Hierarchy and the Future?
Patriachal Hierarchy and the Future?
People are not equal and anyone who thinks and observes is well aware of
that fact; and it is a fact. For that reason, and despite all the wishy-washy feel
good emotionalism devoted to the subject, human societies have always
organized themselves into hierarchies. The original hierarchical based
“government” was along the lines of families and clans and essentially hued
to either patriarchy or the so called rule of the jungle. Genghis Khan is a
perfect example of how a rule of the jungle structure was put together from
scratch.
On the smallest scale we need merely observe the primitive family unit. The
patriarch ran it because he built it and from the start and it was his
responsibility. The clan model grew from that, presumably with the strongest
patriarch becoming the patriarch in charge; think lion prides or herds of
horses, and more than likely families with idiots for patriarch probably took
care of that in similar fashion.
It is logical to assume, considering the importance of survival, that patriarchs
who couldn’t carry out their survival responsibilities didn’t last long. One way
or the other, either the entire clan ceased to survive or someone more capable
took over responsibility. In this way there was almost surely a lot of clan
merging done under patriarchs who had shown themselves to be capable,
and when this occurred clans expanded, but still hierarchically, with family
patriarchs subordinate to clan chiefs.
Patriarch model clans eventually morphed into kingdoms as agriculture made
it possible for clans to settle down. And kings became kings in one of two
ways: they were born to the patriarchy or they took it over by force. Such
models are interesting because they were essentially anchored in
responsibility: the patriarch had it all. That didn’t mean he did everything. His
women folk, for example, had their own responsibilities to fulfill and those
usually centered on infant children and the household; on the other side all
patriarchs also had their lieutenants or clan councils to assist in carrying out
orders and policies. Kingdoms were similarly constructed. And most
patriarchs – and many kings – took their responsibilities very seriously.
Subsequently two more models developed – oligarchy and democracy. With
the advent of money and credit oligarchy came up with a new basis for elitism
– wealth – and clan leadership responsibility was assumed by the oligarchic
patriarch. In representative democracy the people, in some form or another,
took over the responsibility for selecting the leadership. Oligarchy highlights
the other side of patriarchy – and monarchy – and that is self interest.
Regardless of the degree of patriarchal responsibility assumed by either
oligarchs or monarchial patriarchs the degree of entitlement was always equal
or greater. An interesting view of “royal” responsibility, expressed in Albion’s
Seed by David Hackett Fischer was that it was condescending, while the
“hegemonic liberty” it was espoused as liberty for the elite to lead and control
without interference while “caring for” their underlings as they deemed
expedient. That is, they saw themselves as patriarchs in a very traditional
sense.
All this is background for the subject I wish to address, and that is
representative democratic patriarchy. Beginning with traditional liberalism, the
move to democracy was based on a more egalitarian sharing of responsibility
and power, both carefully separated and checked, at least in the American
Constitution. “The people,” variously defined, were to take a hand in ruling
themselves through representatives which were nominally responsible to
them. It is still quite evident, however, that since we are not all equal in talent,
knowledge and motivation, those who are deemed most able by the voters
assumed the duties of ruling the others – within Constitutionally defined rules
and responsibilities. All well and good; “the people” elect them, re-elect them,
and replace them at their pleasure, but for many reasons it’s not that easy. In
their minds, our elected leaders’, they have become society’s new patriarchs;
they see themselves as such – with responsibilities, but also privileges that
one would expect would go along with them.
The drift to increased patriarchy is unmistakable, far more so in some locales,
East Asian societies for example, and to a lesser extent European, where
social privilege – patriarchy – is more readily accepted. Is this a positive drift?
Plato, with his philosopher kings (The Republic) would probably say so, and
so would Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the philosophical justification of
absolute monarchy. Their argument would likely have been that relatively few
are qualified to lead and they, logically, should be the leaders – the patriarchs
– accepted by the others. Democratic societies would not necessarily
disagree – not all wish to rule – but would argue that those that do wish to, and
are deemed best qualified, be responsible to all the rest that don’t; in other
words they should rule as “the people” would have them rule.
