Article 9:
Violating Humanity With Control- Part 1
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal God", Copyright, W. Krossa)

I have repeatedly referred to the devastating impacts of vertical forms of relating (with their inevitable control) on the human self and human well being. Quite simply the damage to humanity is severe because control violates freedom and equality, which are essential features to truly human existence. Vertical relationships effectively undermine truly human relating, human expression, and human progress or development. Vertical relationships deny people the possibility of fully humane expression by returning them to controlling forms of relating very similar to those of our predatory animal past. Control is quite simply a return to animal-like existence. There is little room for human growth or progress in such relationships.

The control of vertical relating violates the essential nature of humanity which emerged as an entirely new reality defined by freedom from all control and domination. Modern humanity was born in the original break with hierarchical control some 4000 years ago. That break defined humanity as something entirely new that was oriented horizontally to others as equals.

The consequences of vertical relating have been noted in organizational theory literature and psychology studies (1). The powerlessness that arises from loss of control or from being controlled in such situations has caused depression, illness, meaninglessness, isolation, violence, and even early death in the controlled people. That powerlessness also leads to a debilitating sense of hopelessness, a sense that people can not influence or change the critical factors affecting their lives.

Alienation

To better understand the damaging effects of hierarchy on human well- being, it would be useful to note here in more detail some of the studies in organizational theory and psychology on the effects of hierarchy and powerlessness in relationships of control. One of the main consequences to human well being has been termed alienation. Alienation has been subdivided into the five following categories by Melvin Seeman (2):

Powerlessness- the feeling that people can not influence outcomes of the decision making process. They do not have the power to control critical decisions impacting their lives.

Meaninglessness- lack of clarity about what to believe or how individual standards for decision making can be met.

Normlessness- rejection of dominant rules and regulations of society.

Isolation- experiencing a separateness from society due to rejection of values or goals or beliefs held by the society.

Self-estrangement- this is where people experience themselves as alien.

The alienation noted by Seeman is a fairly widespread condition experienced by many people living and working in the lower strata of hierarchical organizations and hierarchical social orders. It is a direct consequence of the powerlessness experienced at the bottom of vertical chains of command and control.

What elite groups of powerholders want may be very different from the wishes of powerless majorities. But powerless majorities have no means for gaining their preferences. They therefore feel separated from the goals and plans of elite powerholders. They feel alienated, cut off and not in control of their lives. Someone else is making the critical decisions that powerfully affect their lives and they have little or no power to influence those decisions.

Langer On Control

Ellen Langer also offers some valuable insights on powerlessness or loss of control and its negative impact on the human self. She notes that if people feel unable to control events in their lives they become demoralized (3). This demoralization can then lead to feelings of helplessness and depression which may seriously affect mental and physical health. Lack of control in her view is "severely incapacitating" (4).

Langer argues that a sense of personal control is crucial to human psychological well being and to physical health. Control, she says, is essential to human functioning and if people are given a sense of being in control of their lives, then this sense of control can bring clear mental and physical improvement to them (5).

Langer defines control as a relationship between human responses and forthcoming outcomes. She states that a "person has control when the chance of a desired outcome occurring is dependent on the person's responses" (6). An outcome will not occur without the individual making some response to bring it about, she says. And, to the contrary, she argues that a perceived independence between one's responses and forthcoming outcomes results in learned helplessness and depression. She notes that people who lose control over important events in their lives experience feelings that can be so destructive that they may seriously affect mental and physical health.

Control is broken into the following categories by Langer:

Behavioral control- direct action taken to influence a threatening event.

Cognitive control- this relates to the interpretation of the threatening event.

Decisional control- the opportunity to choose among various possible actions.

From a wide variety of research, Langer clearly establishes that loss of control is a central factor in explaining much of the mental, emotional, and physical distress or illness suffered by people in modern organizational relationships.

