Wow! One little word, inherent, set off a lively discussion . I should have been clearer that I think civilization as it is is inherently hierarchical, but that does not mean alternative forms are not possible, or that the centralized pathway was the necessary outcome, as the Graeber and Faber work underscore. So I respect and hope that a more decentralized and democratic order can develop, and indeed this is a lot of why I write The Raven. I might call it post-civilization. In this vast world though, I think there is some necessary hierarchy due to the complexity of systems and the power of technologies. What do we do with nuclear weapons, for example. We should get rid of them. But even the regime to make sure nobody makes them again is going to need some central authority. I think as with most of life this is a matter of balance. How to move toward a more decentralized and democratic order in economies, societies and politics while we at the same time challenge illegitimate authorities using their power for self-serving and destructive ends. I also do think that organized societies do inherently hold a call to authority, as common rules of the road. These authorities can be democratic and consensual, and the more they are the better.
"Civilization is inherently hierarchical, and has been since the start something like 5,000 years ago. So there is a constant call to authority, and in organized societies that is inevitable."
Yes, civilization is, and always has been, hierarchically organized / structured. But you seem to imply (?) a relation between hierarchy and authority here -- and between these two and 'order'. You fall short of being clear and explicit about this relation. But you seem to be saying that the sort of hierarchy found in civilizations of every sort is necessary to have an "organized" society. If so, I think this isn't so. I would argue that societies can organize themselves (and sometimes have done so) into highly organized but also highly non-hierarchical forms. In this context, I'd also argue that authority need not be authoritarian -- or hierarchical.
We who grew up in the W.I.E.R.D. world (see: https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/10/western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic/181667/ ) have all of our lives been embedded in a pretty highly hierarchical and authoritarian arrangement (ordering) of society and culture, so most of us are almost literally blind to other possible (and existing) modes of organizing our societies. But societies not organized in this hierarchical / authoritarian way have existed, still exist, and are in fact very much 'organized.'
Apart from this, I like your article so far! But the quoted statement stopped me in my tracks, because it seemed to deny that people like myself are possible. And here I am, dammit!
I've been in a federated network of 'knowledge workers' for nearly 30 years, self-organized and thriving. We've helped organizations across the globe (small community groups to multinational corps, nonprofits, social profits, governments, in every sector and industry). One thing that transforms any group is understanding the benefit of a hierarchical system (which contributes to clarity of purpose and actually getting things done) while respecting the authority of capable and knowledgeable contributors (who may or may not be structurally higher in a system). Too often we confuse the hierarchy with authority and vice versa, such that bad actors in high places can do more damage than should be possible. Plus can foment bad will on the behalf of bad actors who feel disenfranchised by the confusion.
Yes, there remains a good deal of confusion in society at large between authoritarianism and appropriate authority, and also between appropriate and healthy hierarchies and authoritarian hierarchies. This results in abundant confusions about learning and education, among numerous other things. In short, as I see it, we generally tend to reference the ideologies of the dominant culture in our present world, which is a dominator culture.
I don't think we can make much headway in understanding these matters if we're unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the present dominant culture in our world is a dominator culture -- which Patrick Mazza has written about in the terminology of "the megamachine" -- vis-a-vis the original work on that from Lewis Mumford, then elaborated upon by folks like (explicitly) Fabien Scheidler, and (less explicitly, perhaps) by Amitav Ghosh (in The Nutmeg's Curse).
The key to what I'm saying here is that there is such a thing as "the cultural unconscious," ... (which is a *collective* unconscious of the sort which has sometimes been described as a sort of "conveyor belt world") of collective automation. It is also sometimes described as a sort of blind, unconscious (automatic) obedience and conformity to social norms, conventions and habits. E. M. Forster's only science fiction story simply calls it the Machine -- in The Machine Stops (1909). The Machine operates on principles of conformity and obedience, not of empathy, kindness, compassion, listening, availability, openness. Indeed, Forster's story ... to my ears..., is a story of a collective unconscious process in which humanity falls into a collective trance of a sort where only the very strange and rare individual might awaken. But now, as it seems to me, a collective awakening from our cultural trance is required even to avoid utter and complete collapse of the biosphere itself -- if indeed such is still possible.
Thanks James for all the resources, some I know, some not. I'm glad to learn more. I appreciate your perspective and ability to share it.