Alas, the people are divided, and every bit as selfish as those who would rule,
so “the will of the people” is a moving target. And as life – and economics –
becomes more and more complex, the people become less and less able to
know and understand what is really in their best interest. Furthermore, those
same people, with limited world view knowledge, and less detailed technical
knowledge, can be manipulated. By whom? By those who would maintain
their elite positions as rulers – patriarchs – who are generally convinced that
they know much better than “the people” what is good for them.
We are faced with the traditional social extremes: order and anarchy. The
people of a democratic republic lean toward anarchy and their patriarchs lean
toward order. In a perfect world a democratic republic would balance those
two Inclinations; can ours? The difference, aside from the part about who
comes out ahead, is frame of reference: one side argues that in the longer
term providing maximum flexibility to motivation and rewards for innovation will
achieve the best results for all. The other side allows that that might be all well
and good in the long term, but they are not likely to live long enough to enjoy
the benefits. In between, of course, is continual compromise which is part of
the democratic process. All indications are that our populations want it both
ways, but are inclined to be impatient, and impatience seems to be gaining
ascendency. Impatience is a powerful force particularly in the American
culture.
The drift suggests greater egalitarianism among the people with steady
development of elitism among the patriarchal class; that is, those who gain the
patriarchal power positions are likely to strive to maintain them. It seems that
the human condition leans strongly toward government of elites; with
democracy only providing a new way to determine elite. So how should our
hierarchical elite be chosen – and maintained? Birth? Weath? Power? Or
selection? We would say, of course, selection; our patriarchal elite, however,
would in its turn do whatever can be done to influence the process of selection
so as to remain among the ruling elite, which is as one would expect it to be.
But looking at the influence of birth, wealth and power on the selection process
we must recognize that the line between them and selection is tenuous – and
fragile.
Can democracy survive? Considering its age it must be accepted as still
experimental – and it is evolving, in many different ways in different places. So
how will that evolution progress? The most important advantage selection by
the people has over traditional patriarchal elitism is, at least in the United
States, that our democracy has a strong middle class that is wedded to neither
birth nor wealth (at least not automatically) as means for selection, and have
access to information that can be used to determine qualifications, if it
chooses to do so; and that middle class is crucial to the success of modern
nation states, making its members the ultimate adjudicator over how much
power is held for the people, and how much is surrendered to the elite. The
struggle will go on, but stronger and stronger tendency toward at least a
shared patriarchy is evident; and clearly the goal of those in power is to lock it
up. It will be an interesting struggle in this country, perhaps less so in others,
where it is already further advanced. (See Oligarchy to the right)
People are not equal and anyone who thinks and observes is well aware of
that fact; and it is a fact. For that reason, and despite all the wishy-washy feel
good emotionalism devoted to the subject, human societies have always
organized themselves into hierarchies. The original hierarchical based
“government” was along the lines of families and clans and essentially hued
to either patriarchy or the so called rule of the jungle. Genghis Khan is a
perfect example of how a rule of the jungle structure was put together from
scratch.
On the smallest scale we need merely observe the primitive family unit. The
patriarch ran it because he built it and from the start and it was his
responsibility. The clan model grew from that, presumably with the strongest
patriarch becoming the patriarch in charge; think lion prides or herds of
horses, and more than likely families with idiots for patriarch probably took
care of that in similar fashion.
It is logical to assume, considering the importance of survival, that patriarchs
who couldn’t carry out their survival responsibilities didn’t last long. One way
or the other, either the entire clan ceased to survive or someone more capable
took over responsibility. In this way there was almost surely a lot of clan
merging done under patriarchs who had shown themselves to be capable,
and when this occurred clans expanded, but still hierarchically, with family
patriarchs subordinate to clan chiefs.
