- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,353
- 19,110
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, we are. A "system of control," for the purposes of this discussion, is a system which gives one person the entitlement to control another.Actually we are not and you have referred to the system of control.
We are talking, for the purposes of this thread, about hierarchies in which one person directly controls another. All other sorts of hierarchies are irrelevant to the topic.Saying "not that kind of hierarchy' implies there are other kinds including good kinds and therefore hierarchies are not automatically abusive.
But when it comes to social structures, we can choose to change them. They don't have to "just happen" unjustly.Often when we say normal it means it is thinking and behaviour that we normally fall under, have an inclination or default way of thinking and behaving. So its not something subject to good or right. It just happens like bonding happens.
You are misrepresenting my position. I am not saying that "all social hierarchies are inherently abusive control."I am saying to assume that all social hierarchies that form within society are inherently aaabusive control is to falsely accuse some hierarchies of being abusive when they may actually be the opposite.
Taken out of context! The context here is abuse. Actual, real abuse. That is a highly relevant context.Its one fact taken out of context
I would argue that you cannot say that of dominance hierarchies. Since they are systematised relationships of control they are, by definition, not a healthy way to organise society.Thats because we can show as already done that valuing hierarchies as the ordering principle for relationships is also normal and healthy way to organise society.
You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between parents providing some control as necessary given the developmental immaturity of children, and valuing control as the defining dynamic of parenting.But when you keep saying it could be, it also could not be and is not for the majoirty of the time within the same hierarchal family structure thaat puts the parents at the top.
That was not the sense of the word "grounding" under discussion. But from where I'm standing, it's not that I'm conflating normal and healthy things as abusive, but that you don't see the harm in a lot of possibly normal, but deeply unhealthy things.We have to be grounded to tell whether what you are offering is realitic and based on the evidence. So far you have conflated a lot of what is normal and healthy beliefs and ideas as abusive. So thats exactly why we need some grounding.
I don't agree. We can define abuse on its own terms, without needing to define it as the opposite of not-abuse.We can only talk about what is abuse by understanding what is not abuse.
In case it has not been made painfully clear enough (although I really thought it had), I am speaking of the direct control of one person by another, to coerce or limit, beyond what is necessary to prevent harm. Any other example of "control" is not relevant to this thread.Your own language is contradictive and implies any control is abuse.
Frankly, for the purposes of this thread, I don't really care. I'm happy to state the principle, and then get back to the actual topic, which is about the sort of control which far exceeds that minimum and is obviously abusive.But what is an absolute minimum. What does that even mean in the wider societal context. We have so many controls that it would be hard to know where to start.
Then you need to read more threads on this forum, for a start.I am not sure any arguements for husbands controlling wives would ever get off the ground in todays Woke society.
I wish that were true, but there seems to be a conservative backlash/resurgence. You just have to look at the public discourse to see it.I think those oldfer stereotypical beliefs though still around are a dying breed.
But given that citizens have participation and input at every level, I would still say it's not a hierarchy in the classic sense of those above controlling those below. We do not live in an autocracy.Of course its a hierarchy, even hierarchies within hierarchies. Overall we have the different levels of jurisdiction and legal power. Thats the administration side but theres also the legal side as in levels of legal recendents, criminal law, civil law, family law, corporate law. Then you have all the local laws and regulations. If it wasn't for hierarchal organisation we would not be able to know what was what.
But neither you nor I would agree that that is an abusive situation, unless there is control/coercion going on. So it's irrelevant. And it's incredibly frustrating that you keep bringing it up when we both agree it's irrelevant.So heres the problem. To many in society today the Trad Wife scenario of male earning and out there developing career and wife stuck at home with kids looking after home may look like an abusive situation.
Because a woman who has financial independence can leave an abusive situation. A woman who doesn't have financial independence, can't, at least not nearly so easily. It's about making sure she's not trapped..Then why do advocates who promote abuse prevention talk about equalising womens pay, job status, be on corporate boards and financially stronger as part of preventing abuse against women.
You would have to look at the situation and what is happening. The hypothetical is too vague to say anything meaningful.It may well be or it may well be not. How do you tell.
I gave you several, but I I can find more.No you havn't. You gave one article about dominance hierarchies in animals.
This is a very good read, which critiques some of your underlying assumptions: When Inequality Fails: Power, Group Dominance, and Societal Change| Journal of Social and Political Psychology
This starts with a study of fish behaviour, but goes on to make observations about organisational leadership:
Dominance hierarchies as limiting group potential:
How Dominance Hierarchies Limit Diversity (+An Alternative)
How do dominance hierarchies limit diversity? Learn why Syed says these social structures suppress diverse voices and how to avoid them.
www.shortform.com
On the harm of dominance hierarchies:
You might think you have, but as the person reading and responding, I often do not find your position clear at all. To the extent that I have sometimes suspected this to be deliberate obfuscation (though I have tried to respond in a way which gives you the benefit of the doubt).I've been very clear
I am taking the clear exception as read, since it has now been stated many times, and trying to discuss the vast majority of control, which does not fall into those exceptions.But then you contradict your position when you make out all control is abusive with statments like "is there any good or non abusive control" ect. You make the exceptions because I bring them up and I have to keep bringing them up when you revert back to those assumptions that they are inherently bad.
Low disparity would be less hierarchy. Hierarchy in which the differences between people at different levels are much more limited.But you miss the overall point that its the same hierarchy that can have the high or law disparity.
It is fortunate, then, that I have consistently made a clear distinction between prestige hierarchies - those which organise people in "ranks" - and dominance hierarchies, which are relationships of control.Exactly so a hierarchy that may organise people and society in ranks doesn't mean its abusive control.
Upvote
0