Do you think hierarchy is inevitable in society?

[fabger]

Human survival and striving for significance will always create some sort of hierarchy among people. So in my opinion people will never be equal completely. Survival demands this.

Marxists fail to recognize this. They usually come up with the ,,people are equal in a tribe" excuse, however individuals in any stage purple tribe had roles plus the redistribution of resources were different. Of course you can make hierarchy less prevelant as society advances.

Leo's CEO pay argument triggered me so I had to reflect.

 

[Norbert Somogyi]

You mentioned survival and striving for significance, great topics for contemplation. How does one go around to transcend either of them (or at least striving for significance, which sounds a touch easier to accomplish)? 

Since SD is an integral (pun intended) part of the conversation, I think it's something akin to a Turqoise society that has integrated the previous stages (including their shadow manifestations). Where we have moved beyond competition, everyone gladly plays their role according to their talents and life purpose. A generally pro-life behaviour celebrating the wonders of life. Can we reach it? Perhaps, but it will take centuries (and/or one or two reboots).

As long as the foundation of society is run game theoretically, a competitive 4D chess for resource-accumulation - we have little to no hope of moving beyond hiearchies. I think it is a combination of greedy Red, and a manipulative Orange with the help of Blue's structural integrity that is wreaking havoc throughout the world currently. None of them are integrated properly at a sufficient scale, just look at how different parts of the world can be seen behaving at such different stages of the model.

We have to move beyond at least Orange (not just in small communities). Furthermore, Spiral Dynamics barely touches upon spirituality (that's where Wilber came in), which I don't think can be left-out/skipped when it comes to transcending hierarchies. Experiencing the inter-connectedness of the world, being able to truly see the good in others, unconditional love and other transcendental experiences are needed imo. 

You can also think through the lens of Maslow - the majority of people are operating from deficiency needs. As long as we don't change that, it is rather difficult to appreciate the joy of others, and wish for it regardless of character. Furthermore not many of us are able to cultivate and actualize our inner potentials - transgenerational traumas (shame, violence and/or missing parents, lands acquired through violence and bloodshed) poverty, capitalist greed, pro-profit infrastructures of physical and mental health care, cultural differences, bias and self-deception of humanity and the list can go on. If most of us were to fulfill our deficient needs, we could gain motivation for growth which eventually goes beyond focusing on the self. 

I apologize for the babbling, but thank you for reading. This is such an interesting topic.

[Basman]

Having a minority of leaders is highly effective and practical as everyone else can focus on their task as a cog in the machine. It can be problematic when leaders entrench their position for the sake of power and act out in corrupt ways of course. It is why we have democracy in advanced societies as checks and balances hold powers in check (in theory at least). 

Being a leader requires you take on much more responsibility. Most people aren't cut out for that level of responsibility. For many it is a struggle to be responsible just for one self, so leaders provide a lot of value to society just by assuming that role. It might not even be the case that leadership is that much harder all in all but it requires you to be accountable to the bigger picture of your organization. Failure is ultimately your responsibility as a leader.

Even tribes have leaders. We are naturally drawn to strong leaders. People dislike Biden in part because we are disgusted by the appearance of a weak and feeble leader.

[Leo Gura]

Of course

[Ero]

Very true. Normal distributions are abundant in nature, along any vector - intelligence, strength, motivation, ambition. Can't "normalize" it out.