Patriarch model clans eventually morphed into kingdoms as agriculture made
it possible for clans to settle down. And kings became kings in one of two
ways: they were born to the patriarchy or they took it over by force. Such
models are interesting because they were essentially anchored in
responsibility: the patriarch had it all. That didn’t mean he did everything. His
women folk, for example, had their own responsibilities to fulfill and those
usually centered on infant children and the household; on the other side all
patriarchs also had their lieutenants or clan councils to assist in carrying out
orders and policies. Kingdoms were similarly constructed. And most
patriarchs – and many kings – took their responsibilities very seriously.
Subsequently two more models developed – oligarchy and democracy. With
the advent of money and credit oligarchy came up with a new basis for elitism
– wealth – and clan leadership responsibility was assumed by the oligarchic
patriarch. In representative democracy the people, in some form or another,
took over the responsibility for selecting the leadership. Oligarchy highlights
the other side of patriarchy – and monarchy – and that is self interest.
Regardless of the degree of patriarchal responsibility assumed by either
oligarchs or monarchial patriarchs the degree of entitlement was always equal
or greater. An interesting view of “royal” responsibility, expressed in Albion’s
Seed by David Hackett Fischer was that it was condescending, while the
“hegemonic liberty” it was espoused as liberty for the elite to lead and control
without interference while “caring for” their underlings as they deemed
expedient. That is, they saw themselves as patriarchs in a very traditional
sense.
All this is background for the subject I wish to address, and that is
representative democratic patriarchy. Beginning with traditional liberalism, the
move to democracy was based on a more egalitarian sharing of responsibility
and power, both carefully separated and checked, at least in the American
Constitution. “The people,” variously defined, were to take a hand in ruling
themselves through representatives which were nominally responsible to
them. It is still quite evident, however, that since we are not all equal in talent,
knowledge and motivation, those who are deemed most able by the voters
assumed the duties of ruling the others – within Constitutionally defined rules
and responsibilities. All well and good; “the people” elect them, re-elect them,
and replace them at their pleasure, but for many reasons it’s not that easy. In
their minds, our elected leaders’, they have become society’s new patriarchs;
they see themselves as such – with responsibilities, but also privileges that
one would expect would go along with them.
The drift to increased patriarchy is unmistakable, far more so in some locales,
East Asian societies for example, and to a lesser extent European, where
social privilege – patriarchy – is more readily accepted. Is this a positive drift?
Plato, with his philosopher kings (The Republic) would probably say so, and
so would Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the philosophical justification of
absolute monarchy. Their argument would likely have been that relatively few
are qualified to lead and they, logically, should be the leaders – the patriarchs
– accepted by the others. Democratic societies would not necessarily
disagree – not all wish to rule – but would argue that those that do wish to, and
are deemed best qualified, be responsible to all the rest that don’t; in other
words they should rule as “the people” would have them rule.
Alas, the people are divided, and every bit as selfish as those who would rule,
so “the will of the people” is a moving target. And as life – and economics –
becomes more and more complex, the people become less and less able to
know and understand what is really in their best interest. Furthermore, those
same people, with limited world view knowledge, and less detailed technical
knowledge, can be manipulated. By whom? By those who would maintain
their elite positions as rulers – patriarchs – who are generally convinced that
they know much better than “the people” what is good for them.
We are faced with the traditional social extremes: order and anarchy. The
people of a democratic republic lean toward anarchy and their patriarchs lean
toward order. In a perfect world a democratic republic would balance those
two Inclinations; can ours? The difference, aside from the part about who
comes out ahead, is frame of reference: one side argues that in the longer
term providing maximum flexibility to motivation and rewards for innovation will
achieve the best results for all. The other side allows that that might be all well
and good in the long term, but they are not likely to live long enough to enjoy
the benefits. In between, of course, is continual compromise which is part of
the democratic process. All indications are that our populations want it both
ways, but are inclined to be impatient, and impatience seems to be gaining
ascendency. Impatience is a powerful force particularly in the American
culture.
