I've wanted to start this thread for a while, but haven't had much time to put it together. I've spent a little time on it here and there to try and get something hopefully worthwhile started, and if anyone else wants to talk about it I'm going to try to stay involved. I'll admit to a non-scholarly perspective on this topic, and a probable naïveté. Please feel free to right me if I’m listing. I’m finding it’s hard to not go off on tangents and get caught out in the weeds. I’m sorry if this ends up seeming disjointed or redundant, but I'd love to hear others opinions on this.
A fundamental part of most human interactions, it seems, is that the people involved adhere to some kind of hierarchy. Hierarchies give underlying structure to most social interactions, and are fundamental to functional operations of nearly all businesses, governments, and organizations— in that there is a chain of command to adhere to and ultimately one person (or small voting group, whatever) at the top to make the final decisions and set the course for those below. But beyond the functionality of these types of structures, beyond the utility within them, what interests me even more is what apparently originates them; within nearly all personal human interactions there is hierarchy. It can be either explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious, it seems. I assume that the functional hierarchies of groups and governments arise from this seemingly entrenched human need for hierarchies. But, is this need truly inherent? It may be that, as we are social animals, there is a need for social structure. I assume this is something that is ingrained into our brain structure, a search for the social structure in any situation. But structure isn't exclusively hierarchical (is it? More systematic, probably). Is our structure exclusively hierarchical?
I really don’t know how much people in general are aware of their participation in hierarchies, or reflect on it with any semblance of objectivity; it seems as though most people don't. Personally, I try to think about it, but no doubt I unreflectively participate at times. The thing is, in the abstract, I really don’t like hierarchies. I mean, while I may have my own judgments about people and their value (value, another broad abstract concept that can be arbitrary and individual, and is probably at the root of this issue), I don’t want to believe that my judgment is the only worthwhile one. Why am I better than anyone else, or they better than me? If that judgment is shared by enough people, does that create a hierarchy? There is no final arbiter of worth, and often the attributes that generally make some people higher in the social structure are, to me, repellent. I make my own judgments about people and deal accordingly, but those attributes I value may be repellent to others. And no doubt my judgements are colored by perceptions of others' judgements.
A running joke my spouse and I make is to talk about people acting “monkey style”, which we may use when noticing what we think of as people behaving hierarchically in a destructive way. Something you see constantly in life is people being cruel to weaker people, or taking advantage of weakness. If someone is perceived as less intelligent or weaker in some way, those weaknesses are pointed out or exploited to enforce hierarchy. Many people are constantly looking at all situations as an opportunity to jockey for position. “Monkey” because people are acting in the basest manner of many social animals (and also because the word monkey is still funny). But this is probably being hierarchical in thinking that somehow we are “above” that.
Something I am interested in is how necessary are hierarchies? Are they crucial to functional interaction? Are there any real alternatives to hierarchies, or are they too integrated into our makeup? Is true egalitarianism a fantasy? I suppose even if something different is possible, it's similar to the US infrastructure; being totally dependent on petrochemicals and cars, we're so deep into it, there's no way it's going to stop without something cataclysmic happening. Can (or should) we function without them?
One problem is that hierarchies can be individualistic, that is, you may place people in your head in a hierarchy that is different than the person next to you, or across the world from you. Your hierarchies may be based on real or perceived differences in social position, sex, class, color, neighborhood, country, whatever.
I think that individual or shared hierarchies ultimately create all prejudice. How can it be otherwise? Prejudice is the belief of people somehow being less than you, through your interpretation of differences. Hierarchies are inherently unequal power structures- sexism, racism, and other prejudices appear to be attempts at imposed hierarchies that too often succeed.
Here are some internal links I dug up that seem related:
hierarchy and negativity
schisms in the isms
Internet Power Dynamics
No star here laces says:
Hierarchy.
This is such a loaded word. We use it to imply dominance and unfairness.
But hierarchy, in the sense of coherent organisation, division of tasks and the adoption of goal-oriented activities is exactly what the activist movement needs to better acheive its goals.
Zippy's reference to the article “tyranny of structurelessness”
Most of what I've found in looking for references to this speaks of hierarchies as simple fact, already accepted. Which, I suppose, makes sense.
Wikipedia entry on hierarchy.
Dominance hierarchy
social hierarchy
chapter from reducing prejudice and discrimination:
chapter from "Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression" discussing social dominance theory
from the above page: In an individual-based social hierarchy, individuals might enjoy great power, prestige, or wealth by virtue of their own highly-valued individual characteristics, such as great athletic or leadership ability, high intelligence, or artistic, political, or scientific talent or achievement. Group-based social hierarchy, on the other hand, refers to that social power, prestige, or privilege that an individual possesses by virtue of his or her ascribed membership in a particular socially constructed group such as a race, religion, clan, tribe, lineage, linguistic/ethnic group, or social class. and of course goes on to say that they are not completely independent of each other. In a group like Barbelith, where race/class/tribe affiliations are ostensibly eschewed, the dynamic will naturally tend toward what is called here "individual-based social hierarchy", where by dint of ones written words, prolificness, and style of interaction, one is appraised or placed within the hierarchy. This is understandable, that people become admired, reviled, or in between, and treated accordingly. But like I mentioned before, these hierarchies are often perceived differently between people, though many elements will be shared. In a theoretical scenario, one person may think that a particular poster is an intimidating intellect, while another might think that this poster is a tedious blowhard. In reality here, some are pretty much universally respected, though opinions of their personality can vary widely. So people think differently about different people, and may think more of some people than others. Is that, fundamentally, the origin of hierarchies? Or is that the only the nature of interaction? Can you put people you know in your own hierarchy without believing that it is invariably right, that it should be shared, that everyone should share the same hierarchies? While there is often a time and a place for deference, respect, appreciation, or even their opposites, must it always end up in reinforcing hierarchies?
While this post may be exhausting, it’s certainly not exhaustive. I realize I'm asking alot of questions here, because I don't have the answers. As I said before, I really do want to hear other opinions, if anyone feels like discussing this. |
