Post by Elliot Kane on Jan 1, 2010 16:47:05 GMT
Social Evolution: Hierarchy
There is little that humans love more than hierarchy. It shows in the many small things we delight in, such as making lists, as well as in the far more socially important things, such as social class. We think of ourselves as being 'better' or 'worse' than other people and we instinctively grade both things and people we like (Or dislike) for some skill or other as being more or less talented. Few of us are able to enjoy anything without making these kinds of comparisons.
There is a deeply ingrained need in us to compare and then grade pretty much everything. The reason for this begins in our earliest history.
As so often, our deepest instincts go back to the original humans, whose sense of hierarchy was crude but simple: 'might makes right'. If you are strong enough to take and hold something, it is yours. If someone else is stronger, they get to keep it instead. In many and various ways, this ethic is still apparent in human society, from the obvious bullying of small children to the far more dangerous and devious bullying of nations.
Once we moved away from the simple familt unit, however, a more complex social structure started to arise. One where organisational skill was more important than pure power, as the best leader was not always going to be the biggest thug, as used to be true when combat was very much a one person versus one person affair. Humanity was learning that strength can be very much a matter of bringing numbers effectively to bear.
Tribes are born and with those tribes the beginnings of a true social hierarchy. We already have the ruled (the 'Lower Class'), and the ruler ('the 'Upper Class'). The distinction not being all that great, social mobility is easy. Lack of concepts of wealth (And indeed value of anything beyond food stocks) mean that comparisons between humans are still fairly limited, being held only to perceived personal abilities, such as hunting or cooking ability and general attractiveness to the opposite sex (A good hunter being one who is able to provide well for his family, the link between hunting skill and attractiveness to women would have been drawn in the very dawn of time, of course).
Social development advances and the idea of professions arises with the advent of skill specialisation. Suddenly, humans have an enormous number of new things to compare and contrast in each other. Two new classes start to appear at this time: the mercantile classes, consisting of merchants, tradesmen and skilled artisans (the 'Middle Classes') and, somewhat later, those who, for reasons of illness, infirmity or whatever other reason are unable (or unwilling) to contribute to society (the 'Underclass'). The unfortunate become beggars whilst those unwilling or unable to conform to society and thus to contribute their share begin a new class of their own: the Criminal Class. this last may not be recognised as a true class of its own very often, but I find it disingenuous to pretend it does not exist. Indeed, criminal gangs have often created their own parallel society complete with its own hierarchy. It is simply not accurate to try to fit them into any other class but their own. While lawbreaking occurs in every social class, the Criminal Classes are full time professional lawbreakers.
Money is invented to facilitate trade and as a side effect strengthens class boundaries and increases the differences between them. As a clear mark of status, it is noticeably possessed by members of the Upper and Middle Classes and noticeably absent from the Lower Class and the Underclass.
But nonetheless, an idea which began simply as a way of organising people (leader and followers) has morphed into something quite different: a definite and quite intricate hierarchy. Within each section of the social strata, the people compare themselves with each other and rate themselves as 'better' or 'worse' at the things they feel matter. Those who have truly admirable qualities in their eyes, they regard as 'role models' or 'heroes'. Those they think of as inferior, they frequently look down upon and hold in disregard.
One thing common to all classes is the desire to win the respect of one's peers and to rise as high as one can, be it within one's social class or to rise higher through the social strata. There is also frequently (and depressingly) a desire to hold others down rather than allowing them to rise to the level their talents would take them. This tends to manifest as both snobbery and 'reverse snobbery' - looking down on other social classes for the perceived faults their members possess, in theory, purely by being members of the social class they are in. Needless to say, this kind of poisonous attitude is held only by the mediocre and untalented of any social class who simply resent those who are more talented than themselves, so try to keep others 'in their place'. Hierarchy may be incredibly useful for organisation, but like most other human systems it has its dark side.
It is interesting to note that so deeply is the idea of social class ingrained into the human psyche that even in situations where it does not strictly exist, we re-invent it. Look at the famous American high school of film and television (And indeed, any actual school anywhere in the world) for the proof. There are the popular kids - the highest social class in the school, who have the respect and admiration of all the other kids. They organise the groups, hold the best parties and generally define what is 'cool'. The Nerds have their own hierarchy, based on scholastic capability. The sportsmen have their own group and their own hierarchy... You get the idea.
Hierarchy is one of the things so deeply ingrained into humanity that it is inescapable. If attempts are made to do away with it, it simply re-emerges in a new form. Chances are that it always will.