I first heard about dominator cultures from Riane Eisler who taught in my grad school. She wrote The Chalice and the Blade among other things. It seems that model has been dying a slow death for awhile now, and we still feel the last desperate gasps with concern when they pop up (war, shutdowns, enforced language, nostalgia for "good' ol' days, etc.,) but that's just so we can continue to refine what is emergent, which is more unitive, collective, equitable.
All the organizations i've worked with favour a collaborative approach which is wonderful for inclusivity and diversity but often gets afraid of anything that smacks of leadership for fear of appearing to have "authority". It's probably a matter of testing out the sea legs to find where a more holistic center of gravity needs to be.
We just have to figure out what true authority looks like and not be afraid of hierarchy that is in fact a system of servant leadership.
For what it is worth, I'm not precisely coming from Riane Eisler's framework and "model" when I speak of the dominant culture on Earth as a "dominator culture," rather I'm speaking as a human ecologist and eco-cultural philosopher in the broadest sense. Therefore, what I mean, at core, by "dominator culture" is that the dominant world culture -- presently -- is anthropocentric. My criticism is rooted in the observation that the present world-dominant mode of economy is essentially in a parasitic relation to Earth's eco-systems -- which has resulted in the present overshoot situation best described (I think) by professor / Dr. William E. Rees here: https://rword.substack.com/p/william-e-rees-the-fundamental-issue .
My use of 'parasitic' may be a bit metaphoric. And that's okay, as far as I am concerned. The result of this systemic domination over Earth's ecosystems is an overshoot of ecological carrying capacity in the broadest possible sense of the term. And this is best understood, in my view, as a system of domination by present culturally embedded systems over the entire biotic community of Earth.
Anthropocentrism is sometimes described as "human exceptionalism," and this is what I think I remember Rees sometimes calling it.
But humans also tend -- in the current dominant / dominator cultural system -- to *also* dominate one another, and not merely the biotic community of Earth. Which is why philosophers like myself tend to lean heavily toward what is more and more commonly called Radical Ecology -- http://www.ecodharma.com/articles-influences-audio/radical-ecology -- as our eco-critical philosophy for what's presently occurring on this planet.
Many people are very adverse to this framing, because it challenges their most cherished notions of what it is to be human. So I understand if you find this orientation to be off-putting, insufficient, superficial, or whatever. But it is my own view on the situation we are in.
I only just watched Bill Rees on the great simplification and this was actually the first I’d heard of him. I agree with his entire conclusions and sentiment though. Why he hasn’t popped up on my radar until now is probably my fault for not diving more into human ecology.
I think educating our children in ecology is critical. We still keep churning out young adults who know nothing but the dominant culture and capitalism. How can they change the world starting with such a background, makes it a lot harder
Thanks for the clarifications! Easy to see how humans are parasites on the natural world. Hard to understand how anyone could put humans at the top of the pyramid (or see things as a pyramid in the first place). It's a wholeness that can be in harmony with all the rest if the concern for the entirety were as critical as one's own well-being.
No one "wins" unless we all "win". (I don't like the "win" concept but it often serves for those who are in that mindset.) If you know the Harvard game strategy exercise "Win as Much as You Can" - it demonstrates a method for revealing who people think the "You" is. Very effective for understanding the core beliefs one is dealing with.
"Easy to see how humans are parasites on the natural world."
Yes -- but it is really not *all* humans -- either in the contemporary world or in the olden days. Rather, it is a minority of humans throughout human history, mainly. It's mainly the humans "succeeding" in the modern, capitalist-industrial / technological civilization who are wrecking the biosphere.
You have made many valid points here Marla, of which most people are well aware of. I will hardly disagree that in societies as confused and hodge-podge as ours that we need authoritative and hierarchical governing bodies, but what really irks me is that no one acknowledges the immense disadvantages of hierarchies, which put leaders far away from and above the persons they lead. The larger the hierarchy, the more blind such leaders tend to be to creatures at the bottom of our wonderful pyramid-and the Earth itself. I think we can all agree that poverty and misery amongst those at the bottom are the rule and not the exceptions under hierarchical governing forms. History has shown us little else.