The drift suggests greater egalitarianism among the people with steady
development of elitism among the patriarchal class; that is, those who gain the
patriarchal power positions are likely to strive to maintain them. It seems that
the human condition leans strongly toward government of elites; with
democracy only providing a new way to determine elite. So how should our
hierarchical elite be chosen – and maintained? Birth? Weath? Power? Or
selection? We would say, of course, selection; our patriarchal elite, however,
would in its turn do whatever can be done to influence the process of selection
so as to remain among the ruling elite, which is as one would expect it to be.
But looking at the influence of birth, wealth and power on the selection process
we must recognize that the line between them and selection is tenuous – and
fragile.
Can democracy survive? Considering its age it must be accepted as still
experimental – and it is evolving, in many different ways in different places. So
how will that evolution progress? The most important advantage selection by
the people has over traditional patriarchal elitism is, at least in the United
States, that our democracy has a strong middle class that is wedded to neither
birth nor wealth (at least not automatically) as means for selection, and have
access to information that can be used to determine qualifications, if it
chooses to do so; and that middle class is crucial to the success of modern
nation states, making its members the ultimate adjudicator over how much
power is held for the people, and how much is surrendered to the elite. The
struggle will go on, but stronger and stronger tendency toward at least a
shared patriarchy is evident; and clearly the goal of those in power is to lock it
up. It will be an interesting struggle in this country, perhaps less so in others,
where it is already further advanced. (See Oligarchy to the right)
Liberty: The condition of being free from restriction
or control; the right and power to act, believe, or
express oneself in a manner of one's own
choosing; freedom from unjust or undue
governmental control.
Freedom (political): the absence of interference
with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of
coercion or aggression
Democracy: a government by the people in which
the supreme power is vested by the people and
exercised directly by them or by their elected agent
under a free electoral system.
“Founded as a republic that believed in a balance
between the will of the majority and the rights of the
minority – or, more broadly, between liberty and
democracy – America is increasingly embracing a
simple-minded populism that values popularity and
openness as the key measures of legitimacy. This
ideology has necessitated the destruction of old
institutions, the undermining of traditional authority,
and the triumph of organized interest groups, all in
the name of ‘the people.’ The result is a deep
imbalance in the American system, more
democracy but less liberty.”
Fareed Zacharia ( The Future of Freedom)
“Fareed Zacharia is right that, where possible, a
liberal rule of law is initially more critical to
economic growth than democratic political
participation, and that modernizing authoritarians
might be preferable in some cases to feckless
democracies.”
Francis Fukuyama (America at the Crossroads)
or control; the right and power to act, believe, or
express oneself in a manner of one's own
choosing; freedom from unjust or undue
governmental control.
Freedom (political): the absence of interference
with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of
coercion or aggression
Democracy: a government by the people in which
the supreme power is vested by the people and
exercised directly by them or by their elected agent
under a free electoral system.
“Founded as a republic that believed in a balance
between the will of the majority and the rights of the
minority – or, more broadly, between liberty and
democracy – America is increasingly embracing a
simple-minded populism that values popularity and
openness as the key measures of legitimacy. This
ideology has necessitated the destruction of old
institutions, the undermining of traditional authority,
and the triumph of organized interest groups, all in
the name of ‘the people.’ The result is a deep
imbalance in the American system, more
democracy but less liberty.”
Fareed Zacharia ( The Future of Freedom)
“Fareed Zacharia is right that, where possible, a
liberal rule of law is initially more critical to
economic growth than democratic political
participation, and that modernizing authoritarians
might be preferable in some cases to feckless
democracies.”
Francis Fukuyama (America at the Crossroads)
ol•i•gar•chy:Government by a few, especially by a
small faction of persons or families; a state
governed by a few persons.
