Re: Decentralization & Hierarchy/Previous e-mail was sent by mistake

Mofwoofoo,

OK. But allow me to say that if I misread you it might be you did not 
clarify your assumptions carefully. No matter as it is clarified now that 
you recognize that hierarchies and competition exist in various forms in 
societies.
Yet, I still have a problem about how you avoid domination, ie how 
hierarchies and competition are to use your terms "superceded by 
love/brotherhood/connection/tradition". I would like to know

1) can you give me some sufficiently detailed example of the above in a 
traditional society (you said 'indigenous I think)? I can't think of one 
myself as even in the most egalitarian hunter gatherer described in the 
literature  gender or age-set domination is reported.

2) how can you obtain the above (supercession of hierarchies and competition 
thru love/brotherhood etc...) in a technologically developed societies with 
the specialisation and diversification that this implies?

These are not rhetorical questions. I am actually interested especially 
because you bring in ethical and identity elements in your posts. I have 
long thought that world system theory should, if it is serious about 
bringing in changes take into account in its proposed solutions cultural and 
psychological factors (I do not say privilege those: obviously 
socio-economic and political structure are determinants: but it's people who 
make change, and thus the nature of subjectivity must be taken into account 
in bringing change: whatever the correctness of one's structural analysis, 
people must still be moved to action. Not taking this into account means 
that often people's resistance will deviate into misguided revivalist 
politics of some kind or other

