>>Also -- usually (as in this thread) hierarchy is automatically equated
>>with hierarchies of _power_. And unequal distributions of power can and
>>usually (not always) do constitute a threat to the well being of those
>>'lower' in the hierarchy. I'm not sure that all these equations hold.
>>This seems to be part of what Travis has in mind:
>>
>>T Fast wrote:
>>>And the consequences for the individuals participating in these very
>>>different hierarchical organizations should not be conflated simply because
>>>they can all be shown to have a hierarchical structure.
>>>
>>>Travis
>>
>
>>In any case, hierarchy need not be identified with the power structures
>>of class societies. And to suggest that numerous kinds of hierarchy will
>>always be with us is by no means the same as saying we must always
>>suffer exploitation and oppression.
>>
>>Carrol
>
>That was exactly where I was driving, I just did not have energy for
>the road trip. So the question is: Was Doug making a the strong
>claim or the weak claim?
I don't see how you can have a hierarchy without gradations in power.
What's the strong claim and what's the weak claim? I guess I'd say we'll probably always have some degree of exploitation and oppression, but I think we could have a lot less than we do now. Is that strong or weak?
Doug