3 ms·

In human groups, hierarchy is inevitable due to human nature (we're social apes). Attempts to create hierarchy-free social settings only result in creating sys

In human groups, hierarchy is inevitable due to human nature (we're social apes). Attempts to create hierarchy-free social settings only result in creating systems in which the dominant social hierarchy is implicit, unstated, officially unrecognized... and therefore impossible to regulate. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

portaouflop 3y ago
I don’t know about the hierarchy thing but humans are very different from apes.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  Humans are apes, we're members of the hominidae family along with gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    big talking apes in shoes. and much of this hierarchical BS we play is basically chimp behavior, but with cars and overdraft fees.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  We're not just apes, we're great apes!
- yabbs 3y ago
  Tell my kids that
TotalCrackpot 3y ago
You can watch this video to learn something today! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27RVFxNOcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27RVFxNOcc
- lupusreal 3y ago
  If you can't explain it with your own words, then you didn't learn anything from it. Why then should I watch it?
  - hnbad 3y ago
    Why do you think they can't explain it with their own words? What's the point of trying to write out an explanation of why a claim that has been debunked so many times is wrong when they don't know why you think it isn't or what arguments you may have heard before that you found unconvincing? What do you think justifies such an expense of energy? Or do you think any video can be condensed into one or two sentences that are sufficient to convince anyone holding opposite views that they are wrong?
dotandgtfo 3y ago
Great essay, I want to highlight a particularly relevant part from it. > Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group. This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.
vdaea 3y ago
Even in groups of friends, there obviously isn't a formal hierarchy, and still, a hierarchy always forms.
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  No it doesn't usually, usually they agree to do stuff and if they don't agree everyone goes their own way. Usually there is no command in the friend group.
  - vdaea 3y ago
    There is no leader per se, but there's always that one person who convinces everybody else to do something, and that one person who must be there every time the group meets else most members don't feel like going... etc
    - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
      This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command other people and has to convince them. Being charismatic is not bad.
      - AdrianB1 3y ago
        Hierarchies are not necessary based on coercion ("command"), leading by competence or charisma is also hierarchy.
        TotalCrackpot 3y ago
        Not for anarchists, anarchists are fine with voluntarily agreeing with an expert.
      - Ancapistani 3y ago
        > This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command I disagree, and it seems to be because we're using the term "hierarchy" differently. In my primary local friend group, the leader depends on the topic. If we're talking about the areas where I'm the (informally) recognized expert, I tend to lead the discussion. If it's someone else's area of "authority", they lead it. Either way, while no one is designated at the person who decides what we all think or what to do, the person leading that conversation tends to have a heavy influence on the outcome and is responsible for building consensus. That's a hierarchy. It's not a coercive hierarchy, but it's a hierarchy nonetheless. This distinction is important especially when speaking to someone who is opposed to anarchy as a concept. Without it, they tend to see the (usually hypothetical) structures that we propose as evidence of anarchism's flaws. They're not - they're nothing more than thought exercises. While anarchists see those as a tool to help refine their view of how a system _could_ work, non-anarchists see them as evidence of internal inconsistency.
psychoslave 3y ago
There are several very different topics here though. One is rejection of hierarchy, which is not accepting an order of society based on some sense of the sacredness (hier(o-) denotes holy/sacred). In this sense, you can reject hierarchy but still accept some social organigram. For example one where every individual holds a position based on continuously evaluated results compared to clearly defined expected outcomes and extremely fluid social mobility. It’s permitted to doubt that such a human society ever existed so far. An other topic is uncentralized/distributed social organization. They are not necessarily incompatible with behavior of social apes. But it’s probably far harder to build, as it requires a stable equilibrium of ability for each party to use brutal force to disband any particular will to reign through threats from other nodes, and diffuse education means to spread the will to refrain from such a nefarious behavior in each node. The distribution of power is rather independent of whether the society is using some hieratic characters, like brainwashing through worship of some divinity and its gospel, or stricly secular means, like fiduciary subjugation through money.
AdrianB1 3y ago
Not just in humans, hierarchy in groups is inevitable because some group members are stronger, more competent or more charismatic. Informal hierarchies exist almost everywhere when any of these factors has an influence. This is a positive factor in most situations because pure anarchy has no direction, while hierarchies, even informal, do have.
Ancapistani 3y ago
I've added the article you linked to my reading list. > Attempts to create hierarchy-free social settings only result in creating systems in which the dominant social hierarchy is implicit, unstated, officially unrecognized... and therefore impossible to regulate. I'm completely comfortable with that. A system where the hierarchy is "official" and rigid leads to all sorts of unfairness, and leaves little recourse to injured parties.

portaouflop 3y ago

I don’t know about the hierarchy thing but humans are very different from apes.

