3 ms·

> "Groups under a certain size (Dunbar * ?) can be managed socially with personal reputation and shame and shunning and all that." You're just trading one hier

> "Groups under a certain size (Dunbar * ?) can be managed socially with personal reputation and shame and shunning and all that." You're just trading one hierarchy for another; an official and overt hierarchy traded for an unspoken social popularity hierarchy. Like students in highschool, officially everybody is on the same footing with each other. But in reality the pecking order exists and is rigidly enforced through 'personal reputation and shame and shunning and all that.' Nasty and manipulative people often rise to the top in this sort of environment.

qgin 4y ago
Oh yeah, I'm not saying it's fun for everyone. But when people say we don't need a state because humans can naturally organize themselves, that's the organization. And it only really works up to a certain number.
1propionyl 4y ago
I'll recommend to bystanders (I assume you're already familiar with it from your comment), the seminal "Tyranny of Structurelessness", which makes this point lucidly. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  I love this essay and I've shared it with many anarchists (or "anarchists") who have dismissed it entirely without engaging in the ideas at all. I'm fairly anarchist-leaning, but I definitely see the applications for authority and hierarchy, specifically in the contexts of justice and finite resource distribution.
throwaway012299 4y ago
This comment and the replies are based on incorrect assumptions. Is this context the words "hierarchy" and "authority" are used exclusively to refer to the coercive aspect that can exist. Anarchism does not oppose social organization in itself! The whole point about "unspoken social popularity" and tyranny of of structurelessness is based on a misunderstanding.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > Is this context the words "hierarchy" and "authority" are used exclusively to refer to the coercive aspect that can exist. Anarchism does not oppose social organization in itself! I think the point is that even in the absence of explicit hierarchy, you can still have coercion in the form of shaming/shunning/etc.

qgin 4y ago

Oh yeah, I'm not saying it's fun for everyone. But when people say we don't need a state because humans can naturally organize themselves, that's the organization. And it only really works up to a certain number.

1propionyl 4y ago

I'll recommend to bystanders (I assume you're already familiar with it from your comment), the seminal "Tyranny of Structurelessness", which makes this point lucidly. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

orthecreedence 4y ago
I love this essay and I've shared it with many anarchists (or "anarchists") who have dismissed it entirely without engaging in the ideas at all. I'm fairly anarchist-leaning, but I definitely see the applications for authority and hierarchy, specifically in the contexts of justice and finite resource distribution.

throwaway012299 4y ago

This comment and the replies are based on incorrect assumptions. Is this context the words "hierarchy" and "authority" are used exclusively to refer to the coercive aspect that can exist. Anarchism does not oppose social organization in itself! The whole point about "unspoken social popularity" and tyranny of of structurelessness is based on a misunderstanding.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
> Is this context the words "hierarchy" and "authority" are used exclusively to refer to the coercive aspect that can exist. Anarchism does not oppose social organization in itself! I think the point is that even in the absence of explicit hierarchy, you can still have coercion in the form of shaming/shunning/etc.