Article 4:
The Origin of Control - Part 2
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal
God", Copyright, W. Krossa)
Hierarchy in Hunter/Gatherer Society / Another View of Domestication / One More View Of Domestication / The Origin of Male Domination / Kings And Queens / Centralization / Specialization
Hierarchy in Hunter/Gatherer Society
Contemporary hunter/gatherer societies often exhibit a notable concern for more egalitarian relationships among members. This has been taken as evidence that such forms of relating were the pattern of relating in primitive hunter/gatherer societies. But contemporary forms of egalitarianism in these societies may be explained in terms of the later emergence of consciousness in humanity. Consciousness would have inspired modern hunter/gatherer peoples to seek more egalitarian forms of relating.
The reason I argue that original hunter/gatherer bands were not egalitarian is because modern human consciousness was not yet present in the mentality of pre-domestication people. Modern subjective consciousness, according to Jaynes, arose later in domesticated humans around the second millennium BC (21).
Consciousness was the new faculty that originated the human desire for freedom and equality. It promoted the awareness of something radically new in human existence- freedom, personal dignity, and personal responsibility. Egalitarian forms of relating would emerge as the means of expressing this new consciousness. Egalitarian relating would become the expression of a conscious human self aware of its humanity and seeking to relate to others as free and equal persons.
But egalitarian relating could not yet have existed in the preconscious hunter/gatherer bands of the pre-domestication era. The people of that time possessed a very animal-like mentality oriented to vertical relationships of domination and control. Contemporary egalitarian hunter/gatherer bands are therefore not representative of hunter/gatherer existence before domestication.
Service makes some interesting points regarding this issue of hierarchy in original hunter/gatherer societies. He says that primitive hunter/gatherer bands had hierarchical arrangements of relationships that existed within the family. This was the informal hierarchy of domestic or clan relationships. Such relationships consisted of "husband/wife, parent-child, older-younger, male-female status's (or authority relationships) and they are, of course, profoundly inegalitarian because they are basically systems of authority" (22).
He notes that those hierarchical arrangements were not formal political systems of authority and hierarchy. They were domestic systems of authority because most hunter/gatherer bands were simply families or groups of related people (23).
State formation at the time of domestication transformed these domestic hierarchies into institutionalized permanent positions and offices (24). The inequality of ancient hierarchical relationships was institutionalized during domestication.
Another view of the process of domestication is that stateless societies (hunter/gatherer bands) are prone to fission or tend to breakup (25). Land or resource shortages and leadership disputes lead to breakups. Hierarchical relationships are already present in these hunter/gatherer societies as some members have higher status from ownership or control of resources.
In this view, the threat of attack (external threats) apparently pushed small bands together for common defense. To ensure their survival, it was necessary that the bands stay together in some common area. New arrangements and institutions then emerged to deal with problems and needs that arose as the bands moved together in the new larger settlements. New mechanisms also emerged to ensure that the groups stayed together. These new arrangements and mechanisms involved more formal hierarchical domination and centralized control of people. In this view, it is argued that increased hierarchy and more centralized control were a natural response to prevent the normal process of breakup that occurred among the bands (26).
Along with the new vertical institutions, it was also necessary to create the means to perpetuate those institutions, such as the use of centralized force. "Increased coordination and the organization of force helps sustain in power those who command its use" (27). Social, cultural, and ideological features were also developed to support the growing formalization and permanence of the new hierarchical arrangements.
One More View Of Domestication
It should also be noted that recently it has been suggested that the onset of an ice age some 11,000 years ago damaged hunter/gatherer food sources and forced people to use grains more for their survival. Formerly nomadic peoples then began to settle and employ the more permanent crops. These crops also allowed areas to support larger populations and thus, it is argued, led to the birth of civilization.
In noting the development of hierarchy in the process of domestication, it is also worth considering the suggestion that hierarchical relating is a particularly male invention. This is worth noting in relation to the eventual development of a male God and male dominated states and institutions.
The animal bands that I noted earlier were often dominated by males. That is especially true of primate bands which are the direct ancestral line of humans. Early hunter/gatherer bands of human beings followed the primate pattern with an orientation to male domination. As those bands settled together in larger groups, the more powerful leaders became the ruling patriarchs. With the progress of domestication, this leadership elite moved toward a more formal type of male domination- monarchy or kingship.
