Okay, now that the unexpected excursion to Weirdsville is over, perhaps those of us interested in the issues that were raised in that post can consider and discuss the subject without distractions and personal attacks.
My primary reason for wanting to continue the discussion comes from Kevin Carson’s contribution to that thread. He wrote, in part:
As for whether hierarchies like those inside the corporation are evil as such, I'd have to say yes. They should not be forcibly suppressed or forbidden. And even in a free society, they might be chosen when their evils are outweighed by other evils, or by their increased efficiency benefits in some limited cases. But they're still evil as such. .... And I would argue that even voluntary hierarchy and authority should be repugnant to libertarians, for the very cultural reasons and personal values that drew them to libertarianism.
Hierarchy promotes a culture of obedience and command, of submission to authority, that cannot be compartmentalized in the workplace. A person who spends half his working hours internalizing that culture of deference in the workplace, and seeing his material security and survival as dependent on submitting to and pleasing someone else, substituting the authority figure's priorities and judgments for their own, etc., is extremely unlikely to possess the character traits required for resisting the claims of authority outside the workplace.
Before proceeding, I would like to clearly establish the definition of hierarchy to be referenced in whatever discussion follows my ramblings. It is the first one at dictionary.com: any system of persons or things ranked one above another. And I would like to ask participants to expand the focus beyond workplace hierarchies—because, if it is accurate to cast all human hierarchical structures as immoral or evil, it needs to be shown in other hierarchies.
I suppose my first question is why should voluntary hierarchies be considered necessarily wrong or evil? If a person I trust and respect has a good idea and asks me to work with him to make it come into being, how am I being aggressed against or otherwise harmed by working with him? I am using some of my life energy in a way that I want, no? As the project advances and the situation may change, we both have a responsibility to ourselves and each other to make sure we’re both satisfied with what’s going on. I’ve a friend who has a position of some authority in a small tech company; he refers to himself as the “anarchitect”, which I delightedly grokked immediately. He has ideas, and probably ideas on ways to make them happen; others work with him on implementation, which almost certainly includes refining or redefining the original idea to some degree. How is that inherently immoral?
The definition of hierarchy simply stipulates a ranking among entities. Lewlew’s excellent observations on family life clearly put the lie to the notion that rankings are static in that context. I daresay that is true of other hierarchies as well, although perhaps not to the same degree as in families. A market exists only where a buyer and a seller can come together in agreement. When many buyers compete for something, the condition is known as a “seller’s market”, for they have greater leverage. When sellers outnumber buyers, the “buyer’s market” means that each potential buyer has more power. But those power imbalances only last under those conditions, and only if deals can still be struck; otherwise the market freezes and no exchanges happen. I don’t see any reason why this couldn’t be the case in work markets as well, absent regulatory interference.
I also fail to see how it is necessarily the case that “Hierarchy promotes a culture of obedience and command, of submission to authority ...”, as Carson stated. Certainly involuntary hierarchies can do this, and one must be on guard that a voluntary hierarchy does not degenerate into an authoritarian one, but that burden is upon the participants, not the structure itself. My children are not slaves or minions to be commanded; and they already recognize the limits of my authority and question or challenge me if they think I have overstepped them. When they’re right I acknowledge that, apologize, and we proceed from there. I’ve shopped in places where feedback of all sorts has been welcomed, and acted upon.
As Shaun pointed out, hierarchies exist all over the place in the animal world. Just because they form naturally doesn’t mean they are somehow benign, of course; but it seems to me our energies would be better invested in trying to improve our nature rather than deny part of it.
Quoting my mother
I actually think this is the first time I have ever quoted her. While I forget the context she said it in, it applies to the current discussion: "Do not confuse servitude with a willingness to serve."
As much respect as I have for Kevin, I have to say he is mistaken. My view towards hierarchies is stated in a different context here.
