Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

rot wrote

What about teacher student relationships and simple group leadership? When ppl say "justified hierarchy" I take it as a relationship where one or more person is temporarily given command over another for organizational purposes.

Like a non coercive agreement.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Teacher student relationships is a great example. Imparting skills to others needn't be a hierarchy. If it's a hierarchy, the teacher has power over the studemt and the student is essentially a hostage - forced to learn even when they don't want to. Why should learning be so backwards? Why can't it be a free exchange of ideas, a fully voluntary open communication between people? The fact that one of the parties has some skills they wish to pass on shouldn't entitle them to a position of power over others. Teachers learn just as much from their students as vice versa.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

The point is to always prevent hierarchies and power disparities from forming by treating each relationship between parties with great caution. If you make 'all power corrupts' your mantra, instead of Chomskyist flimflam like 'justifiable hierarchy' you'll go a lot further in maintaining anarchy.

1

rot wrote

I think there's a problem with using hierarchy because that means that there is a power unbalance. I understood justified hierarchy as different from coercive hierarchy b/c what justified it was the lack of force.

"A fully voluntary open communication between people" wouldn't be considered justified hierarchy I guess because there is no power being used to force compliance, but I thought of "justified hierarchy" as a trade off: You have knowledge or skills that will benefit me or the community so I will follow your directions. It's temporary and voluntary.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't see an open exchange / transfer of ideas as a hierarchy. It's just basic interaction; communication.

1

rot wrote

I think I might have misunderstood what "justified hierarchy" meant. GaldraChevaliere and I had similar ideas about it and what you said to them made sense. I was under the impression that jh was not real hierarchy just expertise in a field being applied- taking an expert's instructions or opinions is not really hierarchy in the sense of top-down coercive force

What would you call "hierarchies of skills" then?

1

ziq wrote

Communication?

2

rot wrote

Yeah but there's an element of direction, of organization that places the more experienced in charge. We're communicating but I'm not convincing you to do anything for me

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Well look at this thread. We're exchanging ideas. I'm imparting an idea to you without being in charge of anything. You're doing the same.