Langer also makes a very interesting comment regarding the endeavor to regain control. She argues that instead of giving subjects decisions to make, you should encourage decision making. She is arguing for a process orientation. Control, she states, must be an ongoing process, not an object (7).

So in regaining control it is important to realize that personally taking initiative and exerting control has more positive impact than when control is given by another. Giving control, she says, implies that the person giving still has control and can withdraw it. However, if we view control as a process, then it can not be given. Since control is not an entity, one person can not give it or take it back.

Control May Kill

Langer provides good evidence of some of the more severe effects of loss of control which is common in the lower strata of hierarchical organizations. She argues convincingly that the loss of control is so destructive that it may even lead to premature death (8).

Interesting in this regard is a recent report in TIME magazine (also noted in chapter one) which shows that recent research supports Langer's contention about the relationship between control and health. TIME noted that "citing the strongest evidence yet, researchers find that people who have little or no control over their work life (such as secretaries or assembly-line workers) have a 70% higher risk of dying from heart disease than those who can decide for themselves what they will do and when" (9). Loss of control is extremely harmful to human well being and may even kill people.

Langer notes in one study that it is the exposure of animals or humans to "uncontrollable aversive outcomes" (10) that proves to be so devastating and can result in premature death. The sense of control, the perception that one can exercise personal choice, says Langer, has a definite and positive role in sustaining life. While her comments apply mainly to the groups that she was specifically studying, I believe the basic principles she outlines also apply to a wider variety of situations in other areas of life.

In another study of medical organizations, Oldenquist quoted a study by Seeman who notes that the loss of control over critical aspects of one's life (powerlessness) can have devastating impacts in terms of emotional, psychological, and even physical illness. The conclusion this study arrived at is that "The feeling of helplessness is a serious disease in itself... the sense of control is an integral aspect of the well person" (13).

The above material reaffirms the argument that contemporary vertical social orders and vertically oriented institutions are more than just a frustrating arena for human expression or development. They actually destroy human well being and life. Not only do vertical relationships preclude the expression of true love and true human relating, but these animal-like relationships also have powerfully negative impacts on human beings. They are intensely inhumane forms of relating which do not encourage the proper development of the human self.

Grassroots Slavery In Modern Democracy

Powerless people worldwide are now expressing their anger towards governing elites who control the important resources and decision making processes of life. There is a widespread sense that controlling elites do not really listen to people at the bottom and that they are simply making self- serving decisions with other elites that impact people on the bottom negatively. This is especially true in the political and economic areas of life. Note, for instance, the growing trends toward downsizing and restructuring which callously discard the employment security of millions of hardworking people worldwide. People at the bottom often have little control over these critical decisions.

Oldenquist notes this problem of discontent in what he calls the phenomena of dissatisfaction in the midst of material prosperity and political freedom (11). He suggests that the root of the problem may lie in the fact that modern states grant political and ideological freedom but not social liberation (12). Modern states and organizations continue to employ vertically oriented relationships. Consequently, domination and control continue to operate widely throughout modern democratic states. Authority is still distributed hierarchically with decision making power concentrated at the top of structures. This leaves the majority at the bottom powerless. This is not genuine freedom and it certainly is not humane existence. It is simply a form of modern slavery.

If anyone doubts the reality of this modern slavery, then just note the fear, hesitancy, and subservience of lineworkers in any organization when they are in the presence of bosses or other superiors. Note the hesitancy of lower strata people to really speak their minds on many subjects when around superiors for fear of loss of benefits.

The Growing Loss Of Personal Control

One other interesting point made by Oldenquist concerns the manner in which mediation increases alienation (14). Mediation is the process by which others come between us and the actions which produce things that are important to us.

For instance, the production of food is one area where intermediaries come between us and something which is important to us. A long chain of intermediaries is necessary to make the food that we need for survival. While this is a benefit to us, Oldenquist says that it also has a cost in that we feel less active and less able to directly accomplish the basic things that we need for our survival (15). We therefore have less personal control over our lives.

