Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris



Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall was a Quaker. And it seems like her religious beliefs had a great impact on her thoughts on women's right to vote.

Quakers believe in equality. They do not follow hierarchies, and some even do not go after the God or Jesus. They are their own masters and they believe that each of them can feel the God within themselves. But there are several groups of Quakers that follow various founder Quakers of their groups. Hicksite Quakers are one of such groups.

People who believe in being their own masters could not remain for long without following someone. Does this mean that humans are bound to follow either things or people? Can't we avoid hierarchies and structures?

[Sculptor1]

Any two people will form hierarchies in capability and expertise. And so they should.
The trick is to realise that expertise in one area might give you authority in that area, it should not give you power over the other person who may well have expertise in another areas.

The most successful hunter/gatherer societies express this dynamic with horizontal structures, and zonal and modal powers. Specialisms are encouraged.
As societies have grown in size the greedy and power hungry have managed to push their power across generations so that hereditary power has been formed. This is a mistake, but avoidable.

[heracleitos]

Yes, not everybody can be the boss.

Furthermore, some part of the law is not just a matter of self-respect but of law enforcement, if only to front-run the angry mob, and prevent it from tearing the flesh of suspected criminals to pieces. Civilization requires us to inspect the matter of culpability before a court and during an adversarial process.

Therefore, law enforcement necessarily has authority over the rowdy mob. That alone already creates hierarchy in society.

[Centeot]

Yes, with every human being unique, there will always be differences in power which will inevitably lead to a social hierarchy of some variety.

[stevie]

People who believe in being their own masters could not remain for long without following someone. Does this mean that humans are bound to follow either things or people? Can't we avoid hierarchies and structures?

The basic principle of evolution is aggregation of parts to build a whole in an ordered way. So the arising of hierarchies and structures does not depend on human will.

[LuckyR]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

[Pattern-chaser]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris



Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall was a Quaker. And it seems like her religious beliefs had a great impact on her thoughts on women's right to vote.

Quakers believe in equality. They do not follow hierarchies, and some even do not go after the God or Jesus. They are their own masters and they believe that each of them can feel the God within themselves. But there are several groups of Quakers that follow various founder Quakers of their groups. Hicksite Quakers are one of such groups.

People who believe in being their own masters could not remain for long without following someone. Does this mean that humans are bound to follow either things or people? Can't we avoid hierarchies and structures?

Humans are a social species. Families, tribes, societies, and so forth, are social "hierarchies" or "structures". So I think the answer to your question must be that yes, we can avoid such things in theory, but only by fundamentally changing our basic nature (in a way that is quite likely impossible), and becoming a non-social species.

[Pattern-chaser]

The basic principle of evolution is aggregation of parts to build a whole in an ordered way. So the arising of hierarchies and structures does not depend on human will.

I'm not at all sure that "aggregation" is a "basic principle of evolution", but your point stands nonetheless, and is an interesting one.

[heracleitos]

Cattle or elephants lives in herds. Wolves live in packs. Humans are members of a gang, and are fundamentally, gangsters.

All these types of groups always have a leader, a boss, i.e. a matriarch (such as elephants) or a patriarch (such as humans).

The boss of a gang of humans is the mafia boss, i.e. "da man". At the very least, he deals with conflict resolution between his gangsters.

[stevie]

The basic principle of evolution is aggregation of parts to build a whole in an ordered way. So the arising of hierarchies and structures does not depend on human will.

I'm not at all sure that "aggregation" is a "basic principle of evolution", but your point stands nonetheless, and is an interesting one.

I am not sure either but just reported what appeared to me. That atoms aggregate with atoms through chemical reactions to result in a whole appeared to me. That the whole of molecules are aggregates of atoms appeared to me. That the whole of organisms and tissues are aggreagates of molecules appeared to me. That wholes built by aggregations disintegrate again driven by thermodynamics just to be build again through aggregations with slightly different features appeared to me. Thus the aggregation of parts to build a whole appeared to be the basic principle of evolution.

[Sculptor1]

"civlisiation" has provided for the most structures and hierarchies and have been dysfunctional in many examples. But from an anthropological perspective it's worth saying that for most of human history hierarchy and structure have been wholly contingent on practice and immediate performance with very little consideration for the concepts of "office", and hereditary or subclan privilege.
Strategies for leadership are thought to have been contingent on specific task delegated to experts or the strongest or most respected individuals. These relationships are fluid and subject to immediate change. Many such structures were horizontal rather than vertical.

[Sculptor1]

Cattle or elephants lives in herds. Wolves live in packs. Humans are members of a gang, and are fundamentally, gangsters.

All these types of groups always have a leader, a boss, i.e. a matriarch (such as elephants) or a patriarch (such as humans).

The boss of a gang of humans is the mafia boss, i.e. "da man". At the very least, he deals with conflict resolution between his gangsters.

There is a difference between a leader and a boss.
Bosses thrive where there are other structures such as enemies, police, or governments to buck against.

But good leaders do not have to boss; they lead.

[heracleitos]

But good leaders do not have to boss; they lead.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, statistically spoken, most leaders are not particularly good. They are merely good enough not to get replaced.

The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach a level of respective incompetence.

So, the core skills of the successful manager, are:

- How to avoid getting fired
- How to get competitors fired
- How to look good
- How to make others look bad

You do not particularly need to be competent at anything else, because the Peter Principle predicts that nobody else is either.

[Sculptor1]

But good leaders do not have to boss; they lead.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, statistically spoken, most leaders are not particularly good. They are merely good enough not to get replaced.

The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach a level of respective incompetence.

So, the core skills of the successful manager, are:

- How to avoid getting fired
- How to get competitors fired
- How to look good
- How to make others look bad

You do not particularly need to be competent at anything else, because the Peter Principle predicts that nobody else is either.

INdeed. But given the thread title can we avoid... I think we can. depending on the scope of control. SUb groups and small scale societies all work better with horizontal hierarchies. You will probably be part of a club or group where a small scale group will resist any kind of bossing, but allows temporary leadership for some activities.
Take a look at my post above from an anthropological perspective. It's a numbers game.

[Sushan]

Any two people will form hierarchies in capability and expertise. And so they should.
The trick is to realise that expertise in one area might give you authority in that area, it should not give you power over the other person who may well have expertise in another areas.

The most successful hunter/gatherer societies express this dynamic with horizontal structures, and zonal and modal powers. Specialisms are encouraged.
As societies have grown in size the greedy and power hungry have managed to push their power across generations so that hereditary power has been formed. This is a mistake, but avoidable.

Quite true about hereditary powers. It is wrong (can be right when the right person is in the place even though he/she came to that position with heredity) and should be avoided.

People can always consult specialists in various fields. But in today's world it is not either simple or free. So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?