As an Anarchist, I seek the abolition of hierarchy in favor of liberty and equality. However, there are those who criticize hierarchy in terms of its justification. That is to say, a given hierarchy is justifiable in so far as it does not conflict with Anarchistic ideals. However, I have never been particularly convinced by this methodology. To me the even more pressing question is, can hierarchy be justified to begin with?

Hierarchy, to my understanding, is an institutionalized system of domination and subjugation. It is specifically a human construct, that is to say, hierarchy only exists within the realm of second nature or human society and culture. Within first nature, what we typically associate with plants and animals, the concept of the web of life is understood to be a more accurate description then the old “tooth and claw” nature that earlier scientific knowledge suggested.

“Despite the undeniable role played by inter and intra-species competition for evolutionary advantage, ecosystem dynamics are best characterized as rooted in the principle of mutualism; each species plays a critical role in the health and development of the other. This is true even in predator-prey relationships where various species are mutually dependent: put somewhat simplistically, predator species depend on prey for survival, and the prey is dependent on the predator for maintaining healthy population levels. The mutualistic relationships at work in an ecosystem become more complex in direct proportion to the biodiversity of the system.”i

The complexity of life and interactions within an ecosystem directly effect the stability and sustainability of its existence. Not only does complexity secure a sense of stability within the mutual relationships of plants and animals, it also provides a greater capacity for evolution by providing a multitude of interactions and potential for development. The greater the variation, the greater the responsiveness and ability to change. A desert, for example, is far more unstable ecologically speaking than a tropical jungle.

This “unity in diversity” acts not only as an important factor in the sustainability and growth of first nature, it can act as an ethical principle within the realm of second nature. This being the case not out of a crude grafting of first nature onto the second, but rather from the understanding of it as a logically sound, scientifically grounded principle for human society.

Human beings, on an individual level, are only capable of so much. We can’t be expected to learn the complexities of every facet of society necessary for the survival, development and well being of every individual on our own. This is why it is important to understand the advantage in the mutual association of human beings with one another. Our different skills, sets of knowledge and life experiences gives us a variation of responses to draw from and act upon in regards to our wants and needs. This does not require us to view ourselves in regards to someone with a particular skill as a “hierarchy” as it does not necessarily have to contain any domination or subjugation. The relationship between a doctor and a patient is not one of a hierarchy, but rather a mutual interaction based in the diverse social environment. Doctors, while generally being well trained individuals whom we entrust with our health and well being in times of sickness or injury, are just as much dependent on the systems that provide for their general needs such as food, water, shelter, sanitation, transportation, etc, that the patient does. Many of the same people whom provide these services are just as much a necessary and vital party of the sustainability of our own social, political and economic systems as the doctor is.

“The strongest man is the one who is the least isolated; the most independent is the one who has most contacts and friendships and thereby a wider field for choosing his close collaborators; the most developed man is he who best can, and knows how to, utilize Man’s common inheritance as well as the achievements of his contemporaries. ”ii

However, the current state of our society makes the actualization of this principle of unity in diversity quite difficult to say the least. Given the mass social internalization of social, political and economic hierarchies within society requires us to, on the one hand allow ourselves to have a revolutionary vision of society to guide our actions, while grounding ourselves in a rational, creative and scientific approach in our attempts to build such a vision. This vision, to me, is one based in the liberty and equality of all, based in the understanding of the mutually diverse relationships between individuals and society, as well as between society(second nature) and the biosphere(first nature).

In using a rational and scientific approach our analysis will be based within a concrete understanding of our current social, political and economic situation so that we may best respond without idealistic notions. Our ideals are meant to give meaning to our understanding rather than the ideals becoming the understanding itself. Simply stating that our society is hierarchical does not tell us in what way it is actually hierarchical.

“Well, the question that Anarchy has posed could be expressed as follows: “Which social forms best guarantee, in such a given society and, consequently, the greatest sum of vitality?” “Which forms of society allow this sum of happiness to grow and to develop in quantity and quality the best- that is to say, will enable this happiness to become more comprehensive and more general?” Which, it must be noted in passing, also gives us the formula for progress. The desire to help evolution in this direction determines the character of the social, scientific, artistic, etc. activity of the anarchist.”iii

It is for the above reasons that I have come to the conclusion that hierarchy, under no circumstances, can be justified. If we are grounding our Anarchistic ideals within a scientific and rational approach, then we must reject the the former premise on the grounds that, based on established scientific understanding that hierarchy is first a construct of second nature and second, that it does not exist within first nature. If it does not exist within first nature and is a construct of second nature, then the implication of attempting to justify hierarchies in and of itself becomes rather non-nonsensical. It is an attempt to justify something that, simply put, doesn’t require any sense of justification.

I am an Anarchist because I am anti-hierarchical in my desires for a revolutionary new society. Such a society would be based in the liberty and equality of all through the unity of our diverse knowledge and skills. To organize our society in such a way would mean to do so in a directly democratic manner, in which those who are effected by decisions would be those whom would make them. Hierarchy, in this sense, must be abolished if we are to ever achieve such a society. However, we must learn to be more critical in our analysis, to base it less in Anarchist ideals and more in an Anarchism guided by a rational, creative and scientific understanding.

iDan Chodorkoff, The Anthropology of Utopia; pg152

iiiPeter Kropotkin(Edit; Ian Mckay), Modern Science and Anarchy; pg 128