Hierarchy and Psychology

[Guest]

The definition of hierarchy that most are familiar with may be the institutionalized form of control that we find in governments and the like, but it also applies to any system of ranking and grading things. In the realm of the mind, there is a great deal of such ranking and grading of thoughts that occurs outside your conscious awareness. <br> <br>For example, you walk down the street and stub your toe on something. Immediately the pain in your toe hijacks your conscious attention, while whatever thoughts you were thinking temporarily take a back seat so that you can attend to your toe. A part of your mind decided that it was more important to attend to your foot then whatever you had been thinking about previously. Pain, hunger, and love operate in this hierarchial way too, forcing one to deal with problems in order of their importance. <br> <br>In fact, if you truly integrate non-hierarchy into your thinking processes, then you would find that it is a violation of non-hierarchial structure to believe that non-hierarchy is any better than hierarchy. If you think that anarchism is any better than capitalism, then you have invoked a hierarchy. Non-hierarchy is only cognizable because you have thought of hierarchy first, then negated it! <br> <br>Even though there is a lot to like about anarchism, I find that some hierarchies ought to remain in place. Does anyone else share my concerns? <br> <br>Anomolous <br>

[Man]

Hierachies don't need to remain in place, but nor should they be dismissed completely. Surely they should be used where appropriate. It's one of those temporary 'this is the best method for this' kind of things.

[prime]

I concur with your observations, heirarchies exist as both natural and artificial. When it come to the man-made ones we need to take great care that we install the necessary checks and balances as it is not possible to escape heirarchy and perserve cooperation.

[andrewflood]

Actually right back at the start anarchists like Bakunin were carefull to draw the line between &lt;A HREF="http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/wia.html"&gt; legtimate authority and illegtimate authority&lt;/a&gt;. At its simplest this is why you might let a surgeon cut out your appendix but would probably refuse to let your best friend cut it out. You choose to give the surgeon authority because you believe she has certain knowledge and skills that others do not. However you would not let the surgeon tell you what newspaper to read because you recognise her authority only in a very limited area. <br> <br>We also don't seek to abolish the law of gravity even though it imposes itself on us. Mind you we do seek seek ways to overcome it. <br> <br>The bottom line is that anarchism is a strategy for &lt;a HREF="http://anarchism.ws/platform.html"&gt;Changing the World &lt;/a&gt; rather then an abstract philosophy.

[Man]

I WILL OVERCOME GRAVITY USING ONLY MY OWN NAIVE HOPE AND STUPIDITY.

[matthoffmann]

[color=blue]The definition of hierarchy that most are familiar with may be the institutionalized form of control that we find in governments and the like, but it also applies to any system of ranking and grading things. In the realm of the mind, there is a great deal of such ranking and grading of thoughts that occurs outside your conscious awareness.</font color=blue> <br> <br>Hierarchy is only a social phenomenon. What you are talking about 'ranking and grading' is just that, ranking and grading. Domination is not occuring. <br> <br>And on top of that- I think that it is important to note that there are no hierarchies in nature. What people claim are natural hierarchies are in fact complex ecological relationships that are better described as an interconnected web.

[Din]

[color=green]Hierarchy is only a social phenomenon. What you are talking about 'ranking and grading' is just that, ranking and grading. Domination is not occuring.</font color=green> <br> <br>I think what Anomolous was trying to say, despite the terminology, is that there are external authority and there are also internal authority. Anarchists have generally been concerned only with the former - manifested in such forms as the State, Capitalism, or the Christian Church. Yet, authority does exist within the mind in as much as it does exist outside of it. <br> <br>I do not think the offered example of internal authority was an appropriate choice. A more useful example, perhaps, would be the mind of a fundamentalist - dogma is clearly authoritarian. That would probably not raise any eyebrows in itself, but if we extend the idea further, we would reach more controversial notions of morality and rationality as being authoritarian. After all, such anarchists as William Godwin, Benjamin Tucker and indeed most anarchists, were quite satisfied living under the authority of reason. In this sense, Anarchism is not without Authority, in the literal sense, but only without external Authority. <br> <br>The one major anarchist thinker who went beyond this boundary of externalities into the internal framework of the mind would be Max Stirner. Franz Kafka, if he were to be considered as an anarchist, would also be another exception, assuming that one can interpret his fictional writings as indicative of his philosophical standpoint. Not coincidentally, Kafka is notorious as a critique (in his writings) of modernism with a capital M, while Stirner too is recognized as one of the first major thinker that broke away from the hegemony of the Enlightenment. <br> <br>[color=green]In fact, if you truly integrate non-hierarchy into your thinking processes, then you would find that it is a violation of non-hierarchial structure to believe that non-hierarchy is any better than hierarchy.</font color=green> <br> <br>As to this, the second point from Anomolous, I believe that he - or she - has entered the realm of deconstructive thought, one of the numerous varieties of post-structuralism, which is itself a variety of post-modernism. And it is post-structuralism that has made the most valuable contribution to this general critique of internal authority, with much influence from Nietzsche (who, in turn, was influenced by Stirner himself). The two giants of post-structuralist thought are, of course, Michael Foucoult and the deconstructive Jacques Derrida. I would recommend anyone to read more of them and by them. And yes, there is a post-structuralist anarchism around... <br> <br>Foucoult denied that he was an anarchist. Post-Structuralist Lesson Number 916.