Iron Law of Oligarchy (Robert Michels, Political
Parties, 1911): “All forms of organization, regardless
of how democratic or autocratic they may wish to be
at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into
oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical
indispensability of leadership, the tendency of
leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate
their interests; the gratitude of the led toward their
leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of
the masses.” (Wikopedia)
“There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of
oligarchy: small groups dominate every cultural
system. They tend to do so by controlling
institutions and processes so that they become
‘governors’ of a culture in both a political and a
mechanical sense.” (David Hackett Fischer, Albion’
s Seed pg. 896)
“The proposition is not that America’s future should
depend on an elite that is educated to run the
country, but that, whether we like it or not, America’s
future does depend on an elite that runs the
country…For practical purposes, the nation is run by
an elite that we do not choose.”
(Charles Murray, Real Education)
“Referendums and initiatives have accelerated the
process of taking power away from politicians and
giving it to ‘the people,’ but always through an ever-
growing class of professional consultants,
lobbyists, pollsters and activists. In the name of
democracy, we have created a new layer of
enormously powerful elites…The new elites also
have fewer checks on them than did those before
them.”
Fareed Zacharia, The Future of Freedom, pgs. 197-
198)
“A relatively small group of people – perhaps 1
million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most of
the major institutions in the United States or has
influence in other ways.” (Ibid pg. 235)
small faction of persons or families; a state
governed by a few persons.
Iron Law of Oligarchy (Robert Michels, Political
Parties, 1911): “All forms of organization, regardless
of how democratic or autocratic they may wish to be
at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into
oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical
indispensability of leadership, the tendency of
leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate
their interests; the gratitude of the led toward their
leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of
the masses.” (Wikopedia)
“There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of
oligarchy: small groups dominate every cultural
system. They tend to do so by controlling
institutions and processes so that they become
‘governors’ of a culture in both a political and a
mechanical sense.” (David Hackett Fischer, Albion’
s Seed pg. 896)
“The proposition is not that America’s future should
depend on an elite that is educated to run the
country, but that, whether we like it or not, America’s
future does depend on an elite that runs the
country…For practical purposes, the nation is run by
an elite that we do not choose.”
(Charles Murray, Real Education)
“Referendums and initiatives have accelerated the
process of taking power away from politicians and
giving it to ‘the people,’ but always through an ever-
growing class of professional consultants,
lobbyists, pollsters and activists. In the name of
democracy, we have created a new layer of
enormously powerful elites…The new elites also
have fewer checks on them than did those before
them.”
Fareed Zacharia, The Future of Freedom, pgs. 197-
198)
“A relatively small group of people – perhaps 1
million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most of
the major institutions in the United States or has
influence in other ways.” (Ibid pg. 235)
Liberty, Freedom,
Democracy and Oligarchy
Democracy and Oligarchy
Patriarchal Versus Oligarchy Versus Elite
What is it we are talking about? Patriarchal is mostly what most people seem to seek -
someone/some ruling entity to care for us and defend us, but allow us liberty to function, within
limits - to be a father figure? Religion is the ultimate provider of patriarchy - so we seek the same
on earth? Plato's philosopher prince comes to mind. Is it something built into our psyche?
Oligarchy is rule of the few - it inevitably comes from the inequality of humanity - whereas people
seek patriarchy, oligarchs presume to provide it through their superior ability to do so. Superior
people (define as you will - so do they) either feel driven to or aspire to the role. Again we must
realize oligarchs are created from different seeds - birth, wealth, force, ability, cunning?
Elites are those that fall into oligarchy - they are those of which oligarchy is made.
Semantics? More than semantics. It is how we sort out.
Democracy? An experiment to make rule more egalitarian. The eternal question is whether we
are capable of it. Are we? The results thus far are impressive but inconclusive - and tenuous.
Can we have oligarchy (representative government through democratic choice) served by elite,
selected by merit that satisfies our need for patriarchal security, yet subject to our choice and
susceptible to replacement at our discretion? It depends on how capable we are in our ability to
choose those of ability rather than those who talk well and serve only themselves, or no one. The
recent track record at this point is less impressive, but then the pendulum swings back and forth.
What will come next? Can we learn from our mistakes?
