Talk:Social hierarchy

anti-U.S.

This seems to be a rather anti-U.S. article. I'm going to add the NPOV warning.-L.1011

I would agree. It seems as if the emphasis on statistics that make the United States of America look bad, without comparing to other nations makes this article seem exteremly biased against the United States of America.-Esoterique

I've tried to eliminate most of the bias and have dropped the warning.-L.1011

source for definition requested

I request a source for the definition of social hierarchy. RJII 06:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC) A definition on Wikipedia must not be merely the result of consensus (otherwise it's a violation of the "original research" policy), but the result of consensus on what the already existing definition is which can be determined by consulting sources. RJII 15:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the current open paragraph is better than nothing. I've reverted. If you have an alternative which is well sourced we can discuss it here. Encarta mentions "network" of power relationships.

Well that's a start. RJII 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraph taken from hierarchy article -- inserted. --albamuth 15:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary: social (adj) 3. related to society

- society (uncountable) The people of one's country or community taken as a whole.

hierarchy 1 dominion or authority in sacred things. 2 A body of officials disposed organically in ranks and orders each subordinate to the one above it; a body of ecclesiastical rulers. 3 a body of persons in authority.

social hierarchy = a hierarchy within a society

--albamuth 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Original definition: The etymology is 'hierarchia' (ιεραρχια) in Greek. A composite word: hieros = sacred (ιερος) + arche (αρχη) = authority. Caritato 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I inserted the rewrite template. This article is all over the place. No cohesion, and does not explain what is meant, if anything, by social hierarchy. Does it have something to do with unequal wealth distribution? If not, why is that section there? etc, etc. I don't know what social hierarchy is, so I don' think I can help. RJII 05:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This article desperately, desperately, desperately needs sourcing. Babajobu 10:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Hello, my name is Michael Jackson. Don't worry, I only prey upon young, innocent (slightly chubby) little boys.

Ditch this article. No definition - I have a feeling it came from a link from the "Middle class" article or somesuch which ought better to have linked to "Social class" and without a proper definition squatters filled the void. --81.1.65.70 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dominance Hierarchy

Wilson, the father of Sociobiology equates the term social hierarchy with dominance hierarchy. Perhaps, both articles should be merged. I am linking this article to the article on dominance hierarchy.--Reefpicker 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-leftist Agenda

Someone is trying to silence the other side of the debate on social inequality in an encyclopedia that is not supposed to blatantly propagandize for either side. In this unfair article we hear exclusively of the radical feminist and Marxist philosophies without presentation of other viewpoints, as if neo-Marxism was an untouchable a priori dogma. The following counter-thesis I am posting here for the records in case partisans continue their censorship of the other side:

On the other hand, many sociologists who do not subscribe to modern social dogmas emphasize that hierarchical social stratification is normal and inherent to all societies. Renowned sociologist Pierre van den Berghe believes that the predominating liberal-Marxist obsession with linear equality is dysfunctional: "That all men are created equal may have seemed a self-evident truth to the amiable optimist who signed the United States Declaration of Independence, but it flies in the face of all evidence ... Egalitarianism may be good rhetoric, but is bad sociology, and empirically, rank nonsense ... A hierarchical order is evident in the human family, the smallest and most universal form of human social organization" (Man in Society: A Biosocial View, New York: Elsevier, 1978, pp. 137-8). Sociologist Joseph Fichter argues, "The aspiration for complete democracy or for perfect equality among people is without scientific validity. Similarly, the promotion of an ideal of a classless society is both unrealistic and impossible" (Sociology, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 49). Dye and Ziegler point out: "Even if inequalities of wealth were eliminated, differences among men in intelligence, organizational skills, leadership abilities, knowledge and information, drive and ambition, and interest and activity would remain ... Men are not born with the same abilities, nor can they acquire them by education. Inequalities among men are inevitable" (The Irony of Democracy, pp. 363-364). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.135.142 (talk) 00:48:59, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Is there something someone can do to stop obvious trollers like "max rspct" and so on from destroying the balanced perspective of the article and enforcing, gangster-style, only the marxist viewpoint on social hierarchy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 10:00:24, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Balance is Needed

This may be one of the most important Wiki pages, and the most contentious.

While it is obvious that not all humans are created equal, there should be limits to the accumulation of power. People who are capable, talented and industrious should be rewarded. If they can justify it they should be given authority to manage our society. But too often the people who win the capitalist game are superior players who are morally inferior. We must reward hard work and superior abilities, but we have to curtail those who are driven by greed and a need to dominate others. We can see the result of the economic hierarchy in our current system, where the income gap keeps growing, while the planet is dying.

