https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=XFfm84wzpbE
I think I’m going to talk to you today a little bit about hierarchy. It’s a small talk that I’ve been developing as I’ve been doing my public lectures over the last couple of weeks. It’s an elaboration of some of the ideas I put forth in, well, some of my scientific writings and in Maps of Meaning, but more particularly in 12 Rules for Life and Rule 1, which is stand up straight with your shoulders back. And it’s in part a meditation on hierarchy. And I want to talk about the political significance of that and let you know how I’ve been trying to sort that out in my own imagination. So, I’m going to put to… I think it sheds light on the political… on the nature of political debate itself and maybe deeper light on why temperamental factors might contribute to political framing and perception. Because we know that people tend to vote their temperament, although there are other reasons that influence their political allegiance and their voting behaviour. So, let’s start with a couple of simple observations. The first is that complex biological creatures, and even simple biological creatures for that matter, have to move forward in the world. And so, that’s the case for any creature that’s mobile, and that goes all the way down to one-celled organisms. The idea that approach and avoidance are the fundamental motivations is a very old biological idea and seems to apply across levels of analysis in the animal kingdom. And it’s true for us as well. We have to move forward towards things because we have requirements. There are things that we require to keep us alive and to keep us wanting to be alive as well. And those are different things. And we move forward towards things that we value. So, there’s two propositions there. The first is that we have to move forward because there are things to move forward to because there are things we need and want. And the second is that to move forward towards something is simultaneously to value it. And so, one of the implications of that is that we always live in a framework of value. There’s no escaping that. And that we move forward. I detailed this out quite substantially in my book, Maps of Meaning, but we’re always at a place and we’re always moving towards a place that, in principle, has some advantage over the place we’re at. Otherwise, why move towards it? And so, what that means is that there’s no life without value. At least there’s no human life without value. Out of necessity and also, not only out of necessity at the physiological level, but also out of necessity at the psychological level. Because another thing that you might point out that I think is useful pointed out is that not only do you have to move from point A to B in life, but point A is often a very difficult place to be. Because we’re fragile and bounded and mortal and limited and because we know that. And so, one of the implications of that, as many great religious traditions are at pains to illustrate or demonstrate or proclaim, is that life is essentially suffering. And I believe that to be a fundamental truth. But But perhaps not the most fundamental truth. Because I think the most fundamental truth is that despite the fact that life is suffering, people can transcend that. And partly, the way they transcend that is by pursuing things of value. And so that if there is no value proposition at hand, then you have no meaning to justify the difficult conditions of your life. And that’s brutally difficult for people. You know, Nietzsche said, He who has a why can bear any how. And you see, and I’ve certainly seen this as a clinical practitioner, that people who have no purpose in their life are embittered by the difficulties of their life. And they become first bitter and then resentful and then revengeful and then cruel. And there’s plenty of places to go past cruel. That’s just where you start if you’re really on a downhill path. All right, so those are the first propositions. The second proposition would be Well, if you’re going to pursue something of value, because you’re a social creature, you’re going to pursue that thing of value in a social space. And that means you’re going to compete and cooperate with people around you in the pursuit of that value. And what that inevitably means is that, given that the pursuit of anything valuable is going to be a collective enterprise, that you’re going to produce a hierarchy, or maybe more than one hierarchy, but at least a hierarchy of competence in relationship to that pursuit. So it doesn’t matter what you decide to pursue, maybe you’re going to do that cooperatively, you’re going to find that you and other people vary in your ability to manage that pursuit effectively and and efficiently. And so there’s going to be a hierarchy of people from those who are very good at the pursuit, maybe it’s pole vaulting, maybe it’s delivering massages, maybe it’s delivering groceries, maybe it’s setting up an enterprise. It doesn’t matter. But if it’s a valuable pursuit and you pursue it socially, you’re going to produce a hierarchy. And the hierarchy is going to be one of competence. And so if you’re going to pursue value, then you’re going to construct