"[snip]
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. . . . Man might be innately attentive to hierarchy without inferring from this that there must always be masters and slaves. [snip]"
--- andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote: "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 . . . .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." ***
If I can circle back to where this discussion started -- it was about our overwhelming frustration at our fellow citizens' political opinions. The current administration exercises a lot of power -- it's bombed two countries so far, weakened environmental protections, advanced the concentration of wealth in a few hands, and so on. It's not in power because of its skill or expertise in governing. And it's not being democratically constrained. So what do we do?
I think the hierarchy/power issue (I'm sorry, but while the two terms have the different emphases you have pointed out, they're almost never separable in practice) is important, because remembering it helps keep my blood pressure down and keeps me out of undemocratic rants about the stupid moron majority. It is also a reminder that general, logical arguments with supporting evidence are less effective than we would like -- one of the recent polls indicated that most respondents think Bush is honest! How far is, "No, he isn't!" going to get us, even when we have the facts? You're just hitting an emotional wall, and we need to understand that wall.
I've done best when I let all but the most outrageous statements go by, and actually talk about specific issues -- everybody will talk your ear off about their dealings with the American medical services delivery industry (I don't call it that, of course), virtually everybody will get angry about corporate pension rip-offs, and so on. And a lot will conclude that government ought to do something. But I have not found that expressing a preference for a more egalitarian society usually makes much of a dent.
In short, I'm interested in this conversation in terms of how we can work towards a more egalitarian, democratic society.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com