Left and right are misleading terms that originate from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. Roughly speaking, left and right can be distinguished by the fact that those on the right approve of social hierarchies and want to maintain them, while those on the left want to abolish them. A supposed middle position would be “only some hierarchies are good.” But that is also just a right-wing position.
That is why there is no “middle ground” in anarchism. Either you want a system in which everyone benefits equally, or one with a clear capitalist hierarchy. Either everyone has one vote, or the weight of the vote depends on wealth. Either we consider the freedom of all to be important, or only that of those who have enough capital. Either no one is dominated, or only those who have to sell their labor.
There is only either/or here. Those who do not consider all people to be of equal value consider some to be more valuable. This is not a spectrum; rather, the difference lies in very fundamental normative decisions.
Some groups are hierarchical and others are not. My group of friends, for example, is not hierarchical. My partnership is not hierarchical either. So human social groups cannot be described as inherently hierarchical. Perhaps it is necessary to entrust people with tasks. But temporary, democratic delegation of responsibility is something different from social hierarchy. For example in cooperatives there is usually an elected chairperson. Nevertheless, most cooperatives are not hierarchical.
This applies to economic hierarchies such as those between the working class and the owner class, but also to social hierarchies, for example through patriarchy, racism, and other forms of discrimination. If you believe that hierarchy between people is natural and therefore worth stabilizing, for example, that men should call the shots in relationships and in society, or that it is right for the majority of society to work, while a small minority does not work but becomes rich from the labor of the majority, you are advocating a right-wing view of society.
What mammal doesn’t try to establish a hierarchy? We have over 300,000 years of neural programming to seek social status because it increases the odds of reproducing. I am questioning if completely eliminating all hierarchies is even possible.
Discussions about human nature are always fruitless, as humans cannot exist in a natural state. They are always culturally integrated and completely shaped by their culture. Hannah Arendt once said, “Anyone who says ‘human nature’ is lying.”
“Every fool,” as Emma Goldman put it, “from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?”
Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism “stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” For ”freedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.” (Red Emma Speaks p. 73)
I am just saying I don’t know if eliminating all hierarchies is possible while humans are wired to seek social status. What mammal doesn’t use dominance to defend resources and territory? I agree that most hierarchies should be abolished but I am questioning if this is even possible in the real world.
There’s a natural tendency towards heirarchies, but “natural” doesn’t mean “necessary” and it definitely doesn’t mean “desirable”. To create and maintain a better world takes work, and part of that is dismantling “natural”, but harmful, heirarchies (eg. the physically strong dominating the physically weak).
This is surely how they argued in the Middle Ages when it came to justifying the different estates.
I don’t believe that hierarchies are something inherently human. You don’t seek out hierarchies in your normal environment. Very few people do. And those who do are usually not very popular. You don’t want to subordinate yourself or dominate others. We are all only human, after all. It’s just that we live in a society that is hierarchical, and therefore it seems normal to us. In fact, however, this order can and is only maintained through violence. That cannot be natural.
This has nothing to do with hierarchy. Someone who is extremely intelligent and educated gains a lot of social status. But that has nothing to do with hierarchies. At least not necessarily. For example, I don’t think anyone feels subordinate to Eminem just because he has a lot of social status.
You think too high of Eminem fans, or fans in general. A system that ignores the instinct of humans to follow or lead is doomed to fail without permanent, pervasive, and relentless (re)education. Call it aculturization if you want, but that is dangerously close to fascism.
An ideal education system would teach citizens to recognize these instincts as pernicious and illegal, just as the instinct to, for example, grope an attractive person. From time to time, someone will surely rediscover hierarchies, and that will be a test of resiliency for the New System.
Left and right are misleading terms that originate from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. Roughly speaking, left and right can be distinguished by the fact that those on the right approve of social hierarchies and want to maintain them, while those on the left want to abolish them. A supposed middle position would be “only some hierarchies are good.” But that is also just a right-wing position.
