Hierarchical Relationships

Here we will look at hierarchical relationships and inquire into how they can be both beneficial and destructive depending on the purposes of said relationship. We will look at four examples of relationships to determine what separates the unproductive hierarchy's from the productive. Let's begin:

Teacher vs Student

A teacher and student relationship is a hierarchical relationship, where the teacher assumes the role of authority over the student. The purpose of this relationship is for the teacher to extend their knowledge to the student. If this is done correctly, the student should at some point know what the teacher knows. When this happens, the relationship between them shifts from a hierarchical relationship to a mutual peer based relationship where neither assumes the role of authority over the other. So within the framework of a teacher vs student hierarchical relationship there is planted the seeds of dissolution of the hierarchical components of the relationship. Thus this can be considered a healthy and productive relationship because it is growing towards equality.


Parent vs Child

A parent and child relationship is also a hierarchical relationship, where the parent assumes the role of authority over the child. The purpose of this relationship is for the parent to care and protect the child as the child grows towards adulthood. If this is done correctly, the child should at some point assume the responsibility of care and protection over itself. When this happens, the relationship between them shifts from a hierarchical relationship to a mutual peer based relationship where neither assumes the role of authority over the other. So within the framework of a parent vs child hierarchical relationship there is planted the seeds of dissolution of the hierarchical components of the relationship. Thus this can be considered a healthy and productive relationship because it is growing towards equality.

Boss vs Employee

A boss and employee relationship is again a hierarchical relationship, where the boss assumes the role of authority over the employee. The purpose of this relationship is for the boss to guide and direct the employee as to what the employee's responsibilities are. If this is done correctly, the employee should fulfill his/her responsibilities to the boss and receive a monetary reward. Along with a monetary reward, in some boss vs employee relationships, there is the potential for promotion. If this continues to happen, the relationship between them shifts away from a hierarchical relationship towards a more mutual peer based relationship of them being co-owners of the business together, where neither assumes the role of authority over the other. If this does not happen, then the relationship remains stagnant in the hierarchical stage of the boss assuming the role of authority over the employee. So within the framework of a boss vs employee hierarchical relationship there may or may not be planted the seeds of dissolution of the hierarchical components of the relationship. Thus whether or not this can be considered a healthy and productive relationship shall be determined by whether or not the boss is offering the opportunity of promotion (with the potential for co-ownership) to the employee.

Government vs Subject

A government and subject (citizen/you) relationship is again a hierarchical relationship, where the government assumes the role of authority over the subject. The purpose of this relationship is for the government to care for the subject's welfare and protect the subject from both foreign and domestic threats. If this is done correctly, the subject should be cared for and protected for the entirety of their life. When this happens, the relationship between them does not shift from a hierarchical relationship to a mutual peer based relationship where neither assumes the role of authority over the other, as do the others. Instead, even in the most ideal scenarios, it remains a hierarchical relationship no matter what happens. So within the framework of a government vs subject hierarchical relationship there is not the seeds of dissolution of the hierarchical components of the relationship. Thus this can be considered a unhealthy and unproductive relationship because it is not growing towards equality.

Conclusion

For a relationship to be healthy it must either be equal, where neither party assumes role of authority over the other, or be growing towards equality; towards the dissolution of any hierarchical components within the framework of said relationship. If the relationship is not equal and not growing towards equality, then it shall be considered a stagnant and unhealthy and unproductive relationship. Even within nature we can see there is always a growth towards the dissolution of hierarchy's. This is the natural way. Even when a new hierarchy is formed, within nature, it is always in response to some other hierarchy. This is the push and pull, the ebb and flow, of nature always working towards a balance/equality.

Thus any relationship that is not growing towards the dissolution of its hierarchical components shall be labeled unhealthy and unproductive, and shall be resisted by all means necessary. This is the way of nature, and thus the way of mankind. Hierarchy's are not bad in themselves, rather they are bad only when they are stagnant and not growing towards there own dissolution.

i concur. listen to some bob marley. he had it right. love one another.


i thought i should elaborate. if you are part of a team of equals you will foster success for the whole group faster than if you are divided amongst yourselves. stop thing me and start thinking we and the world will be AWESOME

Well put together post sir or madam.

My point here, as many others may come to point out, is your interpretation of Government/Citizen relationship is missing context.

Not everyone can be or willing to be an elected official to govern x number of people, therefore we attempt to elect a individual we wish to represent us. Is this not a indirect elevation in the hierarchy since there is a chance that you representative will come to serve in office?

Further, Do we still not place our parents in a hierarchical superior position relative to our own since they remain to be our elders and our parents regardless of age? (This is western ideology and may not necessarily apply to the entire world)

From the perspective nature, has their not always been a pecking order for food or leadership or the right to pass on genetic legacy?

I do believe that barriers need to be torn down to allow for cultural progression.

reply to post by MDDoxs


Some really good questions. Let's see:

Not everyone can be or willing to be an elected official to govern x number of people, therefore we attempt to elect a individual we wish to represent us. Is this not a indirect elevation in the hierarchy since there is a chance that you representative will come to serve in office?

But this hierarchy never ends, and my definition of a healthy and productive hierarchy is one that eventually ends. Sure, you can attempt to vote in a representative member to be your authority, but this structure of relationship depends on you ALWAYS being subservient to another persons authority. Now why would I want to enter into a relationship like that?

Further, Do we still not place our parents in a hierarchical superior position relative to our own since they remain to be our elders and our parents regardless of age?

Sure, there will always remain a hierarchy in the sense of chronological time, as in a family tree. But that isn't really what we are talking about now is it? A forty year old still may respect their seventy year old mother's opinion and wisdom, but that doesn't mean they are still subservient to her authority like they were as a child. The relationship has, or should have at least, shifted to one of mutuality. Maybe you are thinking of the romanticized idea of Native American elders being the chiefs of the tribe. That does not necessarily violate my definition of a healthy and productive relationship, unless of course they attempt to shift from merely being the wise elder to an authoritative ruler by setting forth laws and amassing a group of henchmen to enforce those laws.

From the perspective nature, has their not always been a pecking order for food or leadership or the right to pass on genetic legacy?

Great question. The dominance hierarchies you read about in biology are usually based on the pseudo-scientific concept of "Group Selection". There is nothing analogous to the State in nature. The State is a monopoly of force over a geographic area that cannot exist in nature. Dominance in other species is highly flexible and contextual. That is, females may be dominant in some circumstances and males in another. Not just interms of sex but also in terms of resources.

Social Darwinists have tried to justify the State and ruling class in terms of the "Survival of the Species" or Group Selection. But the individual, NOT the Race or Social Class, is the focus of natural selection and therefore therfore racists and classists and statists cannot use the existence of dominance to support the existence of the State because even where it exists, animals can escape a dominance situation, thus voiding the hierarchy. But the State circumscribes and forbids the escape of victims of the State from its monopolistic territory in many instances. Thus you cannot use Dominance to justify the State and ruling Class hierarchy because they are quite different from the hierarchy's we see in nature.

I guess the question for humans is, is what kind of hierarchy should we live in? In my opinion, it should be one that follows more-so the parent vs child and teacher vs student structure of hierarchy than the hierarchy we see in many business and government models.