If you have been going through the Jordan B. Peterson videos you will probably come across his assertion that hierarchy has been around for 350 million years: get used to it.
His point is, of course, that hierarchy is everywhere in nature, so if you believe in Evolution, darling, then you must believe in hierarchy. The only question is: what is the point of hierarchy?
The answer is obvious: hierarchy, like love, makes the world go round.
The question is important because of the modern rage for equality. Why, you might ask, is equality so important to so many people?
The short answer, I suspect, is that for anyone concerned about equality the wrong people are in charge. And that has to change!
I am seeing this in David Cecil's The Young Melbourne & Lord M. The Lord Melbourne that became Queen Victoria's "Lord M" was in 1810 a young Whig aristocrat in the great era of Whig aristocracy. But it was a moment when "equality" was rearing its head, as the rising bourgeoisie of trade and industry wanted a piece of the action. Apart from any resentment, the rising middle class wanted the rules to be changed to accommodate the new industrial economy that was starting to replace the old agricultural economy. The Whig aristocracy was fully aware of this; the question was what to do about it, and what would happen to the Whig aristocracy as a result.
I think that tells us all about "equality." Anyone flying the flag of "equality" is not happy with their place in the hierarchy; they want it changed. The big question is the response of the existing top dogs to the challenging young dogs.
Usually, people do not want the whole society upset: they just want more respect, for themselves and people like them. You can see that in the Chartists of mid-19th century Britain, and the working class that wanted the franchise, and the women that wanted the vote, and the African Americans that wanted civil rights.
But, I would argue, gradually the authentic movements-of-the-people became polluted by upper-class wannabes that wanted a movement to lead, so that now your average social justice warrior is an upper-class high-status person that wants their fifteen minutes of fame leading the victims along the arc of history to justice.
In his piece today, Christopher DeGroot interprets the "Sham of Equality" as a rage for status.
But here is another aspect of this, that people flock around artists and celebrities. In this case they are abasing themselves before the demi-god, but for what? To shine in the reflection of the demi-god's light?
How about 350 million years of hierarchy?
So the question is not how to rail against hierarchy, but how to understand it. One of the ways that Jordan B. Peterson understands it is by differentiating between "power hierarchy" and "competence hierarchy." And the way I interpret this is by noting the difference between a feudal baron or a political magnate and a successful business entrepreneur.
Your feudal baron or political magnate sits atop a power hierarchy, and I suppose your Whig aristocrat like dear Lord M sits atop an inherited power hierarchy. Good for them.
But your John D. Rockefeller, your Henry Ford, your Bill Gates, your Steve Jobs, your Elon Musk, your Jeff Bezos sits atop a competence hierarchy. Like the Pope, these folks are not rated by their number of divisions, but their ability to deliver something else to humanity.
Meanwhile we have the scions of our society, the kids that went to all the right schools and got the right rank and title, and they want in on the action. But they cannot win at the competence game because the stakes are too high, the odds too long for the average liberal SJW to shine like a supernova.
So the only option for them is to stir the pot of equality and play the power hierarchy game.
I think that this is the world's Big Problem. We are in a period of transition from the old world, where power was more important than competence, to the new world where competence is all the rage. President Trump acknowledged this recently when he spoke about rich men and rockets. You could tell that he really would have loved to be the guy that brought those two Falcon Heavy boosters down to land at Cape Canaveral side by side. Hey! So would I!
Meanwhile, for us Normals, the important thing is to make sure that we understand hierarchy backwards and forwards. Because the thing about our liberal friends is that they know nothing, and you can always beat nothing with something.
His point is, of course, that hierarchy is everywhere in nature, so if you believe in Evolution, darling, then you must believe in hierarchy. The only question is: what is the point of hierarchy?
The answer is obvious: hierarchy, like love, makes the world go round.
The question is important because of the modern rage for equality. Why, you might ask, is equality so important to so many people?
The short answer, I suspect, is that for anyone concerned about equality the wrong people are in charge. And that has to change!
I am seeing this in David Cecil's The Young Melbourne & Lord M. The Lord Melbourne that became Queen Victoria's "Lord M" was in 1810 a young Whig aristocrat in the great era of Whig aristocracy. But it was a moment when "equality" was rearing its head, as the rising bourgeoisie of trade and industry wanted a piece of the action. Apart from any resentment, the rising middle class wanted the rules to be changed to accommodate the new industrial economy that was starting to replace the old agricultural economy. The Whig aristocracy was fully aware of this; the question was what to do about it, and what would happen to the Whig aristocracy as a result.
I think that tells us all about "equality." Anyone flying the flag of "equality" is not happy with their place in the hierarchy; they want it changed. The big question is the response of the existing top dogs to the challenging young dogs.
Usually, people do not want the whole society upset: they just want more respect, for themselves and people like them. You can see that in the Chartists of mid-19th century Britain, and the working class that wanted the franchise, and the women that wanted the vote, and the African Americans that wanted civil rights.
But, I would argue, gradually the authentic movements-of-the-people became polluted by upper-class wannabes that wanted a movement to lead, so that now your average social justice warrior is an upper-class high-status person that wants their fifteen minutes of fame leading the victims along the arc of history to justice.
In his piece today, Christopher DeGroot interprets the "Sham of Equality" as a rage for status.
That one person has something that another hasn’t, or more of something than another, is certainly sufficient to inspire resentment, the most poisonous of feelings. And having resolved to conceal his motivation, perhaps including from himself, the envious soul now proceeds to wax indignant about inequality.But it is really about status, that I don't have enough of it. We are talking about "rank and titles," now called "handles" in Britain, and we can't get enough of them -- for ourselves, of course.
But here is another aspect of this, that people flock around artists and celebrities. In this case they are abasing themselves before the demi-god, but for what? To shine in the reflection of the demi-god's light?
Human beings are powerfully attracted to anyone or anything that seems greater than themselves. There is in human psychology a deep animal instinct of veneration and idolatry; into this has gone all our history, all our terrible struggle to survive and endure.So goes the game of hierarchy. We are resentful of people that have more than we have; yet we fawn and truckle at the feet of the powerful. What is going on here?
How about 350 million years of hierarchy?
So the question is not how to rail against hierarchy, but how to understand it. One of the ways that Jordan B. Peterson understands it is by differentiating between "power hierarchy" and "competence hierarchy." And the way I interpret this is by noting the difference between a feudal baron or a political magnate and a successful business entrepreneur.
Your feudal baron or political magnate sits atop a power hierarchy, and I suppose your Whig aristocrat like dear Lord M sits atop an inherited power hierarchy. Good for them.
But your John D. Rockefeller, your Henry Ford, your Bill Gates, your Steve Jobs, your Elon Musk, your Jeff Bezos sits atop a competence hierarchy. Like the Pope, these folks are not rated by their number of divisions, but their ability to deliver something else to humanity.
Meanwhile we have the scions of our society, the kids that went to all the right schools and got the right rank and title, and they want in on the action. But they cannot win at the competence game because the stakes are too high, the odds too long for the average liberal SJW to shine like a supernova.
So the only option for them is to stir the pot of equality and play the power hierarchy game.
I think that this is the world's Big Problem. We are in a period of transition from the old world, where power was more important than competence, to the new world where competence is all the rage. President Trump acknowledged this recently when he spoke about rich men and rockets. You could tell that he really would have loved to be the guy that brought those two Falcon Heavy boosters down to land at Cape Canaveral side by side. Hey! So would I!
Meanwhile, for us Normals, the important thing is to make sure that we understand hierarchy backwards and forwards. Because the thing about our liberal friends is that they know nothing, and you can always beat nothing with something.
No comments:
Post a Comment