Helga in Botswana with two Kua friends (image source)
A post by Helga Ingeborg Vierich
Here, Helga comments on my previous post "Why do we Always Choose the Decisional System that do the Most Damage," where I discuss the case of the sinking of the "El Faro" ship, caused by the way the command structure was organized. "Pyramidal" decisional systems place the power in the hands of a single person, (typically a man) and the person in charge doesn't have the flexibility to change his opinion, nor the capability to access the data on what's really happening. A Holobiont-like decisional system is much more flexible and attuned to the real world, as Helga describes here.
Dear Ugo; this is wonderful.
It explains the danger of hierarchies of powerful authority so clearly! I am teaching introductory sociology this term and will be making this one of the supplemental readings, for the topic right now is the development of state-level societies. It is, indeed, in state-level societies that we see the development of these kinds of hierarchies.
People have frequently pointed to the pecking order of chickens, and the evidence of hierarchies based on aggression in chimpanzees and baboons, and used this as a justification for human hierarchical social organization. As if it were, thus, "natural". But everything we know now, about the social organization and behaviour of people in "tribal" and "band" level societies (based on hunting, gathering, fishing, swidden horticulture, or nomadic pastoralism) suggests that before the state developed, seniority-based hierarchies of authority rare, and socio-economic and power-based hierarchies were unknown. Decisions were rarely made without extensive discussion.
The whole dynamic of morality in forager economies is to enforce a degree of social equality: the networks are based on relationships of mutual support, not chains of authority. There are no permanent leadership positions. Group actions to enforce punishment of transgressors appear to arrive through consultation and consensus.
We find these forms of consensus-creation preserved in tribal societies as well, even those with more permanent leadership positions. This is perfectly articulated in the following:
“...Roland Chrisjohn, a member of the Iroquois tribe and the author of The Circle Game, points out that for his people, it is deemed valuable to spend whatever time necessary to achieve consensus so as to prevent such resentment. By the standards of Western civilization, this is highly inefficient.
“Achieving consensus could take forever!” exclaimed an attendee of a talk Chrisjohn gave. Chrisjohn responded, “What else is there more important to do?”” (quoted from
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-more-a-society-coerces-its-people-the- greater-the-chance-of-mental-illness/ )
Unlike the hierarchical systems in many larger primates, like chimpanzees, ranking systems among foragers and even among pastoral and horticultural peoples, are not derived from intimidation and aggression, but by acquired reputation for demonstrated moral virtues - like articulating a consensus. Such people are valued by the community and thus listened to, only after a history of demonstrated integrity involving a list of highly valued signs of good character: generosity, diplomacy, honesty, loyalty and recognized proficiency at important skills (hunting, gathering, cooking, singing, trance-dancing, music, storytelling or comedy).
In other words, they are people of high rank and good reputation. Among hunter-gatherers, therefore, differences in social rank rarely result in social inequality of access to vital goods and services, but instead, ensure such access.
Indeed, aggressive hierarchies are not even innate, even in baboons. Such behaviour is cultural - learned and shared. This was shown very clearly in Richard Sapolsky's story of his Keekorok baboon troop, and how after the alpha males died from tuberculosis, the troop very quickly transformed into a very peaceful troop, and since then, a peaceful approach has become a cultural norm for them. This was in contrast to the normal high levels of stress in the aggressive hierarchies of baboons. Sapolski's research indicates that stress created by hierarchies is a killer in human societies, and he is not alone in saying this. Gabor Mate has been very clear on this too, and has linked stress, addictions, and even the addiction to power.
Yes, our societies, in the world today, need to become more of a holobiont: the integration of many co-dependents is always going to produce a less dangerous and stressful alternative.
regards, Helga
Here, Helga comments on my previous post "Why do we Always Choose the Decisional System that do the Most Damage," where I discuss the case of the sinking of the "El Faro" ship, caused by the way the command structure was organized. "Pyramidal" decisional systems place the power in the hands of a single person, (typically a man) and the person in charge doesn't have the flexibility to change his opinion, nor the capability to access the data on what's really happening. A Holobiont-like decisional system is much more flexible and attuned to the real world, as Helga describes here.
