"Authority is not a quality one person "has," in the sense that he has property or physical qualities. Authority refers to an interpersonal relation in which one person looks upon another as somebody superior to him"

Erich Fromm’s statement challenges the conventional notion of authority as something tangible or inherent within an individual. Unlike property owned or physical attributes possessed, authority does not reside within a person as a static quality or asset. Rather, its essence lies in the dynamic between individuals, specifically in how one person perceives another. Authority manifests through recognition and acknowledgment, a social interaction where one individual regards another as holding a superior position. It is not bestowed by nature or personal attributes alone but rather is constructed within a network of relationships and perceptions.

Fromm’s analysis highlights the psychological and social basis of authority. It depends not only on the characteristics or actions of the person considered “in authority” but crucially on the acceptance or belief of those who submit to it. This interpersonal relationship implies an element of subjectivity; authority is sustained as long as others see it as legitimate and consent to follow. The supposed superior is not inherently so, his or her status is confirmed in the mind and actions of others who validate it, typically by deference, obedience, or trust.

By distinguishing authority from qualities one simply “has,” Fromm draws attention to the constructed and potentially fragile nature of all forms of social hierarchy. If authority is always a relation, rooted in the attitudes and expectations within a group, it can change when those attitudes shift. This perspective invites scrutiny of the power structures we encounter daily, prompting us to ask why some individuals or groups are seen as authority figures, and upon what foundations this perception rests.

Ultimately, Fromm’s insight encourages a more critical engagement with authority, recognizing that it depends less on objective superiority and more on subjective recognition, making it both powerful and vulnerable to challenge or renegotiation. Authority, then, is not an unchangeable fact, but a dynamic relation subject to the ongoing consent of those involved.