Briefly: I think hierarchy can be justified in terms of STEWARDSHIP of those unable to take care of their own interests, e.g., infants (etymologically: those unable to speak [for themselves]) and the comatose. Most employees and students do not fall into any such category.
But there is the question of how we can eliminate hierarchy in a MASS-OCRACY??? Linear search time through a series of items grows proportionate to the number of elements. Search time can be minimized by placing all the items in "alphabetic" [or other RIGID-PRECONCEIVED...] order and doing a binary search (which takes n log2 searches). There are familiar mathematical formulas for determining the optimal number of levels of hierarchy for minimizing access delay to the elements. This presumes total obedience by the elements (no wandering away from your assigned spot!). Is human freedom possible except for an elite in a condition of HYPER-POPULATION? It is irrelevant whether Malthus was right: Just because we can feed zillions does not mean their quality of life will be anything any of us would wish to live through. But any person who has independent spirit amd/or has truly internalized the liberal arts will not accept as fully worthy of him or herself any political condition (and that includes the second polis of the workplace!) other than being a full peer in the co-legislation, adjudication and execution of the entire social world in which he or she finds themself living (Neither leaders not followers, neither bosses nor employees...). Just because such a condition may not be possible in our earth of > 6,000,000,000 (that number looks like it does not have enough zeros to me!!!) concurrently living persons, does not mean it is wrong, but only that we may live in a social situation in which what is right has been rendered impossible [for whatever reasons of errors of commission and/or omission by whomever or by "the invisible hand" or by G-d or whoever and/or whatever]. Anyone find any faults with this reasoning? If yes, shouldn't said person find the appropriate person in the hierarchy to channel their concern through? (Well, maybe said person will decide to either "leave" -- suicide is usually an option even if not a better -- or become an "unde-rminer"???) "Yours in peer-to-peer dialog, as opposed to hierarchical giving and receiving of orders, making requests to superiors and receiving their instructions back...." \brad mccormick Tom Walker wrote: > > 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] > > ________________________________________________________________________ -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