a hierarchy. And then there’s an implication from that, which is that if you construct a hierarchy, most of the people within that hierarchical structure are a minority of people are going to be fantastically successful at the pursuit, and a very large number are going to stack up at the bottom. And that’s a manifestation of what’s known as Price’s Law. It’s mapped by the Pareto distribution. It’s an expression of what’s been known among economists as the Matthew Principle from the New Testament, to those who have everything more will be given from those who have nothing, everything will be taken away. And it’s an it’s an iron law of the distribution of success in hierarchy. So if you’re going to have value and you’re going to have hierarchy, then you’re going to have inequality. And that’s a problem. Now you can’t, so now now you have a political divide there. So the conservative types say, well, we need the hierarchies. And that’s self-evident as far as I’m concerned, given that set of propositions, because if you don’t, if you’re going to pursue something of value, which you have to and need to, then you’re going to produce a hierarchy. So if you demolish the hierarchies, you demolish value itself, and that’s not a tenable move. The left wing, though, says, and to their credit, Yeah, but you have to be very careful with your hierarchies, because they tend towards inequality of distribution. That’s one problem. Once they’re established, they always also tend to a form of tyranny, because once a hierarchy of competence has been established, it can be invaded by people who use power as the means to attain status in the hierarchy. And that can corrupt and destroy even the entire hierarchy. So you have to be on guard for that. Plus, if your hierarchy becomes too steep in its distribution, so it’s too tiny a fraction of people at the top and too great an agglomeration of people at the bottom, especially under conditions of genuine privation, then the people at the bottom, it’s not only unjust and unfair and producing excess suffering, but the people at the bottom have nothing to lose and might as well just flip the hierarchy on its end. And that’s not a good way to produce a sustainable society. You don’t want to put people in a position where they have nothing to lose, especially if you have something to lose, but also just with regards to principles of like fairness and justice, let’s say. So it seems to me that that’s a decent way of conceptualizing the political landscape. And that gives you a conceptual framework within which you can put people on the left and right in their proper position. The right basically is that portion of the population that’s temperamentally whose temperamental proclivity is to admire and support hierarchies and work effectively within them. And that’s actually the personality traits that make up a conservative. Because conservatives by temperament are low in trait openness, which is a creativity dimension that’s associated with lateral thinking. And it’s not, I would say it’s very environmentally under determined. It’s a biological predisposition, especially with regards to creativity. And high in conscientiousness. And the conservative temperamental types make very good managers and administrators. That’s how they manifest themselves in the world. Essentially, if you set up a hierarchy and it runs on algorithmic, it runs algorithmically, then the conservatives will do very well in that structure because they can implement an algorithm and they’re very good at implementing. Whereas the liberal types are very good at generating new hierarchies. And so, and that’s because they’re high in trait openness, they’re less conscientious, so they’re not suited as well to within hierarchy operation. But in a functioning economy and in a functioning democracy, I would say, you need both types. You need the liberal types to establish new territory and to put out new values so that new hierarchies might be organized so that effective movement towards those ends might be instantiated. And you need the conservatives to actually implement the processes. And so, a society of only conservatives becomes static, and that’s not good because the environment transforms and you have to keep up with it. And a society that’s only composed of the left-leaning liberal types is very good at generating all sorts of new possibilities, but very bad at generating all sorts of new actualities. And so, we should be, first of all, cognizant of the fact that hierarchical organization is inescapable if you’re also going to pursue value. Second, that if you produce hierarchical structures that you’re going to produce inequality inevitably, and there are negative consequences as a function of that, and that both sides of that equation, let’s say, need a voice because both of those functions are are valuable, necessary, but also at odds with one another and at permanent odds. Because it is the case that you need hierarchies because otherwise you have nothing to do. And it’s also the case that if you have hierarchies, then the poor will always be with you. And that’s a chronic functional problem that has to be addressed, and that’s the proper place, I would say, of the left.