anarkhos

Introduction

This essay is a consideration of the relationship between hierarchy and cowardice.  Specifically, we shall explore whether cowardice is a necessary precondition for the existence of hierarchy and whether cowardice pervades all individuals of a hierarchy equally or whether, instead, its distribution is unequal.  This subject is of interest to rational anarchism in so far as it may help to identify an enabling factor in human relations that gives rise to or sustains hierarchy.

Characteristics of Hierarchy

Hierarchy is a method of social organization characterized by authoritarian relationships.  In its purest form, each member of a hierarchy, with the exception of one individual, stands in a direct subordinate relation to one other member of the hierarchy.  Each instance of this relation, the direct-subordinate-of-relation, has two participants, one being the inferior individual and the other being the most immediate superior individual.  Each superior individual may have one or more immediate inferior individuals so related.  Each inferior individual may have one and only one immediate superior.

Within a strict hierarchy, there exists one and only one individual who has no immediate superior.  Such an individual will be referred to as the alpha-member of the hierarchy.  Additionally, within a hierarchy, there exists one or more individuals without immediate inferiors.  Such individuals will be referred to as omega-members of the hierarchy.  The remaining individuals consist of those individuals for whom there exists one immediate superior and one or more immediate inferiors.  These individuals will be referred to as beta-members.

Modes of Hierarchy

In the absence of other hierarchies, the alpha-member is an individual who has obtained his or her position through one of two primary mechanisms.  The first mechanism is the mechanism of nature and the second mechanism is the mechanism of power. 

Meritocracy

 Hierarchies of the first class are referred to as meritocracies.  These hierarchies are characterized by a ranking of individuals based on some quality other than force.  Some technical hierarchies begin as meritocracies.  In a setting unfettered by an imbalance of force, certain individuals, by means of shear talent or hard work will find themselves in the alpha-member position of a hierarchy.  When this occurs naturally, cowardice plays no role in the maintenance of such a hierarchy.  Individuals within a true meritocracy will find their positions to be fluid.  The additional of new individuals will disrupt and reorganize the hierarchical relations within the structure.  Additionally, as individuals within the meritocracy work harder or achieve higher accomplishments, the natural ordering of the structure will change.  Unfortunately, few hierarchies that begin their existence as meritocracies remain as such.  For reasons we will explain later, meritocracies tend to crystallize into hierarchies of the second class.

Autocracy

Hierarchies of the second class are referred to as autocracies.  Autocracies exist only through the presence of external or structural force.  The external or structural force may take the form of property relations, economic relations, psychological oppression (as in the special case of theocracies), or brute force.  Force is necessary for the maintenance of autocracy because it is contrary to the nature of the individual to be held in unnatural relation to other individuals.  Specifically, no individual would choose, of his or own free and unfettered will, to be the inferior of another where no natural relation made such a relationship inherent.  Let us examine each form of force that supports autocracy.  As well, let us consider whether cowardice plays a role in enabling these forces to manifest themselves as autocratic hierarchy.

Property Based Autocracy

Property relations are a common force within societies based upon the rule of law.  To the extent that they exist in societies outside the realm of law, they exist by virtue of another force (e.g. brute force or psychological oppression).  Consequently, we will consider lawless property based force under its primary sources.  In a legal society, property relations leverage the power of the state as a tool in the application of brute force.  Individuals wishing to challenge property relations must challenge the state or utilize the power of the state to effect a transfer of property.  Since the state must depend upon the owners of property as the source of its own power, property owners are more able to influence the application of force by the state.  At a disadvantage with respect to the direction of state power, individuals maintained within a hierarchy based on property relations, ultimately, must confront the state itself if they wish to dislodge themselves from this form of hierarchy.

The consequences of opposing the state are dire.  Unlike most other forms of power, the state is able to draw from all of society as a source of its strength.  The individual has little hope to oppose state power.  Any attempt to overthrow state power requires the collective action of some collection of individuals sufficiently large to disrupt the source of state power.  Two barriers present themselves in such causes.  One barrier is the fear of the state's power.  The second barrier is the fear of betrayal by other individuals who form a coalition against the state.  This fear, in most individuals, manifests itself as cowardice.  Most individuals, insufficiently brave to take a step into the unknown, turn away from action or court the favor of the state by betraying those few individuals sufficiently brave to stand against hierarchy.  Thus, an enabling factor within hierarchy maintained by property relations is the distribution of cowardice among non-alpha-members of the hierarchy.