On the Wiki page we need to present both views, those who want more power to go to the top of the pyramid, and those who want to give power to the people. Personally I want people to be able to decide how much they really want to be subservient to power. There are many economic benefits to being subservient. Readers need to ask themselves if they really think that it is ethical to serve power and climb the ladder so that others must serve them.

Calamagrostis 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. The recent unsigned addition to the article states that inequalities are inevitable, but this does not mean we stop trying to create a fair society in which every person can live up to his or her potential. There is strong scientific evidence that differences between individuals do not necessarily lead to economic differences or hierarchies, as demonstrated by kinship oriented societies.--Pariah 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So clearly the "cultures" of African Bushmen and Australian aborigines are the more perfect type of humanity as compared to 'unprogressively competitive-minded' Caucasian Westerners. Hey ho, Western civ has got to go, right? Western competitiveness and creativity, as expressed in things like life-saving medical care, high-rises, marble sculptures, Greek philosophy, atomic energy, trains, planes, Catholic theology, space exploration, brillaint cathedrals, the U.S. Constitutin, public libraries, the computer system we are using right now, etc--this Western competitive creativity and its American continuation, this aggressive "dead white male" genius is clearly of lesser intrinisic value in comparison to the more pro-social, fair cultures of the African Bushmen and Australian Aborigines (Homo Erectus hybrids). In other words, we should exchange the dreaded "dead white male" competitive genius for a Stone Age stagnation and Third World mediocrity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk)

Woah--take it easy. Nobody said Western culture is no good, just that it could stand some improvement. What's important about the stone age cultures mentioned is that they have achieved equality among their members. If they can do it, maybe we can do it, too. Equality is an achievable goal that does not have to lead to stagnation. Competition is not the only way to spark innovation, and it is not necessary that we must live under the yoke of dominance hierarchies in order to advance ourselves.--Pariah 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is equality a pseudo-religious goal above all other goals for modern dysfunctional Westerners? I believe Nietzsche diagnosed this problem of modern decadence. Study the heroic epics and values of all strong cultures: they are all glorifications of inequality of mind, inequality of courage. Nietzsche explained it is the AGONISTIC rivalry-instinct in strong cultures, like the intensely competitive Hellenic culture, which produces the conditions necessary for the creation and selection of the highest human specimens [1], [2].

Additionally, it is clearly insane to pretend justice equals 'sameness'. If that was justice, then the human body, with its divisions of organs and functions, would be 'evil'. Healthy cultures model their society on an organic basis: the more spiritually-minded people rule at the top over administrators, who rule over bourgeoisie, who rule over fleshly types, just as in the body the mind directs everything else. You can study the Hindu scriptures and Plato for this necessary hierarchy of functions and analogical personalities. Aristotle defined justice not as equal distribution of goods, but as distribution based on the different dignity of the function and qualification of individuals and groups: thus, a "fair" economic inequality.

Every human being is a differentiated ego, and to lust for linear equality as the sum of goodness in order to dissolve into some sort of de-differentiated animal sameness is a form of psychic regression. Goethe expressed this piont: "The more imperfect the living being, the more the parts resemble each other and reproduce the image of the whole. The more the living being becomes perfect, the more the parts are dissimilar. When the parts look like each other, they are decreasingly subordinated to each other; the subordination of the organs characterizes a creature of superior order." Politically, the parts are the single individuals, while the organic whole is the state. [Unsigned]

Thanks for your comments Pariah. The comments from unsigned are really over the line. Libertarian and conservative viewpoints are legitimate, and can be legitimatly represented on Wiki pages. But unsigned is giving us a Limbaugh ditto-head rant that suggests that if we attempt to curtail the excesses of the ruling class that we will all end up living in caves. Unsigned then goes on to say that Bushmen and Aborigines are Homo erectus hybrids. That is flat-out racism which is totally contradicted by DNA evidence and has no place in any rational discussion of the issue.Calamagrostis 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of African Bushmen and Australian Aboriginal origins, there is extensive radical-left censorship on this subject of deep genetic differences between Eurasians (Caucasians and northern Asiatics) and Africans, but it is real. Study the following if you dare to question fashionable left-wing ideological conformism:

Plural Lineages in Human mtDNA Genome Ronald Alan Fonda

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no1/raf-plural.html

http://www.heretical.com/science/rafonda1.html [Unsigned]

Unsigned, you have interspersed your comments in such a way that this discussion is becoming unreadable. As for the content of your argument, you have made the mistake of assuming that "equality" equals "sameness." People can be unique and still have political and economic equality--that is unless you assume that some people are somehow better and should rule while others are inferior and should be ruled. But judgments of that type are completely arbitrary.

How do you decide who are the "highest human specimens"? That is, unless you are simply arguing for maintaining the status quo. If left-wing ideology is fashionable, it is only because it makes more sense to most people than the few ruling the many. Don't get upset if most people find this unfair and seek to change it.--Pariah 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)