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.
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.
What does the social behavior of mandrills have to do with that of humans? There is a reason why zoology and sociology are two very different fields of study. If I want to know something about humans, I have to look at humans and not draw conclusions about humans from non-humans. People who equate the two are, at best, essentialist in their reasoning and, at worst, social darwinists. In any case, it contradicts empirical evidence, which speaks much more in favor of contingency as a fundamental social principle. If I want to derive a biological statement from this, then at best it is that humans seem to be adaptable.
I stand by it: most people neither want to be dominated nor dominate others. Such things are a result of circumstances such as the scarcity of resources or the ideologies that are hegemonic in a society. As evidence, I refer to the countless human communities that have no hierarchy whatsoever and would not function with one.
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 hierarchies and seek status would a complete lack of hierarchy 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?
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.
If you’re going to argue, please don’t make people look up basic stuff, it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy
What does the social behavior of mandrills have to do with that of humans? There is a reason why zoology and sociology are two very different fields of study. If I want to know something about humans, I have to look at humans and not draw conclusions about humans from non-humans. People who equate the two are, at best, essentialist in their reasoning and, at worst, social darwinists. In any case, it contradicts empirical evidence, which speaks much more in favor of contingency as a fundamental social principle. If I want to derive a biological statement from this, then at best it is that humans seem to be adaptable.
I stand by it: most people neither want to be dominated nor dominate others. Such things are a result of circumstances such as the scarcity of resources or the ideologies that are hegemonic in a society. As evidence, I refer to the countless human communities that have no hierarchy whatsoever and would not function with one.
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.
There are a lot of hierarchies that are undesireable.