3 ms·

> hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force by force of whom? Gods? Aliens? or was it by the humans

> hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force by force of whom? Gods? Aliens? or was it by the humans within that society? this hypothesis has naturalistic fallacy written all over it.

krapp 5y ago
I assume by force they mean coercion by other humans with a greater capacity for violence or control over resources, although the obvious contrary example would be the natural hierarchy of families, of which tribal and clan societies were an extension. Knowledge and skill also tend to create hierarchies without necessarily requiring coercion, depending on how valuable that is in a specific society, although consolidating that power probably does require coercion, at least by keeping knowledge secret.
- culi 5y ago
  This is a bit of a tangent to your comment, but I still kinda wanted to point it out. In chimpanzee cultures, the "alpha males" are rarely the strongest or most violent ones. It's usually the most charismatic chimps that get along with the most other members of the group and have their support. Usually the approval of the elders plays a big role. In some of the Northeast woodland cultures talked about in the book they had similar leadership models based on charisma. Charisma here doesn't really mean just having a way with words (though it does also mean that). It means being able to understand the needs of all the members and having their approval Whether or not you wanna call this "hierarchy without coercion" is mostly a matter of semantics and what you ultimately define as "hierarchy". But I think a key difference to point out is that these positions of leadership don't really hold any permanent power. They have a lot of influence, but that influence can be taken away as easily as it's given to them
culi 5y ago
Isn't it rebelling against a naturalistic fallacy? I think the naturalistic fallacy here is the assumption that hierarchies are natural. The point being made is that hierarchies are manmade and must be enforced by people to uphold. It's NOT just a natural consequence of growth

krapp 5y ago

I assume by force they mean coercion by other humans with a greater capacity for violence or control over resources, although the obvious contrary example would be the natural hierarchy of families, of which tribal and clan societies were an extension. Knowledge and skill also tend to create hierarchies without necessarily requiring coercion, depending on how valuable that is in a specific society, although consolidating that power probably does require coercion, at least by keeping knowledge secret.

culi 5y ago
This is a bit of a tangent to your comment, but I still kinda wanted to point it out. In chimpanzee cultures, the "alpha males" are rarely the strongest or most violent ones. It's usually the most charismatic chimps that get along with the most other members of the group and have their support. Usually the approval of the elders plays a big role. In some of the Northeast woodland cultures talked about in the book they had similar leadership models based on charisma. Charisma here doesn't really mean just having a way with words (though it does also mean that). It means being able to understand the needs of all the members and having their approval Whether or not you wanna call this "hierarchy without coercion" is mostly a matter of semantics and what you ultimately define as "hierarchy". But I think a key difference to point out is that these positions of leadership don't really hold any permanent power. They have a lot of influence, but that influence can be taken away as easily as it's given to them

culi 5y ago

Isn't it rebelling against a naturalistic fallacy? I think the naturalistic fallacy here is the assumption that hierarchies are natural. The point being made is that hierarchies are manmade and must be enforced by people to uphold. It's NOT just a natural consequence of growth