Dear Ugo; this is wonderful.
It explains the danger of hierarchies of powerful authority so clearly! I am teaching introductory sociology this term and will be making this one of the supplemental readings, for the topic right now is the development of state-level societies. It is, indeed, in state-level societies that we see the development of these kinds of hierarchies.
People have frequently pointed to the pecking order of chickens, and the evidence of hierarchies based on aggression in chimpanzees and baboons, and used this as a justification for human hierarchical social organization. As if it were, thus, "natural". But everything we know now, about the social organization and behaviour of people in "tribal" and "band" level societies (based on hunting, gathering, fishing, swidden horticulture, or nomadic pastoralism) suggests that before the state developed, seniority-based hierarchies of authority rare, and socio-economic and power-based hierarchies were unknown. Decisions were rarely made without extensive discussion.
The whole dynamic of morality in forager economies is to enforce a degree of social equality: the networks are based on relationships of mutual support, not chains of authority. There are no permanent leadership positions. Group actions to enforce punishment of transgressors appear to arrive through consultation and consensus.
We find these forms of consensus-creation preserved in tribal societies as well, even those with more permanent leadership positions. This is perfectly articulated in the following:
“...Roland Chrisjohn, a member of the Iroquois tribe and the author of The Circle Game, points out that for his people, it is deemed valuable to spend whatever time necessary to achieve consensus so as to prevent such resentment. By the standards of Western civilization, this is highly inefficient.
“Achieving consensus could take forever!” exclaimed an attendee of a talk Chrisjohn gave. Chrisjohn responded, “What else is there more important to do?”” (quoted from
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-more-a-society-coerces-its-people-the- greater-the-chance-of-mental-illness/ )
Unlike the hierarchical systems in many larger primates, like chimpanzees, ranking systems among foragers and even among pastoral and horticultural peoples, are not derived from intimidation and aggression, but by acquired reputation for demonstrated moral virtues - like articulating a consensus. Such people are valued by the community and thus listened to, only after a history of demonstrated integrity involving a list of highly valued signs of good character: generosity, diplomacy, honesty, loyalty and recognized proficiency at important skills (hunting, gathering, cooking, singing, trance-dancing, music, storytelling or comedy).
In other words, they are people of high rank and good reputation. Among hunter-gatherers, therefore, differences in social rank rarely result in social inequality of access to vital goods and services, but instead, ensure such access.
Indeed, aggressive hierarchies are not even innate, even in baboons. Such behaviour is cultural - learned and shared. This was shown very clearly in Richard Sapolsky's story of his Keekorok baboon troop, and how after the alpha males died from tuberculosis, the troop very quickly transformed into a very peaceful troop, and since then, a peaceful approach has become a cultural norm for them. This was in contrast to the normal high levels of stress in the aggressive hierarchies of baboons. Sapolski's research indicates that stress created by hierarchies is a killer in human societies, and he is not alone in saying this. Gabor Mate has been very clear on this too, and has linked stress, addictions, and even the addiction to power.
Yes, our societies, in the world today, need to become more of a holobiont: the integration of many co-dependents is always going to produce a less dangerous and stressful alternative.
regards, Helga
Thank you Helga for your brilliant insights as always! With whom are you working to get your decision making processes based on consensus part of regenerative circles like the eco-restoration camps or eco restoration alliance?
ReplyDeleteStress kills. Killing is stressful. It seems that hierarchy arises with the need to feed human groups larger than "Dunbar's Number", about 150, the number of people who can have meaningful personal relationships in a human group. When food runs low in a group larger than that, somebody "needs" to lead a war-party to kill the neighbors and take their food.
ReplyDeleteThe "commander" may be the one who has been best at leading hunting parties, or it may not. That "commander" may take on the ongoing role of making life and death decisions in the group after that raid-on-the-neighbors.
This is a gross simplification, but there is a phase-transition which takes place in larger groups of humans. It is fundamental to the task of killing and robbing other humans.