If hierarchy seems natural why some people condemn the elite?

I don't have too much of anthropology and sociology and biology background.

But looking at the animal kingdom, seems that we are far from the perfect world where everyone is equal.

Why we should be different?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by infobrazil]

Originally posted by infobrazil
I don't have too much of anthropology and sociology and biology background.

But looking at the animal kingdom, seems that we are far from the perfect world where everyone is equal.

Why we should be different?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by infobrazil]

I do not think a look at the animal kingdom, biology or any of these topics is needed.

Hierarchy is a system that ultimately has leadership.

What makes good leadership?

Currently many leaders have traits such as greed, arrogance, lack of empathy and selfishness.

Ask yourself one question here, if you were stuck on a desert island and one of the people with you had the above traits, would you make them your leader or would you look elsewhere?

I am assuming that you would not select them obviously and if you would please state why but if my assumption is true then why are people allowing leaders ,with traits such as these, to dictate to them etc.

This is why many condemn so called elites. I personally do not think they are elites, in fact I would say they are small minded, deluded, obsequious minions of a certain dirty wee man that is often called something else

I hope that answers your question. I am sure many more could offer a different explanation that spans pages of content, videos, pictures and elaborate jargon but I would prefer to give a simple answer to a simple question.

Again I think the thing you need to ask yourself, when looking at current leaders, the original question I asked you at the start of my reply.

What makes good leadership?

You can answer your own question if you look at the facts.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by XXXN3O]

It is a correct assumption that man has always existed under social hierarchies and group segregation. Self-defining boundaries in social groups has allowed the relatively smooth expansion of the population within geographic borders - from villages, towns and cities to social groups defined by "lifestyle" attributes.

That we have a hierarchy is recognition of the primitive aspects of our being, however, it is worth noting that the definition of "leader" (essentially, "fuehrer" in German ;-)) has changed over time.

The most significant factor has been the application of "accountability" of our leaders. Clearly, in a dictatorship accountability is negligible until the time comes for ruin and civil chaos, however, even in stable civilisation accountabiity has its fair share of detraction and the populace provides the "human barometer" for measuring this.

In the UK, the human barometer is clearly telling us that our government is no longer accountable, even though we live in a democracy. A few thousand years ago even Kings were deemed accountable and indeed, were not about the wrath of the people they were supposed to represent.

It is easy to assume that very early Kings were "all powerful" but in fact, they were often "elected" leaders by popular vote. The King was responsible for the success of the community, for appeasing the Gods and ensuring the security of the community. Failure to do so often meant being deposed or worse still, used as a sacrifice to emolliate the effects of ill fortune.

Nowdays we have leaders but they have forgotten their raison d'etre. They have forgotten their accountability, to the service of the nation or community which they serve. Elevation to "elite" status is a method of accepting that a "few" can do good for the "many", however, when this is forgotten then that status of "elite" is no longer applicable and must be withdrawn.

Originally posted by infobrazil
I don't have too much of anthropology and sociology and biology background.

But looking at the animal kingdom, seems that we are far from the perfect world where everyone is equal.

Why we should be different?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by infobrazil]

Well, for a start, the circumstances you're describing in the animal kingdom are different from our own worlds. Usually, hierarchies in the animal kingdom are found in much, much small communities than the ones we live in. For example, an alpha male may be in complete control of a group of animals but that group may only be as big as a dozen or so animals. We have leaders that want to control billions of people, not dozens.

The biggest difference between our world and the animal world is how these leaderships are established. In the animal kingdom, aside from some species in the insect world, hierarchies are established in a kind of 'king of the jungle' meritocracy. The best suited to the role, which is usually defined as 'protecting and defending the group of animals', is usually the fiercest and the toughest.

In our world our 'elite' - and by that I'm presuming you mean elite in a conspiratorial sense - gain their positions in a completely different way. Quite often, this is due to nepotism or cronyism, where the positions of power are handed on to family and friends: Royal families, political and commercial dynasties &c.