My view is simple. Any and every voluntary action/interaction is acceptable. Any and every. Not just the ones I like, not just the ones my mother approved of. Every single one. This is all the philosophy of liberty demands from us. To respect the voluntary choices of others. Not to violate them. Any thing beyond that and we are out of the proper realm of libertarianism (or whatever word you want to use for the philosophy of freedom).
This is not to say that hierarchies or religion are good things. But to call them evil or immoral is incorrect. Evil and immorality can legitimately be fought with force. It is not valid to use force against those engaged in any voluntary activity, no matter how repugnant it may be to our personal tastes.
OTOH, it is perfectly legitimate to use non-coercive means to try and convince people that they should be avoiding hierarchical relationships and that they should not believe in deities. Also that they should brush their teeth, save money for a rainy day and stop smoking tobacco.
Perhaps what is needed here is a different definition of "evil" and "immoral". Because as I see it, only coercive actions can legitimately be labeled as such.
Jorge, I think that I agree with you on this.
Also, I've been putting forth (on another forum) the idea that the definition of "moral" and "voluntary" are synonymous. I've gotten a lot of crap for it, and pretty much everyone disagrees with me and thinks I'm simple minded or whatever, but the more I think about it the more I can't find any better reasoning. "They" claim that there are all kinds of "moralities" depending upon the local culture, but that just seems like mob rule to me, not "morality." So that's where my head "is at" on the subject currently.
- NonE
Ranks and Systems
Sunni and Jorge, I think you're both spot on when you mention the importance of voluntary choice. However, I can also see why people who value freedom might object to "any system of persons or things ranked one above another". I think it's the "system" part that rankles. Who wants to be subordinated within some static system of authority?
But there is no one system of authority in a truly free, fully voluntary society. The beauty of such a society is that there are innumerable opportunities for interaction and cooperation. Sometimes that may involve ranking -- of knowledge, of experience, of ability, of authority -- but there is no one hierarchy. Mama Liberty might be ranked higher in the shooting club, The Shadow might be ranked higher in the local music school, and so on. These are not the traditional dominance hierarchies of political power, but flexible, dynamic, voluntary rankings. If I don't like how The Shadow runs the music school, I can start my own or just drop out. Same with the shooting club, my part-time job at Sunni's Sweet Shop, or any other association I voluntarily enter into. There's no force involved here, no coercion, no dominance -- just free people freely interacting.
And now we know why herding cats is an easier pursuit...
.... LOL.
As Sunni, Jorge and theSaint have opined so eloquently, voluntary is pivotal to the discussion of hierarchy. Hierarchy, in itself, is neither immoral or evil. It is the involuntary action and submission demanded as a by-product of power-hungry corruption, and the heavy leverage abused to achieve the unsavory imbalance, that demeans hierarchy.
Going back to family, in a religious way, "honor thy mother and father" does not mean support them in their abusive ways, if that's the bent of your familial relationship. You can have honor in your heart for a parent and still not give support to abusive, dishonest and/or power-hungry demands put forth by the erring parent. According to Dictionary.com honor has *24* different definition possibilities. Only one is, " To accept as valid and conform to the request or demands of (an official document)."
My two cents for now. =)
Followup
Thanks for the response, Sunni.
I think the dictionary definition of hierarchy may be overly broad compared to what most people mean by hierarchy. All the examples you cite of family, small personal associations, etc., fall within the strict limits of the definition, but they're not what most people think of when they hear the term "hierarchy" used in a social context. I know that when I think of hierarchies, I think of large organizations with top-down control, mission statements, and all the rest of it.
The family relationship is something organic and natural. And a voluntary association between a small number of equals pursuing a project of common interest is closer to the family model than to a corporate hierarchy.
When I say hierarchies are repugnant to libertarian values, I'm thinking in terms of Paul Goodman's distinction between large and small organizations, and top-down vs. bottom-up, and all the rest of it. It's pretty much the same distinction Butler Shaffer made between institutions and non-institutional organizations. Institutions, or hierarchies, see their subordinates as means to an end; I don't think they count as cases in which "a person I trust and respect has a good idea and asks me to work with him to make it come into being." I believe Claire Wolfe is right that the "job culture" as she describes it, what the great majority of people face in their work lives, is inimical to freedom.