This chain of intermediaries creates what Oldenquist calls psychic distance (16). Psychic distance increases in proportion to the number of agents in a chain of mediation. Oldenquist says that the result in highly developed societies has been less immediacy and more psychic distance, more ignorance and more loss of responsibility, than in less developed societies where people can do more for themselves (17). Technological advance does not always automatically mean human or social advance as well.

People in less technologically advanced societies are sometimes better off emotionally and psychically than people in so-called economically advanced societies. They are, by Oldenquist's standard, far less dependent than we are. Technological advance is not always synonymous with human advance.

Oldenquist continues, stating that mediation explains in part alienation and especially the feeling of powerlessness. It is the feeling that no one at the top is listening. Critical decisions that profoundly affect our lives are being made by people in distant places and it places these critical decisions completely beyond our control. Numerous intermediaries in large bureaucracies keep us at a vast distance from being in control of our lives.

Kipnis also offers the similar insight that "to the extent that persons have extensive needs which require the service of others, stresses and strains occur in interpersonal relations" (18). On the other hand, he argues that self-determining people who are less dependent on others are also less hostile and less anxious.

Oldenquist suggests that the answer to the problem of mediation is to re- immediate (19). This will combat the psychic distance and reduce the inhumanity of long mediated chains. To achieve immediacy, Oldenquist argues for the opening up of government and corporations to all members (20). This is an effort to allow members to understand more about what and why decisions are being made. This, it is suggested, will make it easier for members to accept decisions made by controlling elites.

But the argument to open up decision making processes is a token effort at reform that does not get to the heart of the problem. It does not give people effective control over and responsibility for the critical decisions that affect their lives. These token efforts at public or member participation are all too common. But they leave the old structures of domination and control by the few still intact. In the long term, dehumanizing alienation will only continue under such arrangements.

People make a variety of brave efforts to solve the mediation problem, mainly through do-it-yourself projects in their homes. These are all part of the movement of powerless people to take more control over their lives.

After observing the current vertical order of our societies and the damage to human well being that has been caused by that vertical relating, Oldenquist concludes that contemporary hierarchical and centralized states can not lead to true human community or relating (21).

Its Worse Further Down The Ladder

Leviatan more directly states the negative consequences of hierarchical relating on human well-being in saying that "the abundance of research evidence proves that status level and hierarchical level are related to expressions of well-being, life satisfaction, indications of (non)alienation, and other phenomena of psychological adjustment and psychological functioning" (22).

He continues, saying that people higher up in organizational hierarchies show more positive indicators on all psychological outcomes, while those at the lower levels of organizational hierarchies or "those who are low on other dimensions of social status" (23) show lower scores on indicators of mental health and well-being.

People in the upper strata of organizations, by virtue of holding the power to decide, are able to take for themselves resources, opportunities, privileges, and a sense of security that is rarely, if ever, made available to those in the lower strata who do not have the same control over those resources and privileges. Consequently, those who are inferiors in terms of the strata of an organization or who occupy an inferior position in the social strata, such people suffer notably in terms of mental, emotional, and physical well being.

The research on this phenomenon, claims Leviatan, "transcends societies, research methods, historical periods, and domains of study... and, thus, it should be considered almost as a 'Law of Behavior' " (24).

This law of behavior applies to the majority of people in modern societies, as "almost all members of our society (his reference is to the United States) are also members of social organizations that are hierarchically structured with the common pyramidal shape... This means that the vast majority of the population of industrial society- those at the lowest levels in the hierarchies of social organizations- are doomed to experience alienation, and lower levels of well-being and mental health" (25).

As long as hierarchical forms of relating are employed in our societies and institutions, the vast majority of people will continue to suffer immense damage to their well being and they will continue to be denied the freedom to become fully human.

