Keith, As much as I may or may not agree with your ontological speculations, my point was not about smuggling hierarchy back into society but back into *concepts* that superficially appear to oppose hierarchy. Hierarchy itself is a tremendously important and inescapable factor of human interaction but it is one of several factors that co-exist in dynamic tension. All that I'm saying is that we should be wary of "concepts" that promise to free us from conditions they don't really free us from.
Is there a concept that could free us from hierarchy? Maybe posing the question in that way better exposes the absurdity of the proposition. Having been born an infant, I realize that my survival depended on a hierarchy between infant and adult. To deny that hierarchy, for example, would be delusional. However, my survival may also depend on not transfering that infant/adult relationship to my dealings with employers, politicians or purveyors of snake oil. Keith Hudson wrote, > Hierarchy doesn't need to be "smuggled back" into whatever type of society > or governance that we may happen to have at any time. Every social mammal > -- and that includes us -- has a hierarchical system. It has evolved > because leadership at crucial moments is essential. The other side of the > coin is that just as we have a perpetual propensity to throw up leadership, > most of the rest of us have a propensity to be credulous and deferential -- > particularly at crucial moments. > > At its most benign, hierarchy depends on voluntary respect for the skills > of those above us. Also, most importantly, benign hierachy is always > accessible -- easily dethroned when better candidates appear. > > At its worst, heirachy depends on inculcating fear and dependency on the > masses and they are inaccessible. Something like 80 or so dictatorships > around the world are of this nature and some can last for a long time. > Saddam Hussein is an example of such. > > Modern democracies are supposedly kept in good condition by the checks and > balances supplied by the supposed independence of government, > administration and the judiciary -- to which has been added in recent > decades, increasingly independent and investigative media, the Net being > the latest of these. > > But even these are insufficient. When the increasingly life-threatening > hole in the ozone layer started opening a couple of decades ago, relevant > scientists and large chemical corporations acted quickly to start cutting > back on CFCs, at least a couple of years before governments could act. Why? > Not because they were particularly saintly or humanitarian, but because > they had the special expertise to understand the danger and were able to > act on their own before governments could be educated on the matter. > > Today, we have too many other problems that can be understood or even acted > upon by the types of nation-state governments we have today. The latter > simply cannot cope any longer with the multiplicity of complex dangers that > are arising. We need a great many more specialised players which can act > independently and laterally across present-day national boundaries when > dangers arise within their purview -- pollution, fishing stocks, potable > water, food, resources, etc. These, too, will inevitably develop their own > hierarchies but, with the limited experience we now have, there's no reason > in principle why each of these should not have accessible hierarchies. > > Keith Hudson > > > At 11:44 04/10/02 -0700, Tom Walker wrote: > >"Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote, > > > >> It is my understanding that our concept of "time is money" > >> is a modern idea which was discovered/invented over > >> a millenium -- but I can't find the references at the moment. > > > >Benjamin Franklin, Advice to a Young Tradesman, 1748. Cited by Max Weber as > >the epitome of the capitalist spirit in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit > >of Capitalism". > > > >"Remember, that time is money. He that can earn ten shillings a day by his > >labour, and goes abroad, or sits idle, one half of that day, though he > >spends but sixpence during his diversion or idleness, ought not to reckon > >that the only expense; he has really spent, or rather thrown away, five > >shillings besides." > > > >Weber argued that what he termed the protestant ethic was a secularization > >of the notion of a spiritual calling, which under Catholicism denoted a > >hierarchy that placed clergy above the laity in the degree to which they > >were worthy of grace. > > > >One *might* think of it as a democratization as long as one chooses to > >ignore the way that hierarchy is smuggled back into the concept at each > >stage of its secularization. In other words, instead of democratizing grace > >the evolution has simply drained the grace from hierarchy. Amazing. We are > >left with nothing but hierarchy, plain and simple. > > > >Tom Walker > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________