The only time I'm I'm able to work with someone I trust and respect to make a good idea come into being is outside of my job, and I suspect that's true for most people. In that regard, jobs stand in relation to real productive work as schools stand in relation to learning.
The Problem of Semantics (and Semiotics)
It seems that the main line of disagreement is one hinging over language. The term hierarchy is used in multiple contexts, including epistemology. The human mind is naturally inclined to arrange experience and concepts into hierarchical structures. The relationship of metaphysics to other fields in philosophy, including ontology, is an example of what I mean. Perhaps that's the problem, in itself; actual human beings get shuffled and sorted as the rest would. For our purposes, however, the problem seems to be that some are using the term hierarchy in its strict sense, while others use it in a more colloquial sense. If one uses it in its strict sense (Tremblay certainly seemed to) opposition to hierarchy is an absurd position. In its more colloquial sense it is certainly not.
Forgive me for butting in again...
I must agree with Sunni. If the relationship is voluntary, and each person involved is able to withdraw at any time (absent performance contracts with no quit clause, of course) - how does the size of the organization matter?
Greater size will mean greater difficulty with the trust issues, of course, but that's not insurmountable because each person can withdraw from the whole structure if that becomes a problem. Did they sign a performance contract? Were they forced to do so?
And this is generally true now in even the most toxic corporation job, is it not? Who is being held in such a job against their will today? If they stay because of the pension promise or the 401K, is that not their own decision? How is this coercion by the corporation?
So, is the problem some have identified here a feature of hierarchy itself, in whatever definition? Or is it a matter of the initiation of force or fraud, regardless of the relationship of the participants in any given hierarchy?
My windmill.
Brian N. sums up the linguistic element of the discussion fairly nicely, so at this point all that’s left for me to say is that it appears that my windmill to tilt at is the increasing propensity of individuals—most of whom seem intelligent enough to know what they’re doing—to narrow the definition of important terms. Part of why this matters so much to me is that invariably when I see this, a morally neutral concept, like “hierarchy”, loses that neutrality. I don’t think I need to paint a picture as to why that’s not a good thing.
Relatedly, would it not be a good thing for those of us who bother to use dictionaries to highlight the primary (and usually, more general) definition, then explain why we’re going to focus on a secondary one in a discussion? Judicious use of adjectives to accompany the morally neutral noun also helps clarify the specific context/meaning, without shackling the noun. Encouraging others to think more, or to discover what words mean outside of a certain context, is never a bad thing in my view.
It appears that we are now entering the uncertain territory between concept categories, where there may be some overlap, and reasonable individuals may disagree as to what is and isn’t a member of a particular category. Isn’t it the case that a lot of startups begin as a person having a good idea and getting others to join him in working on it? Where does the shift happen to take an “organic and natural” collaborative effort into the realm of an institution? Incorporation is certainly a visible marker, but isn’t necessarily one that accurately marks a frame shift from collegial to something more formal, viz., a hierarchical institution. Isn’t Google supposed to be an example of an insitution that is succeeding, at least in some areas, at breaking out of the hierarchical corporate model?
I’m sorry to hear that. My experiences do not match your pattern, yet all the same I have opted to avoid the institutionalized job culture in supporting myself. A coercive hierarchy can become a yoke on one’s spirit—and all too easily from the looks of things. That tends to go hand-in-hand with a focus on acquiring possessions, and a host of other beliefs and pursuits that lead us far afield from the focus of this conversation.
Butler said it...
Butler Shaffer wrote a wonderful book, Calculated Chaos, in which he posits that institutions tend to be really bad things for the reason that they tend to want to stick around, justify their existence and grow ever larger long after their reason for being has been accomplished and they should have been disbanded.
I'm not sure that this point is pertinent to the discussion, but it came up in my head and so I thought I'd share it. It is a terribly important book and idea, at least it seems so to me.