It's everywhere, but often hard to find. Some organizations have tried to embed it into their structures but it works best as a freelance contractor model. There are a few places who have codified a particular corner of the network and built businesses around it, but most are out doing good as independents.
You can follow the threads of Matt and Gail Taylor from the 80s and that will lead you down the rabbithole.
It is my view that we're well past the point where folks can -- or should -- expect to make what middle class folks imagine to be "a decent living" at being revolutionaries (even of the non-violent and non-insurrectionary kind I advocate for). Most people who are able to live what amounts to a middle class (or even a bit 'lower') 'lifestyle' while seeking to transform the culture away from ecocide (and oppression of humans) must be experiencing a great deal of cognitive dissonance ... if they are aware of the principal data points of our collective ecological, social, economic, and political situation at present. I do not envy them. But I chose to live well outside of the mainstream paradigm of culture in "the developed world" -- just in order to avoid such cognitive dissonance.
Happily I've found that those of us who have gotten into this kind of work were ready to change the world by living in a very different way from our grandparents and parents. The illusion of 'security' though salaries and fixed schedules weren't attractive, but rather to be present and attentive to what every moment needs, not accumulators but creators developing inner resources and expansive, diffuse strategies that care for whole systems, impossible to see anything as separate from all the rest. Complexity theory as a basis for understanding contemplation, choice, and action.
Wonderful article Patrick! Your thoughts on institutions remind me of the Chomsky quote where he advocated the dismantling of illegitimate hierarchies. I also agree completely with your notion that future generations are not being considered in our decision-making processes. Which is akin to suicide...Last point-the belief that civilization has always been hierarchical since its beginning is a common misconception. Many of the people involved in constructing Mesopotamian cities were from pure democracies, and governed their cities as such. This gives us reason to hope-because if these earl city-dwellers were able to live in an egalitarian society then we should, too. Read the Davids', Graeber and Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything for more.
Wow! One little word, inherent, set off a lively discussion . I should have been clearer that I think civilization as it is is inherently hierarchical, but that does not mean alternative forms are not possible, or that the centralized pathway was the necessary outcome, as the Graeber and Faber work underscore. So I respect and hope that a more decentralized and democratic order can develop, and indeed this is a lot of why I write The Raven. I might call it post-civilization. In this vast world though, I think there is some necessary hierarchy due to the complexity of systems and the power of technologies. What do we do with nuclear weapons, for example. We should get rid of them. But even the regime to make sure nobody makes them again is going to need some central authority. I think as with most of life this is a matter of balance. How to move toward a more decentralized and democratic order in economies, societies and politics while we at the same time challenge illegitimate authorities using their power for self-serving and destructive ends. I also do think that organized societies do inherently hold a call to authority, as common rules of the road. These authorities can be democratic and consensual, and the more they are the better.
"Civilization is inherently hierarchical, and has been since the start something like 5,000 years ago. So there is a constant call to authority, and in organized societies that is inevitable."
Yes, civilization is, and always has been, hierarchically organized / structured. But you seem to imply (?) a relation between hierarchy and authority here -- and between these two and 'order'. You fall short of being clear and explicit about this relation. But you seem to be saying that the sort of hierarchy found in civilizations of every sort is necessary to have an "organized" society. If so, I think this isn't so. I would argue that societies can organize themselves (and sometimes have done so) into highly organized but also highly non-hierarchical forms. In this context, I'd also argue that authority need not be authoritarian -- or hierarchical.
We who grew up in the W.I.E.R.D. world (see: https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/10/western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic/181667/ ) have all of our lives been embedded in a pretty highly hierarchical and authoritarian arrangement (ordering) of society and culture, so most of us are almost literally blind to other possible (and existing) modes of organizing our societies. But societies not organized in this hierarchical / authoritarian way have existed, still exist, and are in fact very much 'organized.'
Apart from this, I like your article so far! But the quoted statement stopped me in my tracks, because it seemed to deny that people like myself are possible. And here I am, dammit!
Not saying that at all! You're there. On a short spiritual retreat. Will get back.
I appreciate the article and your comment.
