“Hierarchy”, an essay by Paul H. Rubin, focuses on the different types of hierarchical organization developed in human and non-human societies throughout the History of evolution.
The author’s main purpose in this paper is to point out the distinction between Dominance hierarchies and Productive hierarchies, since humans often confuse the two types and it is important to understand the difference for analytical and political concerns. Dominance (or consumption) hierarchies are common in most social species (group-living animals), including primates and humans. This form of hierarchical organization is evolutionarily old, and predates humanness. The main features of this kind of hierarchy is that the group sizes are small, there is only one hierarchy per group per gender, and the only way of leaving it is by leaving the group. All individuals benefit from group-living (even the low-ranked members of the hierarchy) because it facilitates access to resources and offers protection against predators. However, the dominant members (the high-ranked elite) have preferred access when it comes to how the resources are allocated. These Alpha members often have greater access to food and reproductive possibilities (biological success). Productive hierarchies are purely human, and have its origin in the paleolithic transition from hunter-gatherer nomads to agricultural sedentary societies. Humans based on the classic dominance form of hierarchy and adapted it to new uses, converting the mechanism that dictated social organization in order to increase productivity and efficiency in contextualized structures. These hierarchies are used to better coordinate specialization and division of labor for complex tasks, such as the activities in business firms, film studios, factories, governments, universities, etc. For example, an animation studio’s administration is grounded on hierarchical policies because of how much this production method elevates the quality of the final outcome. The division of avocations adds greatly to the project’s productivity, since each individual focuses on only one specific skill (including the management/director task) and becomes a specialist on the subject. Membership in these production hierarchies is voluntary, so individuals must be sufficiently compensated (with beneficial goods and services) if they are to take subordinate roles. Volunteering is the feature in which Government hierarchies don’t agree with the productive stance. There is only one government hierarchy per society, and everyone in a society must be subject to the government regulations, even if its not in their perceived self-interest. In certain situations it is quite difficult to distinguish between the two types of hierarchies, and this usual mistake can lead to a misunderstanding of ideals. In the writer’s words: “Productive an dominance hierarchies have many features in common. In both, bigger-ranked individuals receive more resources than, and can issue commands to, lower ranked members. Therefore, humans (…) often confuse the two uses. For example, the Communist Manifesto, a major policy document, clearly confused the two.” According to Rubin, the appeal of Marx’s belief is “based on the human opposition to dominance hierarchies, inappropriately applied to productive hierarchies”. Whereas, I think that Marx’s position was a confirmation and awareness of how dominant behavior and other features of the Consumption Hierarchy were being applied to production areas, damaging the values of productive hierarchical organization. Reading this text was fulfilling. Even though it’s quite a heavy subject, this essay lets the reader apprehend a little more about how humanity works, reflecting on the evolution of political preferences and social norms, which is of extreme relevance. After all, the only way of predicting and building the future is by understanding the past.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
February 2017
Categories |