[lbo-talk] Wacko/Sherman (was Re: Brit general says . . . .)

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Mon May 7 02:05:00 PDT 2007


On 5/6/07, J. Tyler <unended at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> But hierarchy is not equivalent to authority. The FAQ defines
> hierarchy as "a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a
> series of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige,
> and (usually) remuneration." In a hierarchy, it is not a person's
> expertise that gives him authority but his rank, or the slot he
> fills in this free-standing, artificial structure. Anarchists view
> sheer rank within any hierarchy as illegitimate. (A person's rank
> may or may not correspond in some way to his expertise, but his rank
> alone is never entitled to deference.) This does not prohibit a
> principled anarchist from accepting a doctor's "authority" as to the
> best course of action with respect to his illness due to the
> doctor's learned expertise. In other words, my following a doctor's
> "orders" would not violate the anarchist principle of opposing
> illegitimate authority. The same would apply to a person who has
> studied mechanical engineering and thus may be entitled to
> legitimate deference with respect to the construction of a bridge.

Interesting points, but I don't think the FAQ says that. All hierarchical institutions "embody the principle of authority," it claims. That doesn't mean hierarchy = authority, but there's a close relation.

An example I have in mind is the child/parent relationship. Obviously a big issue, which no doubt concerns many anarchists. But my understanding is there's a legitimate hierarchy involved. That is, up to a certain age, children actually want certain limits imposed on them as part of their introduction to this strange world. Or they'll be unhappier as adults.

Now, I think parents should be mindful of their overwhelming power relative to the child, and anarchist ideas can obviously apply. (And I should make clear I'm not a parent.) But that's different from opposing hierarchy. Maybe more like being an enlightened manager, I suspect... [1]

Or take the notion that this FAQ is read-only, rather than a wiki. There's a barrier between the roles of FAQ author and reader. This may have an impact in our discussion here, as the temptation is to defend vs. attack it, instead of discussing how we might just clarify the page. This temptation is often the case when there's some Important Text out there.

Disclaimer: I realize that a) wikis probably weren't common or even existing when this FAQ was made, b) maybe I'm just being one of those contrarians you always see on the net, c) someone can build their own FAQ, and d) maybe I'm stretching anarchism beyond its limited domain.

Tayssir

-- [1] Incidentally, a CEO told me that management literature often claims that authority over employees is legitimate like the authority over a child. That's the example commonly used. Might be entertaining to consider that when you encounter a "benevolent" manager who knows to rule with a minimum of fiat. ;)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list