[cre8anarchy]

Din, <br>I would be interested in hearing more about what you think an internal authority is. The example Anomolous gave of stubbing one's toe seemed odd as an example of authority. It would only be valid if you thought the mind and the body were separate. You say the mind of a fundamentalist is authoritarian because dogma is authoritarian. How is that internal authority? It is only authoritarian when the fundamentalist tries to impose his will on another.

[Man]

The truth is the only internal authority. Any other internalised authority is imaginary. <br> <br>Deconstruction is irrelevant. Anyone free from belief can see right through humanity's erroneous logical creations. Any anarchist that concerns themselves with only external freedom is wasting their time. <br> <br>We can be free now. We just have to realise we are not what we think; we are not our identity.

[Guest]

Oh, the poverty of Divine Boy's New Age BS!

[Man]

Why must you label what has been written? <br> <br>What do you mean by poverty?

[Man]

Just tell me, in your experience, is what I wrote earlier true or not? Don't answer straight away. Re-read what I wrote and tell me where I have said something untrue and then prove it. <br> <br>I do not understand why you criticise those words. <br> <br>Please explain. <br> <br>Thanks.

[Din]

[color=green]How is that internal authority? It is only authoritarian when the fundamentalist tries to impose his will on another.</font color=green> <br> <br>It is easy for us to recognize authority if and when a police officer in full uniform were to approach us and explicitly forbid us from engaging in something. Yet, unless we recognize the presence of an internal authority, we are forced to admit that the police officer him or herself is under the authority of another person higher in the hierarchy - for why else would this police officer forbids us from engaging in some activity? So from the police officer, we go further above in the hierarchy, perhaps to the politician who also explicitly forbids us from engaging in something. And up and up the hierarchy we go - but where does it all end? In a mythical, abstract entity known as the "State"? <br> <br>Yes, clearly there does not exist any form of internal authority whatsoever if it is only authoritarian when someone tries to impose his (or her) will on another. But then one has to admit that every authoritarian figure is him or herself under some sort of external authority. And who started off this entire cycle of imposing one will on another? We would have to presuppose that there exist some sort of ultimate, higher entity - the State, the God, the (capitalist) Market - that validates or "kick off" all the authority from above. <br> <br>But now, let us remember that the historical anarchists have generally agreed that reason is a form of authority. It would be more accurate then to suggest that it is authoritarian if and when something is imposed - period. <br> <br>I am not saying that the mind of a fundamentalist - or even a police officer - is (necessarily) authoritarian. What I say is that in the mind of a fundamentalist is a submission to authority. If this fundamentalist is all alone, without any other human being to guide him or her, and this fundamentalist reads the bible - assuming we are talking of a Christian - and reads the bible literally to the point of dogma, believing for instance that the entire world was created in mere days. Nobody else is compelling this fundamentalist to believe in such an idea - in such a dogma. <br> <br>Even the most externally authoritarian of characters, whether Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin, is internally a submissive creature that bows dow like a rabid dog to some authority. Perhaps some written work is held up as an authoritative scripture. Perhaps some abstract idea of racial superiority is held up as authoritative. In other words, it is not only other human beings who can be authoritarian. It is not only other human beings who can imposed something on another. People cling onto abstract notions, whether religious, philosophical, science or something else - and metaphorically speaking, they give these abstract notions "life". <br> <br>This concept has perhaps been most thoroughly explored in the field of law - an obvious example of an abstract entity being given life by those who submit to it. If you have not already, I would recommend reading Franz Kafka's short parable Before the Law. <br> <br>If thoughts are free, I am their slave. I have no power over them, and am dominated by them. I want to have the thought, want to be full of thoughts, but at the same time I want to be thoughtless, and, instead of freedom of thought, I preserve for myself thoughtlessness. <br>- Max Stirner

[Guest]

If you conquer the fear and the ego, you can overcome gravity.

[Guest]

"I think that it is important to note that there are no hierarchies in nature. What people claim are natural hierarchies are in fact complex ecological relationships that are better described as an interconnected web. " <br> <br>Bullshit. Look at herd animals and tell me that's not heirarchy. You know the "I'm the dominant male, I get to fuck all the chicks" business.