Agree. In fact, hasn't history taught us that trying to get rid of a heirarchy more often creates a much worse heirarchy? A regulated heirarchical structure is perhaps better than the alternatives.

What we are seeing in many Western nations in recent years is a move away from a heirarchy that was slightly tending towards the benevolent in the direction of a heirarchy one that is strongly tending towards the exploitative."Market Fundamentalism" has a lot to do with that trend.

I think we need to regulate, not regiment, greed, environmental impact, and access to education and health.

It is not a question of either/or.  Civil societies are about balancing the role of both the state and the market relative to that of citizens.  Peope who demand no governmental interference and those who expect governement to do everything (welfare class) are opting out of an intelligent discussion of what balance is most civil.  In the US the constitution was formed with such checks and balances.  They need to be rechecked and rebalanced.

I personally feel that regulating against ear marks and lobbiests would be a good start, although it feels like a pretty remote possibility right now.

There is no benevolent hierarchy. Hierarchy is control. It is violence and coercion. It is ownership over another human being, to greater or lesser extent. Hierarchies *can* do nice things occasionally, but those nice things could also be done by a nonhierarchical system.

We aren't naturally wired for hierarchy just because some species have hierarchies. Other species have nonhierarchical societies (for example, bonobos). Some humans have nonhierarchical societies. Humans tend towards a resentment of hierarchy. Don't these make just as convincing statements that we are hardwired to reject hierarchy, as an observation about wolves? Just because something is found in other species doesn't mean it's the only method of organization, or the only one found in other species.

This post was last modified: 11-29-2010 07:24 PM by EDoyle.

That's pretty much what I was thinking as well.  

I agree that blindly making inferences about one species based on the self-organization of another species is a mistake.  

I was thinking of the behavior of middle-school and high-school students, in particular.  The tendency to form cliques and pecking orders, for instance.

We may indeed tend toward resentment of hierarchy, but we (people in general) also seem to tend toward self-identification within group strata and social dominance games once a hierarchy is in place.

Would you say that that tendency is all based on conditioning?

Absolutely.

Perhaps we should hire lobbyists to lobby for restrictions on lobbyists.

That's certainly been my understanding of the way it's worked out so far.

We seem to have some deeply embedded patterns of self-organization, and they rarely shake out into a system that strives for "common good".

Good call.  I'll earmark some funds for that project immediately.

I see exactly what you mean.

Absolute equality of outcomes is not desirable. There needs to be incentive for people to work harder, study harder, achieve more. And that incentive is a combination of prestige/respect and cold hard ca$h.

Gross inequality of outcomes based on social class or personality type are not desirable. Where economic growth benefits only a few, this is a gross inequality of outcome (see stats quoted above by awiddershinlife). Where someone works 40 hours a week in a wealthy country but is still living in poverty, this is a gross inequality of outcome. Where someone who is prepared to work but cannot find a job in a wealthy country, and is reduced to begging or living on the streets as a result, that is a gross inequality of outcome. When someone who works 40 hours a week in a wealthy country cannot afford to take their family on a simple vacation, that is a gross inequality of outcome.

But, for all those unofficial hierarchies, which form in the context of an already hierarchical society, I can name nonhierarchical spontaneous structures of my own, including many high school cliques that function without hierarchies. So to claim that we are bound to it by nature is still false. We have a choice whether or not we want to live in hierarchies. Admitting that we can do without hierarchies, or that hierarchies aren't predestined for us, however, is a jarring and frightening act, because it demands that the person admitting it take action against hierarchies.

What examples are you thinking of?  I'm honestly curious, not just being argumentative.

To clarify, I'm not saying that we are inherently incapable of operating outside of hierarchies by nature, only that in my experience we tend to organize that way.  I can't think of any examples from my experience that represent a truly non-hierarchical human enterprise...that certainly doesn't mean that I would dismiss the possibility out of hand.

I can see how an individual can "hermit out" of the existing hierarchies, but I have great difficulty imagining any group of people forming a truly non-hierarchical group.  You mentioned earlier in the thread that you were aware of non-hierarchical human societies...can you cite an example that I can research further?  The possibility is intriguing.

You honestly lost me on this.  If one accepts that hierarchies are not the only way to organize human endeavor, what's the logical chain that requires one to subsequently attempt to dismantle said hierarchies?

I'm not sure it's possible to regulate greed.  Wouldn't that be like trying to regulate personal ambition?

As for awareness of environmental impact, I agree without reservation that it needs to become a significantly more important part of human culture and decision making processes.  I don't hold out much hope for that though.  We're notoriously poor at thinking outside the box of human experience, and very prone to the "out of sight, out of mind" paradigm.

Similarly, at least in the U.S., our education system is a wreck.  It seems like we're just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic these days.

On health care, I don't see how we can get from here to there.  Opportunity of outcome is clearly (to me) a pipe dream on this front.  There are just too many people, and too many vested interests.

I'm a pessimist by nature though, so I hope I'm wrong.

Any thoughts on how to push back against, or side step, said market fundamentalism?

I'm a pessimist by nature though, so I hope I'm wrong.

I am an optimist, and I fear you are right

Nonhierarchical human societies include Anarchist Catalonia and Aragon, tribal societies such as the Lepchas, Siriono, and others (though not all tribes are nonhierarchical), communes such as the Kibbutzim, and the Zapatistas. In addition, nonhierarchical organization is often used in day-to-day society, even if the larger part of society remains hierarchical. The radical democratic federalism of left-anarchism is in fact now one of the primary organizational structures of effective social movements, especially 'grassroots' ones. Switzerland, while not a nonhierarchical society, is one that demonstrates many of the promises of a federated, extremely grassroots style of organization through its nearly-direct-democracy political system.

I say that the knowledge that non-hierarchy is possible demands action because I find it hard to believe that any person, knowing that they could live in a nonhierarchical society, would choose instead a hierarchical one (unless they were on top). It's like saying you have the choice of getting your face punched once a day or not getting your face punched once a day. The knowledge that you can avoid face-punching without unintended groin-kicking demands, from most people, that you refuse to be punched in the face.