There is little that humans love more than hierarchy. It shows in the many small things we delight in, such as making lists, as well as in the far more socially important things, such as social class. We think of ourselves as being 'better' or 'worse' than other people and we instinctively grade both things and people we like (Or dislike) for some skill or other as being more or less talented. Few of us are able to enjoy anything without making these kinds of comparisons.
There is a deeply ingrained need in us to compare and then grade pretty much everything. The reason for this begins in our earliest history.
As so often, our deepest instincts go back to the original humans, whose sense of hierarchy was crude but simple: 'might makes right'. If you are strong enough to take and hold something, it is yours. If someone else is stronger, they get to keep it instead. In many and various ways, this ethic is still apparent in human society, from the obvious bullying of small children to the far more dangerous and devious bullying of nations.
Once we moved away from the simple familt unit, however, a more complex social structure started to arise. One where organisational skill was more important than pure power, as the best leader was not always going to be the biggest thug, as used to be true when combat was very much a one person versus one person affair. Humanity was learning that strength can be very much a matter of bringing numbers effectively to bear.
Tribes are born and with those tribes the beginnings of a true social hierarchy. We already have the ruled (the 'Lower Class'), and the ruler ('the 'Upper Class'). The distinction not being all that great, social mobility is easy. Lack of concepts of wealth (And indeed value of anything beyond food stocks) mean that comparisons between humans are still fairly limited, being held only to perceived personal abilities, such as hunting or cooking ability and general attractiveness to the opposite sex (A good hunter being one who is able to provide well for his family, the link between hunting skill and attractiveness to women would have been drawn in the very dawn of time, of course).
Social development advances and the idea of professions arises with the advent of skill specialisation. Suddenly, humans have an enormous number of new things to compare and contrast in each other. Two new classes start to appear at this time: the mercantile classes, consisting of merchants, tradesmen and skilled artisans (the 'Middle Classes') and, somewhat later, those who, for reasons of illness, infirmity or whatever other reason are unable (or unwilling) to contribute to society (the 'Underclass'). The unfortunate become beggars whilst those unwilling or unable to conform to society and thus to contribute their share begin a new class of their own: the Criminal Class. this last may not be recognised as a true class of its own very often, but I find it disingenuous to pretend it does not exist. Indeed, criminal gangs have often created their own parallel society complete with its own hierarchy. It is simply not accurate to try to fit them into any other class but their own. While lawbreaking occurs in every social class, the Criminal Classes are full time professional lawbreakers.
Money is invented to facilitate trade and as a side effect strengthens class boundaries and increases the differences between them. As a clear mark of status, it is noticeably possessed by members of the Upper and Middle Classes and noticeably absent from the Lower Class and the Underclass.
But nonetheless, an idea which began simply as a way of organising people (leader and followers) has morphed into something quite different: a definite and quite intricate hierarchy. Within each section of the social strata, the people compare themselves with each other and rate themselves as 'better' or 'worse' at the things they feel matter. Those who have truly admirable qualities in their eyes, they regard as 'role models' or 'heroes'. Those they think of as inferior, they frequently look down upon and hold in disregard.
One thing common to all classes is the desire to win the respect of one's peers and to rise as high as one can, be it within one's social class or to rise higher through the social strata. There is also frequently (and depressingly) a desire to hold others down rather than allowing them to rise to the level their talents would take them. This tends to manifest as both snobbery and 'reverse snobbery' - looking down on other social classes for the perceived faults their members possess, in theory, purely by being members of the social class they are in. Needless to say, this kind of poisonous attitude is held only by the mediocre and untalented of any social class who simply resent those who are more talented than themselves, so try to keep others 'in their place'. Hierarchy may be incredibly useful for organisation, but like most other human systems it has its dark side.
It is interesting to note that so deeply is the idea of social class ingrained into the human psyche that even in situations where it does not strictly exist, we re-invent it. Look at the famous American high school of film and television (And indeed, any actual school anywhere in the world) for the proof. There are the popular kids - the highest social class in the school, who have the respect and admiration of all the other kids. They organise the groups, hold the best parties and generally define what is 'cool'. The Nerds have their own hierarchy, based on scholastic capability. The sportsmen have their own group and their own hierarchy... You get the idea.
Hierarchy is one of the things so deeply ingrained into humanity that it is inescapable. If attempts are made to do away with it, it simply re-emerges in a new form. Chances are that it always will.
.... ;D
.com