The need for hierarchy among humans

How do you deal with ingroup bias and the conflict that would stem from that in an anarchist society? The question could apply to a homogeneous or a heterogeneous stateless community. But for this post let’s apply the question to a heterogeneous society.

In group and out group bias are something that developed in humans as well as other animals. What I’d like to know is how do you avoid group conflict without an immensely powerful governing body. How do you deal with conflict ?

The conflict doesn’t need to be physical. In theory anarchist societies make decisions through a democratic process. So what happens when one side does not respect the decision? How do you avoid a mob mentality that causes the smaller group to become subordinate to the larger group? Because if there was a redo on the vote on how to allocate a certain resource. The larger group could just vote the same way it did before.This would build resentment because the smaller group would feel ignored.

This is why hierarchy is important and has been the preferred system of organization for humans. Some humans are meant to lead and some are meant to follow. This is also seen among other mammals. There is a division of labor in all groups. Everyone has their specific role to play in making things function. Hierarchy is natural and good.

I redesigned my blogspot that has a translate button.



  1. I think this is a circular argument.

    You are arguing that because some people cannot be allowed to be reigned in, you should have an authority (for precisely the same reason). Because people can’t be trusted, we need people to rule over other people to make sure all is orderly. And on and on it goes. See where I am getting at?

    An anarchist society would have rules and protocol to prevent the centralization of power, but also a anarchist society wouldn’t operate by majority rule. If a group decides to its own thing, it would be allowed, as long as it doesn’t go enslaving other people or something. Communities should have a diverse set of economic/political systems, and the government (yes, a government), would rule more in line of democratic confederation. I recommend checking out Murray Bookchin on this.


  2. I actually recently purchased a book by someone that is strongly influenced by Murray Bookchin. I will be reading that after I finish a book about distributism. Due to IQ distribution and leadership personalities , I don’t really view this as a circular argument. While I’m not disputing that some people are corrupt and therefore unworthy of an authority role. I haven’t seen any real concrete proof humans can be anarchistic long term. Even at the most simple and small scale humans have always had a leader and a desire to be apart of a group. From what I have seen humans developed in a Leader-follower and ingroup-outgroup dynamic. A certain level of authority is needed. According to evolutionary leadership theory , Hierarchy is hardwired.

    Wiki gives the short definition if you’d rather read that.

    I personally never liked the idea of calling something that would be a form of localism in practice anarchy . But I can’t changed what an entire school of thought is called. So airing my grievance is really futile. Reading a bit about In/out group dynamics , threat management theory , and ELT is what is behind my reasoning for disagreeing with the concept of anarchism. I don’t think it will be effective enough in dealing with human issues when compared to other systems that have been tried. It’s late , So I’ll be signing off.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s