M2Ys4U 3y ago
Humans are apes, we're members of the hominidae family along with gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  big talking apes in shoes. and much of this hierarchical BS we play is basically chimp behavior, but with cars and overdraft fees.
drewcoo 3y ago
We're not just apes, we're great apes!
yabbs 3y ago
Tell my kids that

TotalCrackpot 3y ago

You can watch this video to learn something today! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27RVFxNOcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27RVFxNOcc

lupusreal 3y ago
If you can't explain it with your own words, then you didn't learn anything from it. Why then should I watch it?
- hnbad 3y ago
  Why do you think they can't explain it with their own words? What's the point of trying to write out an explanation of why a claim that has been debunked so many times is wrong when they don't know why you think it isn't or what arguments you may have heard before that you found unconvincing? What do you think justifies such an expense of energy? Or do you think any video can be condensed into one or two sentences that are sufficient to convince anyone holding opposite views that they are wrong?

dotandgtfo 3y ago

Great essay, I want to highlight a particularly relevant part from it. > Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group. This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.

vdaea 3y ago

Even in groups of friends, there obviously isn't a formal hierarchy, and still, a hierarchy always forms.

TotalCrackpot 3y ago
No it doesn't usually, usually they agree to do stuff and if they don't agree everyone goes their own way. Usually there is no command in the friend group.
- vdaea 3y ago
  There is no leader per se, but there's always that one person who convinces everybody else to do something, and that one person who must be there every time the group meets else most members don't feel like going... etc
  - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
    This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command other people and has to convince them. Being charismatic is not bad.
    - AdrianB1 3y ago
      Hierarchies are not necessary based on coercion ("command"), leading by competence or charisma is also hierarchy.
      - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
        Not for anarchists, anarchists are fine with voluntarily agreeing with an expert.
    - Ancapistani 3y ago
      > This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command I disagree, and it seems to be because we're using the term "hierarchy" differently. In my primary local friend group, the leader depends on the topic. If we're talking about the areas where I'm the (informally) recognized expert, I tend to lead the discussion. If it's someone else's area of "authority", they lead it. Either way, while no one is designated at the person who decides what we all think or what to do, the person leading that conversation tends to have a heavy influence on the outcome and is responsible for building consensus. That's a hierarchy. It's not a coercive hierarchy, but it's a hierarchy nonetheless. This distinction is important especially when speaking to someone who is opposed to anarchy as a concept. Without it, they tend to see the (usually hypothetical) structures that we propose as evidence of anarchism's flaws. They're not - they're nothing more than thought exercises. While anarchists see those as a tool to help refine their view of how a system _could_ work, non-anarchists see them as evidence of internal inconsistency.

psychoslave 3y ago

There are several very different topics here though. One is rejection of hierarchy, which is not accepting an order of society based on some sense of the sacredness (hier(o-) denotes holy/sacred). In this sense, you can reject hierarchy but still accept some social organigram. For example one where every individual holds a position based on continuously evaluated results compared to clearly defined expected outcomes and extremely fluid social mobility. It’s permitted to doubt that such a human society ever existed so far. An other topic is uncentralized/distributed social organization. They are not necessarily incompatible with behavior of social apes. But it’s probably far harder to build, as it requires a stable equilibrium of ability for each party to use brutal force to disband any particular will to reign through threats from other nodes, and diffuse education means to spread the will to refrain from such a nefarious behavior in each node. The distribution of power is rather independent of whether the society is using some hieratic characters, like brainwashing through worship of some divinity and its gospel, or stricly secular means, like fiduciary subjugation through money.

AdrianB1 3y ago

Not just in humans, hierarchy in groups is inevitable because some group members are stronger, more competent or more charismatic. Informal hierarchies exist almost everywhere when any of these factors has an influence. This is a positive factor in most situations because pure anarchy has no direction, while hierarchies, even informal, do have.

Ancapistani 3y ago

I've added the article you linked to my reading list. > Attempts to create hierarchy-free social settings only result in creating systems in which the dominant social hierarchy is implicit, unstated, officially unrecognized... and therefore impossible to regulate. I'm completely comfortable with that. A system where the hierarchy is "official" and rigid leads to all sorts of unfairness, and leaves little recourse to injured parties.