That is why there is no “middle ground” in anarchism. Either you want a system in which everyone benefits equally, or one with a clear capitalist hierarchy. Either everyone has one vote, or the weight of the vote depends on wealth. Either we consider the freedom of all to be important, or only that of those who have enough capital. Either no one is dominated, or only those who have to sell their labor.
There is only either/or here. Those who do not consider all people to be of equal value consider some to be more valuable. This is not a spectrum; rather, the difference lies in very fundamental normative decisions.
Are human social groups inherantly hierarchical?
Some groups are hierarchical and others are not. My group of friends, for example, is not hierarchical. My partnership is not hierarchical either. So human social groups cannot be described as inherently hierarchical. Perhaps it is necessary to entrust people with tasks. But temporary, democratic delegation of responsibility is something different from social hierarchy. For example in cooperatives there is usually an elected chairperson. Nevertheless, most cooperatives are not hierarchical.
This applies to economic hierarchies such as those between the working class and the owner class, but also to social hierarchies, for example through patriarchy, racism, and other forms of discrimination. If you believe that hierarchy between people is natural and therefore worth stabilizing, for example, that men should call the shots in relationships and in society, or that it is right for the majority of society to work, while a small minority does not work but becomes rich from the labor of the majority, you are advocating a right-wing view of society.
What mammal doesn’t try to establish a hierarchy? We have over 300,000 years of neural programming to seek social status because it increases the odds of reproducing. I am questioning if completely eliminating all hierarchies is even possible.
Discussions about human nature are always fruitless, as humans cannot exist in a natural state. They are always culturally integrated and completely shaped by their culture. Hannah Arendt once said, “Anyone who says ‘human nature’ is lying.”
“Every fool,” as Emma Goldman put it, “from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?”
Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism “stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” For ”freedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.” (Red Emma Speaks p. 73)
I am just saying I don’t know if eliminating all hierarchies is possible while humans are wired to seek social status. What mammal doesn’t use dominance to defend resources and territory? I agree that most hierarchies should be abolished but I am questioning if this is even possible in the real world.
There’s a natural tendency towards heirarchies, but “natural” doesn’t mean “necessary” and it definitely doesn’t mean “desirable”. To create and maintain a better world takes work, and part of that is dismantling “natural”, but harmful, heirarchies (eg. the physically strong dominating the physically weak).
If humans are hardwired to create heirarchies and seek status would a complete lack of heirarchy be possible on a large scale?
This is surely how they argued in the Middle Ages when it came to justifying the different estates.
I don’t believe that hierarchies are something inherently human. You don’t seek out hierarchies in your normal environment. Very few people do. And those who do are usually not very popular. You don’t want to subordinate yourself or dominate others. We are all only human, after all. It’s just that we live in a society that is hierarchical, and therefore it seems normal to us. In fact, however, this order can and is only maintained through violence. That cannot be natural.
So are you saying humans don’t seek social status?
This has nothing to do with hierarchy. Someone who is extremely intelligent and educated gains a lot of social status. But that has nothing to do with hierarchies. At least not necessarily. For example, I don’t think anyone feels subordinate to Eminem just because he has a lot of social status.
You think too high of Eminem fans, or fans in general. A system that ignores the instinct of humans to follow or lead is doomed to fail without permanent, pervasive, and relentless (re)education. Call it aculturization if you want, but that is dangerously close to fascism.
An ideal education system would teach citizens to recognize these instincts as pernicious and illegal, just as the instinct to, for example, grope an attractive person. From time to time, someone will surely rediscover hierarchies, and that will be a test of resiliency for the New System.
There is no such instinct.
Social media is built on social status and comparison.
Some heirarchies (my personal opinion now) are both natural and desirable: parent and child, teacher and student.
Many are harmful, and should be removed, no matter how “natural”.
I wouldn’t say “hardwired to create heirarchies” so much as there’s a tendency, in any case.
Wouldn’t we just create another hierarchy in it’s place? Have fun playing wack a mole.
It won’t be fun. It will be work. I was saying that from the beginning. It’s a task without end, but still worthwhile.