However, the role of cowardice does not stop at the level of non-alpha-members of hierarchy.  Alpha members of autocratic hierarchies cannot depend upon natural forces to maintain their positions.  Alpha members of autocratic hierarchies depend upon the state for power.  Additionally, alpha members must utilize the structural power of the hierarchy to distort the reality of their power relations.  No one wishes to honestly confront the reality that their power rests upon force alone.  Open acknowledgement of this reality will reveal the natural weakness of the alpha member's position.  Such revelation will bolster the opportunity for successful challenge based upon natural forces.  Thus the alpha member is motivated by fear to squelch the operation of natural discourse within the hierarchy.  Additionally, these same fears compel the alpha member to support the power of the state that maintains the hierarchy through external force.

As we can see from the above, fear plays a strong role in the maintenance of autocratic hierarchy.  As further proof, let us consider the operation of natural forces if they were unleashed upon a hierarchy by virtue of the absence of fear.

In the absence of fear, omega members of the hierarchy would consider their circumstances, common goals, and inherent power without consideration of the consequences of any failure in the course of challenging the autocratic hierarchy.  Without this fear, there would be no reason for any individual within the omega membership to oppose collective action against the non-omega membership.  Given the fact that, within most hierarchies, the number of omega members constitute not less than 50% of the total membership, the omega members form the single largest block.  Additionally, the productivity of all beta members of such a hierarchy is directly or indirectly dependent upon the omega members.  Thus, the collective refusal among the omega members to cooperate with the hierarchy will certainly result in the inability of the hierarchy to function.

In the absence of fear, the state can do no better than the hierarchy.  The state depends upon the omega members of the societal hierarchy directly and indirectly.  The direct dependence takes the form of cooperation with the laws of the state.  The indirect dependence takes the form of economic support for the hierarchies upon which the state depends (private enterprise, for example).  Thus, the non-cooperation of the omega members of society is guaranteed to defeat state power.  With this in mind, each individual omega member can be certain that a collective challenge to state power would succeed if fear were removed from the equation.

Autocracy Based Upon Psychological Oppression

There are many manifestations of autocracy based upon psychological oppression.  Clear examples are theocracy and racism.  Less obvious examples include the scientific community, the university, and the corporate world.

Theocracy marshals psychological oppression through three primary mechanisms.  The first mechanism is through denial of senses and reason as a source for knowledge.  The second mechanism is through the generation of a class of individuals to which the ability to access the "non empirical" and the extra-logical is attributed.  The third mechanism is through the promise of divine punishment.

By denying the validity of the senses and the efficacy of reason, theocracy shackles the mind of those outside of the priesthood.  Denied confidence in their natural means to the acquisition of knowledge, the omega members of a theocracy are psychologically manipulated into a position of helplessness.

This helplessness creates a dependence upon the beta class, or priesthood, as only they are privy to that reality beyond the senses and reason.  As this reality, within theocracy, is considered primary, omega individuals can only obtain worthwhile knowledge through the grace of the beta class.

The otherworldly knowledge to which the beta class has access conveniently contains imperatives demanding the maintenance of the status quo.  Individuals who challenge these imperatives are condemned to divine punishment and associated atrocious acts carried out by members of the theocracy.

Two primary factors for the perpetuation of theocracy can now be identified.  These factors are ignorance and cowardice.  Observation of any society will lead most observers to conclude that the majority of individuals are incapable of a solitary or independent escape from ignorance.  Likewise, within any society, there arises a small portion of the population that, at least privately, does challenge the concepts that rule society.  Within this small portion, an even smaller portion challenges the prevailing beliefs openly.  Within this intellectually independent portion, it is cowardice that publicly silences the majority of dissenters.

One may wish to assert, then, that cowardice plays a small role in the perpetuation of theocracy.  However, if one were to make such an assertion, one would be incorrect.  Courage is orthogonal to intellectual independence.  If the intellectually independent of any theocracy would openly and courageously defy the beliefs that perpetuate these mechanisms of psychological oppression, those courageous individuals wanting in intellectual independence would stand up to the theocracy.  They lack an alternative point of view and not the ability to challenge theocratic autocracy.  The story of the "Emperor's new Clothes" comes to mind.  Thus, the maintenance of theocracy is dependent upon the cowardice of the intellectually independent.

The scientific community differs little, with respect to the mechanism of psychological oppression, from that of the theocracy.  While the scientific community, ostensibly, asserts the efficacy of empirical evidence and reason, the scientific community denies, in practice, that these tools are at the disposal of those beyond its "priestly" class.

The "priestly" class of the scientific community is a product of the university hierarchy, which we will discuss below.  The scientific community maintains its authority through titles and the cowardice of those individuals within its "priestly" class.

Generally speaking, in our times of post-modernism, one is not accepted as a "scientist" unless one has been bequeathed a sufficient title by a university.  This title, the "PhD", is one of the few titles permitted within most of Western Society.  Obtaining a "PhD" requires little more than a source of tuition, a moderate intelligence, a willingness to cower within one's university, and the lack of any important responsibly for a significant period of one's youth.  This is not to suggest that all individuals in possession of a "PhD" are not deserving of respect.  Instead, it is to suggest that having a "PhD" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for deserving respect.

