[lbo-talk] Re: hierarchy (was woj and America)

[andie nachgeborenen]

This is fair enough, Joanna, and I agree with it in the sense that I agree that there are hierarchies of skill ans expertise that cannot and should not be eliminated. Striving after excellence is a virtue in all times and places, and the fact is that not everyone is or can be equally good at everything. I will never be a Michael Jordan or a John Donne. That does not mean, of course, that those who possess particular excellences are thereby superior beings entitled to better lives (apart from those aspects involving the exercise of their superior capacities!), and I take it that this is your point. I will also add (though you not agree) that I do not foresee, or even particularly desire, a society where no one exercises asymmetric power over anyone else. As long as people live together, there will have to be officials, representatives, judges, parents and the like, in whom special power is vested. That is not objectionable as long as the exercise of that power is democratically constrained. The problem is not power, but exploitation and domination, unnecessary ands excess power used to the disadvantage of the subordinate groups. But I took Luke's sociobiological encominium to primate hierarchy to be an instance of the recurring trope that "science proves" that domination and exploitation and class is "genetically encoded," so inalterable, so absurd to oppose or attempt to change -- in the manner of Trivers, Tiger, Ardrey, and Wilson. That view is a farrago of fallacies and errors.  jks

joanna bujes <joanna.bujes at sun.com> wrote:At 08:57 PM 05/08/2003 -0700, Justin wrote:
>Well, we're also the only fully linguistic primate society, and there is a 
>lot more variation in our behavior than in (say) chimpanzees. Personally, 
>I'd believe that we can live without hierarchy after about 10 million 
>years of seriously trying variations on it, ratherthan jumping the gun on 
>the question and foreclosing it by looking at a generation or two of 
>ethological studies. Read Phil Kitcher's Vaulting Ambition. jks

I think this discussion would benefit from disentangling "hierarchy" from 
"power." I think it's possible to have a hierarchy without power. In fact, 
one sees it all the time. For example, people are very attentive to 
hierarchies based on skills. My daughter attends a ballet class with is 
based on the osmosis theory of learning. Dancers of all ages (4-60) and 
levels mix together in one class. They practice together and mostly learn 
through imitation. The teacher calls out the moves but does not appoint 
role models; the students choose who they want to imitate. It seems to work 
amazingly well and to promote a very focused but relaxed attitude in 
class.There also used to exist an age-based hierarchy in more traditional 
societies which probably did reflect the value of experience gathered by 
the older members.

What I'm trying to say is that man might be innately attentive to hierarchy 
without inferring from this that there must always be masters and slaves.

Joanna 

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030509/5f17072d/attachment.htm>