The fact that people higher in hierarchical status experience greater life satisfaction is confirmed by Kipnis. He argues that not only do powerholders gain more material benefits but they also gain a wider range of psychic benefits. He states that the higher the hierarchical level of the employee, the more likely it is that important psychological needs would be satisfied. "Those with many resources appear happier, more fulfilled, and, no doubt, more satisfied with themselves" (26). Also, to the contrary, those with less access to resources tend to suffer a more negative view of themselves.

This research deserves wider public exposure in order to help inspire ongoing effort at the grassroots to retake control over important things that influence the lives and destinies of people. People need to be made more intensely aware that vertical relating and control do not only undermine the core features of their humanity and seriously hinder human progress, but even more tragically, they may actually lead to early death for those existing in the lower strata of such situations.

Just as an aside here, in relation to the fulfillment or distress experienced due to existence at different levels of hierarchical strata, it was interesting to listen to a wealthy matron express dismay at the stress and anger expressed by people suffering a variety of frustrating circumstances in daily life.

From her privileged position in the social order she simply could not understand the anxiety and frustration of people lower in social status. Her response was to berate those people for being anxious and upset with stressful life situations. She scoldingly told these working people that they should learn to relax more and just enjoy life as she did.

It is a bit disappointing to listen to such well-off people talk about how wonderful life is and how positive they feel and then scold others for not feeling as they do. With opportunities and privileges the average human will never experience, it is small wonder these elites feel so good about life. Their position and privileges in large measure explain their good feeling about their lives and their inability to understand the stress, insecurity, and fear of people living at the bottom. With more than sufficient resources to handle life's crises, they feel little of the stress that people at the bottom are subject to.

I am also reminded of the endless stream of out-of-touch politicians and corporate suits stepping before mikes to berate people for worrying about economic conditions and then urging them to spend more to keep economies growing. With guaranteed pensions after single terms in government and huge bonuses and benefits packages, they do not seem able to comprehend the stress and anxiety of people at the bottom who are facing the cruelty of rising costs in a world of downsizing and restructuring without the power to influence their destiny in any meaningful way.

More Damage...

Judith Agassi also affirms the damage caused by working and existing in the alienating environment of contemporary hierarchies. She states that "the damage may be psychological, mental, intellectual, or psychosomatic, which may even lead to permanent physical illness. It is a damage which goes beyond harming millions of individuals; it robs democratic societies of the ability of the damaged workers to participate in the democratic process" (27).

Oldenquist then includes lists of some of the damaging impacts of the hierarchical distribution of authority in workplaces- the concentrating of decision making at the top of hierarchies which then leaves the rank and file powerless. He states that "when work activity does not permit control (powerlessness), does not evoke a sense of purpose (meaninglessness), or encourage larger identification (isolation), then employment becomes simply a means to an end" (28). The consequence of this alienation is evident in increased absenteeism, poor quality of goods, alcoholism, high suicide rates, and mass emigration.

He then makes this comment on the reform efforts of corporations and notes that many job redesign strategies used by corporations today are "seemingly used to improve the quality of working life, but (in reality) they are pursued only to the extent that they serve management and corporate goals- maximizing profit, improving efficiency, and raising productivity" (29). These token efforts at grassroots democracy, which are often only thinly disguised manipulation, ultimately serve only to create further resentment and resistance from those at the bottom.

I have argued repeatedly that modern hierarchical relationships are simply institutionalized forms of animal-like relating. These vertical forms of relating have devastating effects on human well being. The research of Leviatan and others clearly supports this argument. This problem of vertical relating is perhaps one of the central problems affecting modern societies.

Human beings and modern humanity in general are emerging and developing within structures that are still oriented to the controlling relationships of a more animal-like past. These archaic vertical structures continue to hinder the emergence of truly humane forms of relating and human expression and they are thereby negating the possible emergence of a more humane existence. The effect on people, as noted above, is devastating.

There is no such thing as Plato's benevolent king or nice bosses. All control of others is damaging, inhumane, and wrong.

 

Violating Humanity With Control - Part 2

 From the series "Taking The Vertical Out Of God" by W. Krossa.
Copyrighted material.