I've been in a federated network of 'knowledge workers' for nearly 30 years, self-organized and thriving. We've helped organizations across the globe (small community groups to multinational corps, nonprofits, social profits, governments, in every sector and industry). One thing that transforms any group is understanding the benefit of a hierarchical system (which contributes to clarity of purpose and actually getting things done) while respecting the authority of capable and knowledgeable contributors (who may or may not be structurally higher in a system). Too often we confuse the hierarchy with authority and vice versa, such that bad actors in high places can do more damage than should be possible. Plus can foment bad will on the behalf of bad actors who feel disenfranchised by the confusion.
Thanks Marla -
Yes, there remains a good deal of confusion in society at large between authoritarianism and appropriate authority, and also between appropriate and healthy hierarchies and authoritarian hierarchies. This results in abundant confusions about learning and education, among numerous other things. In short, as I see it, we generally tend to reference the ideologies of the dominant culture in our present world, which is a dominator culture.
I don't think we can make much headway in understanding these matters if we're unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the present dominant culture in our world is a dominator culture -- which Patrick Mazza has written about in the terminology of "the megamachine" -- vis-a-vis the original work on that from Lewis Mumford, then elaborated upon by folks like (explicitly) Fabien Scheidler, and (less explicitly, perhaps) by Amitav Ghosh (in The Nutmeg's Curse).
The key to what I'm saying here is that there is such a thing as "the cultural unconscious," ... (which is a *collective* unconscious of the sort which has sometimes been described as a sort of "conveyor belt world") of collective automation. It is also sometimes described as a sort of blind, unconscious (automatic) obedience and conformity to social norms, conventions and habits. E. M. Forster's only science fiction story simply calls it the Machine -- in The Machine Stops (1909). The Machine operates on principles of conformity and obedience, not of empathy, kindness, compassion, listening, availability, openness. Indeed, Forster's story ... to my ears..., is a story of a collective unconscious process in which humanity falls into a collective trance of a sort where only the very strange and rare individual might awaken. But now, as it seems to me, a collective awakening from our cultural trance is required even to avoid utter and complete collapse of the biosphere itself -- if indeed such is still possible.
Amitav Ghosh, The Nutmeg's Curse
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2022-3-fall/books/climate-crisis-nutmeg-amitav-ghosh
Insightful stuff!
Thanks James for all the resources, some I know, some not. I'm glad to learn more. I appreciate your perspective and ability to share it.
I first heard about dominator cultures from Riane Eisler who taught in my grad school. She wrote The Chalice and the Blade among other things. It seems that model has been dying a slow death for awhile now, and we still feel the last desperate gasps with concern when they pop up (war, shutdowns, enforced language, nostalgia for "good' ol' days, etc.,) but that's just so we can continue to refine what is emergent, which is more unitive, collective, equitable.
All the organizations i've worked with favour a collaborative approach which is wonderful for inclusivity and diversity but often gets afraid of anything that smacks of leadership for fear of appearing to have "authority". It's probably a matter of testing out the sea legs to find where a more holistic center of gravity needs to be.
We just have to figure out what true authority looks like and not be afraid of hierarchy that is in fact a system of servant leadership.
Thanks again for the links!
Hi Marla -
For what it is worth, I'm not precisely coming from Riane Eisler's framework and "model" when I speak of the dominant culture on Earth as a "dominator culture," rather I'm speaking as a human ecologist and eco-cultural philosopher in the broadest sense. Therefore, what I mean, at core, by "dominator culture" is that the dominant world culture -- presently -- is anthropocentric. My criticism is rooted in the observation that the present world-dominant mode of economy is essentially in a parasitic relation to Earth's eco-systems -- which has resulted in the present overshoot situation best described (I think) by professor / Dr. William E. Rees here: https://rword.substack.com/p/william-e-rees-the-fundamental-issue .
My use of 'parasitic' may be a bit metaphoric. And that's okay, as far as I am concerned. The result of this systemic domination over Earth's ecosystems is an overshoot of ecological carrying capacity in the broadest possible sense of the term. And this is best understood, in my view, as a system of domination by present culturally embedded systems over the entire biotic community of Earth.
Anthropocentrism is sometimes described as "human exceptionalism," and this is what I think I remember Rees sometimes calling it.
But humans also tend -- in the current dominant / dominator cultural system -- to *also* dominate one another, and not merely the biotic community of Earth. Which is why philosophers like myself tend to lean heavily toward what is more and more commonly called Radical Ecology -- http://www.ecodharma.com/articles-influences-audio/radical-ecology -- as our eco-critical philosophy for what's presently occurring on this planet.
