ‘The People’, when organized into a democracy, is not the same thing as all the people as individual persons. This concept of The People is much more than the sum of individual interests. It is built upon the concept of enlightened self-interest, by which individuals voluntarily conform their self-interest, and willfully sacrifice a degree of their autonomy, to the Common Good. In exchange for this sacrifice, each person receives the protections and benefits that the group can provide, which individuals acting alone cannot provide for themselves.

True ‘Democracy’ (demos-kratia) is rooted in the bedrock principle of power in (and by, and of, and for) The People. By the Democratic Paradox of Autonomy, we gain power when we give up power. We gain power when we agree to give up a portion of our individual power to become a part of the organized power of The People.

When we covet our individual power, when we refuse to sacrifice any measure of our autonomy, we are independent creatures living, like a single celled organism, in a harsh and dangerous environment. When we agree to give up power to share it with others, when we organize ourselves into a larger and more powerful organism/organization, we benefit as individuals from the power of that organization.


Previous Page..........................................Table of Contents..........................................Next Page