Despite the potential meaninglessness of a "PhD", the "PhD" community wields great power.  Most government based research derives its funding under rules that effect the prohibition of funding for scientific projects that are not led by a "PhD".  Additionally, most individuals in possession of a "PhD" refuse to assign high levels of responsibility or reward to individuals not in possession of a "PhD".

Autocracy Based upon Property and Psychological Oppression

Finally, we come to hybrid form of autocracy.  This form of autocracy is the corporate hierarchy.  In many ways, the corporate hierarchy rests upon the greatest distribution of cowardice, not to mention a gaping want of ethics.  Corporate hierarchies employ a combination of internal and external force to maintain their structure.  The internal form is primarily psychological.  The external form is a combination of state supported property based force and threat of physical violence through the deprivation of the means sustenance.

Cowardice within the corporate hierarchy is distributed across the entire hierarchy.  Additionally, cowardice with the corporate hierarchy takes on many forms.  Let us consider the individuals within the corporate structure and the role that cowardice plays in maintaining their positions within the corporation.  In this essay, we will not address the board of directors.  Please note that we will focus on the "conventional corporation."  There are many corporations that are embracing more organic management structures.  The dynamics within these organic corporations are based more on courage and less on cowardice.

The president (as well as many other managers) of the conventional corporation maintains his or her position through various techniques.  These techniques include divide and conquer, false attribution of recognition, frequent changes in mid-level management structure, withholding of information, and many others.  These techniques are applied in order to thwart the influence of natural forces within the corporation.  Utilization of ethically questionable means to maintain the corporate structure reflects a fear of natural forces.  Acquiescence to this fear is a manifestation of cowardice.  Thus, the president of a corporation (and many other managers) maintain their positions through the actions that are motivated by cowardice.

One may attempt to protest that these are simply the techniques used by anyone in a position of power.  However, I must disagree.  An individual who obtains and maintains his or her position of power through natural means (e.g. fluid meritocracy) has no need for other techniques (such as those motivated by cowardice) for the maintenance of power.

Middle managers (the beta members of the corporate hierarchy), too, are often motivated by cowardice in order to maintain their positions.  In addition to the unethical practices emanating from the top of the corporate hierarchy, middle managers often employ other techniques.   These additional techniques reflect the dual nature of middle managers.  Middle managers are leaders of their own sub-hierarchies.  However, they are leaders by virtue of the appointment of higher member of the greater hierarchy.  In order to maintain their positions, they often need to employ the same techniques as those employed by the top of the hierarchy.  These techniques are applied downward.  As well, they need to employ another set of techniques upward and yet another set laterally.

Upwardly, middle managers need to convince their superiors that they are loyal.  This often requires fidelity to the downwardly applied techniques of their superiors.  This role of fidelity transforms middle managers into communication channels for their superiors.  By maintaining the "corporate line" of information impoverishment, they give credence to the completeness of information content through their numbers. Their knowing complicity in the act of depriving others of the information they need in order to make informed personal choices constitutes an act of cowardice.  Recognizing that their positions are maintained unnaturally, they become accomplices in the conspiracy to maintain power through depriving others of the knowledge that would support the operation of natural forces.  In doing so, middle managers guarantee that their positions exist only through unnatural forces, as the act of practicing ethics would increase the probability of support for their position through natural forces (such as the loyalty of their reports).

The most cowardly of middle managers are fearful that siblings within the hierarchy threaten their chances to rise further. 

Additionally, they may perceive their situation as a zero-sum-game with respect to resource allocation.  Despite the negative effects of their actions upon the corporation, these individuals seek to diminish the perceived worthiness of their peers.  Such acts of disloyalty against their peers aide the divide and conquer modus operandi of individuals at higher levels in the hierarchy.  Given the perils under which a middle manager works, only an act of courage would lead a middle manager to chose the path of truth and ethics over disloyalty to his or her peers.  Consequently, the choice act against his or her peers is an act of cowardice.  This act is one of the techniques a middle manager may chose to maintain his or her position within the hierarchy.

Finally, let us consider the role of cowardice in maintaining the position of the omega members within the hierarchy.

Conclusion

Cowardice plays an important role in the maintenance of hierarchy.  The distribution of cowardice within a hierarchy is not confined to those who are subjugated.  However, the practice of cowardice among the subjugated is the primary glue that holds together oppressive hierarchy.

Overcoming cowardice is an important precondition of the elimination of hierarchy.  In ancient times, courage was held as an important virtue.  Modern society rests upon the false virtues of complacency and docility.  We believe that each individual teaches through his or her actions.  Anarchists should display courage in their opposition to hierarchy.  Only by example can we effectively teach the virtue of courage.