Stay tuned, but realize success must come from being able to find balance - for easy agreement
is not something that is reasonable of human beings.
What is it we are talking about? Patriarchal is mostly what most people seem to seek -
someone/some ruling entity to care for us and defend us, but allow us liberty to function, within
limits - to be a father figure? Religion is the ultimate provider of patriarchy - so we seek the same
on earth? Plato's philosopher prince comes to mind. Is it something built into our psyche?
Oligarchy is rule of the few - it inevitably comes from the inequality of humanity - whereas people
seek patriarchy, oligarchs presume to provide it through their superior ability to do so. Superior
people (define as you will - so do they) either feel driven to or aspire to the role. Again we must
realize oligarchs are created from different seeds - birth, wealth, force, ability, cunning?
Elites are those that fall into oligarchy - they are those of which oligarchy is made.
Semantics? More than semantics. It is how we sort out.
Democracy? An experiment to make rule more egalitarian. The eternal question is whether we
are capable of it. Are we? The results thus far are impressive but inconclusive - and tenuous.
Can we have oligarchy (representative government through democratic choice) served by elite,
selected by merit that satisfies our need for patriarchal security, yet subject to our choice and
susceptible to replacement at our discretion? It depends on how capable we are in our ability to
choose those of ability rather than those who talk well and serve only themselves, or no one. The
recent track record at this point is less impressive, but then the pendulum swings back and forth.
What will come next? Can we learn from our mistakes?
Stay tuned, but realize success must come from being able to find balance - for easy agreement
is not something that is reasonable of human beings.
Paul A. Rahe, Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift (pgs 162-163):
"Many of his (Tocqueville's) fellow citizens were persuaded that the
distinguishing feature of republican government is not 'the rule of the
majority, as was believed until now.' In their view, it is 'the rule of those who
are strong in their feelings for the majority.' It is the rule of those who are
most firmly persuaded that they and they alone 'know the people's greatest
good.' This Tocqueville wryly terms a 'fortunate distinction,' for it permits
self-syled elite 'to act in the name of nations without consulting them and to
demand their gratitude while trampling upon them.'"
"Many of his (Tocqueville's) fellow citizens were persuaded that the
distinguishing feature of republican government is not 'the rule of the
majority, as was believed until now.' In their view, it is 'the rule of those who
are strong in their feelings for the majority.' It is the rule of those who are
most firmly persuaded that they and they alone 'know the people's greatest
good.' This Tocqueville wryly terms a 'fortunate distinction,' for it permits
self-syled elite 'to act in the name of nations without consulting them and to
demand their gratitude while trampling upon them.'"
As long as leaders are elected as
representatives by the voters we have a
republic. Oligarchy really suggests that the
choices are limited. Paternalism is more of
an attitude that permeates a particular
republic - a style of leadership perhaps?
It is easy to see how the three can become
muddled, and easier to see how a
complacent and rather ignorant electorate,
susceptible to propaganda can be
manipulated in one way or the other. We are
seeing it happen. This page began with
patriarchy, a management style, if you will.
The drift toward Oligarchy will be continued
on other pages, beginning with concern for
defending middle ground. The threat seems
to me, as pursued through readings of our
clearest thinkings - now and from the past -
quite obvious.
The question will ultimately come down to
our ability to determine who our elite
leadership will be.
representatives by the voters we have a
republic. Oligarchy really suggests that the
choices are limited. Paternalism is more of
an attitude that permeates a particular
republic - a style of leadership perhaps?
It is easy to see how the three can become
muddled, and easier to see how a
complacent and rather ignorant electorate,
susceptible to propaganda can be
manipulated in one way or the other. We are
seeing it happen. This page began with
patriarchy, a management style, if you will.
The drift toward Oligarchy will be continued
on other pages, beginning with concern for
defending middle ground. The threat seems
to me, as pursued through readings of our
clearest thinkings - now and from the past -
quite obvious.
The question will ultimately come down to
our ability to determine who our elite
leadership will be.