.... is the key to his misunderstanding of supposed hierarchy within the realm of parent/child relationships. Take a look at point two of his definition: 2. The use of control must be directed, that is to say, from one specific person or group of people- the superiors- to another specific person or group of people- the inferiors.

To assume that one member of the parent/child relationship is always in the role of superior while the other is always the inferior is the weakest thread in Tremblay's line of thought.

When a baby cries because she's hungry, wet or tired, that action typically elicits a response from one, or both, parents. Is the baby directing her distress specifically to control the parent? Or when a child dashes out into the street in chase of a ball, is he consciously directing his rash behavior toward his parent to produce a reaction? How about when a parent places a plate of food in front of her child--- is she willfully doing this because she wants to entice a specific course from the child? What kind of superior behavior does a parent reading a book to a child conjure up? Why would the child be considered inferior just because he's being read to? As the child learns to read and reads a book to the parent, wouldn't that turn the tables and make the parent inferior, per Tremblay's definition?

In a parent/child relationship, a typical day consists of continual flip-flopping of action and response. Tremblay is putting forth an assumption that one entity in this particular party is superior to the other i.e. that the parent is lording superiority over the child. However, the reality is there's give and take, cause and effect, with the result being that one entity responds to the directive of the other on an ever changing plane. Because Tremblay calls out the parent as forever superior and the child forever inferior, as cast by his own definition, he's showing his own personal bias. This bias, in turn, reveals the inherent flaw in illustrating his definition of hierarchy with the parent/child relationship. And, if his illustrations do not fit well with the definition laid forth, could it also be that Tremblay's perceptions that led to his definition of hierarchy are not logical?