- NonE
I'm not sure I'd go as far
I'm not sure I'd go as far as Kevin in saying that *all* hierarchy is evil (I'm not sure it's useful to label things as "good" and "evil"), but I think all participation in hierarchical social organizations represents a fundamental surrender of individual volition. This may or may not be desirable or necessarily given the circumstances; I'm not willing to make a sweeping judgment without other details.
Individualism and hierarchy appear to represent two modes (there may be others) by which the body politic can be apprehended - two models, if you will, about the expectations we should have about human behavior en masse, and by which we should therefore judge individual actions. Hierarchy, in my opinion, is a way to sort of see the entire population as a "mass" that has its own characteristics independent (for all intents and purposes) from the individuals involved. It has all the attendant qualities of any collectivist approach: the subordination of a real individual to an abstraction. As such, it is well to regard it as dangerous even if it's necessary, because humans tend to fetishize form over content.
To say that the hierarchical relationship between the vast majority of children and parents is somehow "bad" is a big claim that deserves to be backed up much more than the counterclaim. I would argue that the family is a hierarchical institution, and that there is certainly danger of authoritarianism there. But there are also countervailing forces such as biological instincts to command and submit, as well as an intangible we can briefly call "love" or wordily call the very personal nature of the relationship between nodes of the hierarchy. I think the vast majority of families would be bad examples of the kind of authoritarianism Tremblay imagines, though one can certainly find them if one looks.
Within other institutions, there is no fundamental biological imperative like that to raise a child or to be raised as a child. The institution does not live or die by trust, or love, or the personal relationships between people in it. In most hierarchical institutions, what keeps the association between people cohesive is the abstract structure of the hierarchy, and the maintenance of the positions of relative power / authority among one another. Who is occupying those positions is less important than that the positions exist as evidence of the institution's reality. Such hierarchies are much more dangerous than the nuclear family, by any frickin' measure.
In my view, Tremblay would benefit greatly from reading some Butler Shaffer and gaining exposure to the perspective that it is our very need to systematize and over-abstract our relationships with one another that leads to the kind of hierarchies he despises, without unnecessarily condemning the biological imperitives of the human race.
I disagree. The issue is not whether individuals have the autonomy to act as they choose; clearly, they have this regardless of the context or consequences (whether or not others respect it, they still *can* act as they choose). The issue is, rather, under what *conditions* do people exercise their maximum discretion, judgement, and autonomous sense of self? I think those conditions not only favor individualism, but that as Kevin says, a hierarchical society will see it as in its interests to prevent individuals from participating in their own lives fully, preferring instead to make their life "a small part in a big machine", where purpose is derived from function within the hierarchy rather than one's own innate sense of self. It will by necessity see finding any number of soft ways to reinforce dependence on the system as obligatory. It is not a slight towards human nature to say that it is vulnerable to such conditioning - it is what it is, and it's still up to us individually to choose to resist, even as we understand the dynamics our rulers prey on.
Hope that rant made sense at some point. Good conversation!
The possible versus the actual
Jeremy, thanks very much for your substantive contribution to our explorations. I’ll only focus on a few points in reply.
We cannot avoid being part of hierarchical social organizations, it appears to me—not unless we were to try to pursue a completely self-reliant path. We think hierarchically; our language is hierarchical in nature; therefore some degree of hierarchical interaction is unavoidable in every encounter with another human. This is why I could agree with your statement with a qualifier, as follows: “I think all participation in hierarchical social organizations represents a potential fundamental surrender of individual volition.” This ties in to your excellent observation farther down that humans tend to “over-abstract” our relationships, which frequently includes dropping the context of our evolutionary history.
I think we are agreeing fairly strongly, but just choosing differing words—and perhaps having different contexts in mind—while doing so. We live in a constant state of pull, between our individualistic and social natures; and the social side has a lot of pull to it, whereas the individualistic one ultimately has only one pulling for it. I say that because even though we individualists can and do support one another, there will always be some point at which we differ, and thus part company.