Many people are very adverse to this framing, because it challenges their most cherished notions of what it is to be human. So I understand if you find this orientation to be off-putting, insufficient, superficial, or whatever. But it is my own view on the situation we are in.
I only just watched Bill Rees on the great simplification and this was actually the first I’d heard of him. I agree with his entire conclusions and sentiment though. Why he hasn’t popped up on my radar until now is probably my fault for not diving more into human ecology.
I think educating our children in ecology is critical. We still keep churning out young adults who know nothing but the dominant culture and capitalism. How can they change the world starting with such a background, makes it a lot harder
Thanks for the clarifications! Easy to see how humans are parasites on the natural world. Hard to understand how anyone could put humans at the top of the pyramid (or see things as a pyramid in the first place). It's a wholeness that can be in harmony with all the rest if the concern for the entirety were as critical as one's own well-being.
No one "wins" unless we all "win". (I don't like the "win" concept but it often serves for those who are in that mindset.) If you know the Harvard game strategy exercise "Win as Much as You Can" - it demonstrates a method for revealing who people think the "You" is. Very effective for understanding the core beliefs one is dealing with.
"Easy to see how humans are parasites on the natural world."
Yes -- but it is really not *all* humans -- either in the contemporary world or in the olden days. Rather, it is a minority of humans throughout human history, mainly. It's mainly the humans "succeeding" in the modern, capitalist-industrial / technological civilization who are wrecking the biosphere.
Agreed.
This short film does a good job of unpacking this line of thought, I think.
Sacred Economics with Charles Eisenstein - A Short Film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZkQv25uEs
You have made many valid points here Marla, of which most people are well aware of. I will hardly disagree that in societies as confused and hodge-podge as ours that we need authoritative and hierarchical governing bodies, but what really irks me is that no one acknowledges the immense disadvantages of hierarchies, which put leaders far away from and above the persons they lead. The larger the hierarchy, the more blind such leaders tend to be to creatures at the bottom of our wonderful pyramid-and the Earth itself. I think we can all agree that poverty and misery amongst those at the bottom are the rule and not the exceptions under hierarchical governing forms. History has shown us little else.
Would love to learn more about this federated network of knowledge workers. This is new to me
HI Leon,
It's everywhere, but often hard to find. Some organizations have tried to embed it into their structures but it works best as a freelance contractor model. There are a few places who have codified a particular corner of the network and built businesses around it, but most are out doing good as independents.
You can follow the threads of Matt and Gail Taylor from the 80s and that will lead you down the rabbithole.
Thank you Maria, I’ll check the Taylors out, thanks for the reply.
It is my view that we're well past the point where folks can -- or should -- expect to make what middle class folks imagine to be "a decent living" at being revolutionaries (even of the non-violent and non-insurrectionary kind I advocate for). Most people who are able to live what amounts to a middle class (or even a bit 'lower') 'lifestyle' while seeking to transform the culture away from ecocide (and oppression of humans) must be experiencing a great deal of cognitive dissonance ... if they are aware of the principal data points of our collective ecological, social, economic, and political situation at present. I do not envy them. But I chose to live well outside of the mainstream paradigm of culture in "the developed world" -- just in order to avoid such cognitive dissonance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Yes indeed! Well said.
Happily I've found that those of us who have gotten into this kind of work were ready to change the world by living in a very different way from our grandparents and parents. The illusion of 'security' though salaries and fixed schedules weren't attractive, but rather to be present and attentive to what every moment needs, not accumulators but creators developing inner resources and expansive, diffuse strategies that care for whole systems, impossible to see anything as separate from all the rest. Complexity theory as a basis for understanding contemplation, choice, and action.
Agreed!
Wonderful article Patrick! Your thoughts on institutions remind me of the Chomsky quote where he advocated the dismantling of illegitimate hierarchies. I also agree completely with your notion that future generations are not being considered in our decision-making processes. Which is akin to suicide...Last point-the belief that civilization has always been hierarchical since its beginning is a common misconception. Many of the people involved in constructing Mesopotamian cities were from pure democracies, and governed their cities as such. This gives us reason to hope-because if these earl city-dwellers were able to live in an egalitarian society then we should, too. Read the Davids', Graeber and Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything for more.