Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Hierarchy and negativity

12:42 / 13.09.02

What are your thoughts on hierarchy? From a zoological perspective, it would seem that our immensely complicated society is little more than a grossly distended version of the bonds formed by other great apes; gorillas, chimps, etc. Is it possible that infinite dimensions of heirarchy exist, from the 'funniest geezer down the pub' through 'the boss of the office' to 'president of the United States of America'? If so, how do these dimensions affect each other; is George W. necessarily more happy than the aforementioned 'geezer'? Who's the daddy, so to speak?

On a more quasi-pseudo-crypto-mystical level; how is our hierarchical positioning affected and effected by our own negative perceptions of others? Is negativity catching? Colin Wilson famously believes in actual 'psychic vampires', people that leach mental energy from others. I'd prefer to see Wilson's vampires as a metaphor for all those bosses, bad boy/girlfriends, unsupportive friends that we've all come across at those nasty times in life. Could hierarchies be formed by those that are simply the most negative about who they percieve to be their underlings, in a verbal version of primate violence?

16:35 / 15.09.02

I don't think we can discuss heirarchy these days without considering the notion of heterarchy as we go. The notion of a social pyrimid with the most powerful or happiest (or god, for that matter) on top is a little obsolete, and it means comparing relative 'peaks' in separate and parallel heirarchies may get a little subjective.

That aside, I think there's a strong argument towards the ordering principal in humanity. Leary and Wilson go on at length about second-circuit imprinting - what Wilson calls the "top dog, bottom dog" circuit. Somewhere mid-adolescence, we develop a hardwired response to authority, defining what we will and will not roll over for. Essentially, this slots us into some sort of order, although heirarchy may not be the best catch-all for it. It may not be uncommon for levels of submission to circle around in a paper-rock-scissors of authority, with nobody being the top dog for the entire mini-system. So maybe if we're talking levels of authority and submission, we may have to consider situational (and perhaps affective) levels as well as 'pure' social dynamics.

Or something like that.

15:39 / 17.09.02

Not entirely sure about the concept of heterarchy; seems like a wishy-washy management guru type explanation of the simple fact that within any organisation, people will have different roles/strengths (MDs need this kind of thing spelled out to them). Would be interested in any links that provided a deeper perspective.

Hierarchy would seem to be the dominant structure in human relations; as a (micro) example, take this thread. Started by a perceived newbie wanting to talk about an anthropological phenomenon that greatly affects all our lives. One answer. While, elsewhere, in the Intellectually Stimulating Head Shop, an old hand would rather talk about sushi and naked women in a rather lascivious and mundane fashion, and the flock swarms along.

22:15 / 19.09.02

I've always seen heterarchy used in the context of systems theory (let me dig up some references). I find it easier to use than heirarchy, since it doesn't have the same power/dominance connotations. That's not to say power is nonexistant in human interactions, just that it's not omnipresent. Egalitarian relations are also relevant (unless you're solely into the conflict theory camp, in which case don't mind me.)