Jacques
>From: Bagelhole1@aol.com
>To: jacques_eglise@hotmail.com, richard@cyberjournal.org, 
>wsn@csf.colorado.edu
>Subject: Re: Decentralization & Hierarchy/Previous e-mail was sent by 
>mistake
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:29:45 EST
>
>
>In a message dated 1/25/01 2:26:35 PM, jacques_eglise@hotmail.com writes:
>
>Dear Jacques,
>     I would just like to address the two comments below that are printed 
>in
>dark letters. First I don't think that what I said implied that competition
>is a social pathology introduced by capitalism as I don't believe that to 
>be
>true either. Nor, am I suggesting that without capitalism there is no
>competition. Funny, how you pulled these out of my statements. You did very
>well in refuting something that I wasn't even trying to say. I think we 
>would
>both agree that hierarchies and competition are a part of the natural order
>of things. It is only when they become the dominating form that things 
>become
>skewed. And under capitalism this is what has occurred.
>     Also, I would like to comment on the last of the darkened statements
>below, as to the problem of the riddance of domination in the form of
>competition and hierarchies. First, one might recognize the need to 
>dominate
>as a pathological condition that stems from a perversion of the survival
>instinct. And that humans, though animal as opposed to plant, because of 
>our
>highly developed brains, have the capacity for ethical behaviour, that is
>uniquely human. And when we find humans that mimic the brutal behaviour of
>animals that form dominating hierarchies, we witness dehumanizing
>circumstances, subhuman behaviour of a ignoble, sacreligious nature in that
>our superiour brains are not utilized for the noble purposes inherent in 
>the
>gift. Where the human being becomes an oppressor (evil), instead of an
>instrument of love.As ridiculous as an arrogant fool who has been given
>eyesight, but refuses to lift his eyelids to see.
>     So, as observed in some indigenous communities, where all are 
>supported
>and a part of the community, there will exist some competition and
>hierarchies in one form or another, but 
>love/brotherhood/connection/tradition
>supercedes the kind of competition or hierarchies that lead to oppressive
>behaviour. This implies the key to the solution. Removing the need or the 
>seed
>  of whatever it is that would make one act as less than human by imposing
>one's self or will over another. That is, by creating a culture/community
>that truly supports all of its members.
>
>Most Philosophically,
>Mofwoofoo
>
><< That was interesting but I'm worried about the following:
>
>Hierarchies is not the
> >main reason for competition. Competition is an underlying paradigm within
> >capitalism.
>
>I have no reasonable argument against the 1st sentence per se and so I'm
>ready to accept this is the case unless/until it may prove to be wrong.
>But the next seems to imply that competition is a social pathology
>introduced by capitalism. That's flying against facts. Granted capitalism
>makes competition its underlying principle but that does not mean that
>without capitalism there is no competition: any anthropologist or historian
>could reel out masses of evidence to the contrary about most societies.
>Whether or not they're technologically simple or socially complex does not
>seem to make a difference as to the existence of competition -just on the
>forms it takes. This means that most societies that have ever existed have
>both hierarchies and competition. And from my readings it seems that
>so-called 'egalitarian -often less developed- societies' have still
>nonetheless age and gender status differences (ie hierarchies).
>
>So, unless your argument is about 1) one particular form of competition
>specific only to capitalist societies (economic competition is not), and 2)
>also implies that hierarchies are not about domination, I don't see how you
>can get rid of the problem of domination, and especially not the kind that
>result from the joining of hierarchies and competition
>
>Jacques
> >From: Bagelhole1@aol.com
> >To: richard@cyberjournal.org, wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> >Subject: Re: Decentralization & Hierarchy
> >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:15:21 EST
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 1/24/01 12:23:22 PM, richard@cyberjournal.org writes:
> >
> ><< Do we know for sure that a global society could function
> >effectively without over-arching hierarchies?  You seem
> >convinced, but for me the question is still an open one.
> >  >>
> >
> >First, I have to admit to you and everyone that there is nothing I know 
>for
> >sure, even this, I'm not sure of. But at the Rainbow Gatherings, started
> >around 1972, maybe 20,000 people or so will gather deep in nature, every
> >July, and live happily without a hierarchy, there are volunteer 
>committees
> >who take on certain responsibilities. Decisions are made by consensus in 
>a
> >circle. Same with the Nevada Peace Test demonstrations, where sometimes a
> >few
> >thousand people would camp across the street from the nuclear testing 
>site
> >for about a week. They are run the same way. Christiana, in Copenhagen 
>has
> >existed, I believe for about 25 or more years, a community of 5000, 
>living
> >in
> >a non-hierarchical, anarchistic manner quite successfully. And there are
> >many
> >more examples throughout history and presently.
> >
> ><<The potential danger brought by hierarchies is abundantly
> >clear.  I think we need to either outlaw them - in this
> >future world we're considering - or we need to clearly
> >understand which uses are appropriate, which aren't - and how
> >their aggrandizing tendencies can be reliably contained.
> >Otherwise tyranny will surely rise again, out of competition
> >among hierarchies.The potential danger brought by hierarchies is 
>abundantly
> >clear.  I think we need to either outlaw them - in this
> >future world we're considering - or we need to clearly
> >understand which uses are appropriate, which aren't - and how
> >their aggrandizing tendencies can be reliably contained.
> >Otherwise tyranny will surely rise again, out of competition
> >among hierarchies.>>
> >
> >First of all, in our future society, there will be little reason to
> >compete,
> >since we would be trading "owning" for access. Tyranny would assert 
>itself,
> >in a world of competition, not one of cooperation. Hierarchies is not the
> >main reason for competition. Competition is an underlying paradigm within
> >capitalism. Sovereign bodies such as nations simply carry the paradigm 
>from
> >the individual (micro) to the national (macro). It is sovereign entities,
> >from individuals to vast nations that compete in a world based on
> >capitalism.
> >In a world where there is not complete community support, tyranny could
> >arise. The opposite of today, is a cooperative, caring society, where 
>every
> >individual is truly supported as in a non-dysfunctional family. Just as 
>at
> >a
> >Rainbow Gathering or in the city of Youf, Senegal, a city of 40,000 where
> >police are not necessary.
> >
> >In order to "contain aggrandizing tendencies", start with yourself (no,
> >just
> >kidding). We don't wish to live in a society that needs to "contain"
> >anyone.
> >Better to remove the perverse conditions which creates the false need to
> >self-aggrandize.
> >
> ><<Unfortunately, in these kinds of matters, 90% of the work
> >goes into considering what might go wrong.>>
> >
> >I feel obligated to speak out when I hear something that I think is 
>untrue.
> >I
> >consider myself a problem solver, as this is what human life is largely
> >about. Each day we solve problems, problems on all levels. This is what
> >humans are really good at (when they are functionally properly) When one
> >cannot solve or resolve problems, one often becomes physically ill. In my
> >mind, to spend 90% of the work considering what might go wrong, is not an
> >effective way to approach problem solving. It can be taken to an extreme,
> >where it is a neurosis (not life affirming). I have alot of experience in
> >this and so do some of my friends. You could spend many lifetimes 
>thinking
> >about all the things that might go wrong. Its endless. Its quicker to 
>think
> >of what's going to work the best, with whatever is available. 
>Intuitively,
> >often, one can feel when something may or may not work, and sometimes you
> >just have to try.
> >
> >My Thoughts,
> >Mofwoofoo Woofuaza
>  >>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.