The new monarchical positions were buttressed by validating myths and rituals. The idea of the sacred rule of kings would later arise with emerging god-consciousness. Jaynes says that the male kings were eventually viewed as god-like and in this emerging idea we trace the origin of male gods (28). In the development of these ideas we can clearly see the continuation of male domination moving on into human society and human worldviews. Male dominated hierarchy would then come to be viewed as the divine order- the way human social orders and relationships should be arranged.
Others have argued that male dominance arose with the shift to urban existence in early domestication (29). Former male hunters became rulers in the new urban societies and brought their hunting aggressiveness into their new social systems and positions. Hunting thereby evolved to become the practice of war in the new states.
Ideas of God were shaped toward a male orientation at this time and all the aggressive traits of hunting males were projected onto the new gods. God became sterner, more belligerent and aggressive. Hunting, warring, torturing, and ideas of Hell were also projected onto God. Religions of the time became male dominated and women were suppressed in these early civilization trends (30).
Karen Armstrong makes a similar argument regarding the rise of male domination and views of a male God. She states in reference to the early Israelites that "Even though monotheists would insist that their God transcended gender, he would remain essentially male... In part, this was due to his origins as a tribal god of war. Yet his battle with the goddesses reflects a less positive characteristic of the Axial Age, which generally saw a decline in the status of women and the female. It seems that in more primitive societies, women were sometimes held in higher esteem than men. The prestige of the great goddesses in traditional religions reflects the veneration of the female. The rise of cities however, meant that the more masculine qualities of martial, physical strength were exalted over female characteristics. Henceforth, women were marginalized and became second-class citizens in the new civilizations of the Oikumene.... In the early days, women were forceful and clearly saw themselves as the equals of men. Some, like Deborah, had led armies into battle. Israelites would continue to celebrate such heroic women as Judith and Esther, but after Yahweh had successfully vanquished the other gods and goddesses of Canaan and the Middle East and become the only God, his religion would be managed almost entirely by men. The cult of the goddesses would be superseded, and this would be a symptom of a cultural change what was characteristic of the newly civilized world" (31).
The ideas and customs behind modern kingship and monarchy originate ultimately with animal hierarchies. These social positions with their vertical orientation embody essentially the competitive domination of animal existence. Due to their institutionalization in emerging human civilization they have become more formal and refined forms of hierarchical relating, but they are animal forms of relating just the same. They do not reflect any real advance or progress in terms of truly humane relating. Kingship and other forms of rule reflect the worst features of dominating animal existence. They embody relationships that express base animal control.
The idea of God as king or lord originated with the human practice of kingship (32). Having projected these ideas onto gods, people would then in a feedback process try to replicate in their societies what they perceived to be the divine pattern or order. Hence the idea of kings as appointed by God.
Joseph Campbell says that around 3500 B.C. in early Mesopotamian city states a new perception of the universe emerged. This was the understanding that the sun, moon, and planets moved through the skies in determined patterns and this was seen as the 'cosmic order'. This idea of cosmic order became the celestial model for the good society on earth, "the king enthroned, crowned as the moon or sun, the queen as the goddess-planet Venus, and the high dignitaries of the court in the roles of the various celestial lights" (Myths To Live By, p.56). The new belief emerged that the heavenly cosmic order should be reflected in the social order on earth. This belief eventually expressed itself in the Christian Empire with its hierarchically organized courts (Ibid, p.5).
This idea of cosmic order was reinforced by the idea that men were created by gods to be their servants or slaves, and gods were to be absolute masters. Men were to obey the will of the gods (p.74). The main idea, says Campbell, was that the god has given a revelation, a holy book, that men are to accept, revere, read, and obey. Those who do not "are in exile from their maker" (p.77). This idea is related to the myth of a fall from paradise. This myth states that early men apparently disobeyed the revealed will of God and were then banished from God's presence. The separation from God resulted in God retreating up into heaven, far away.
The idea of a separation from God has dominated Western consciousness for millennia and added immeasurably to western man's sense of being forsaken, alone, alienated, and cut off as a guilty outsider. Western religious life has consequently become a strain filled exercise of finding a way back to God and God's favor. On the contrary, says Campbell, people in the Orient do not feel in exile from their gods. "The ultimate divine mystery is there found immanent within each. It is not 'out there' somewhere. It is within you. And no one has ever been cut off" (p.92).
Further adding to the power of this separation myth is the idea of God's abode being in the heavens- up and away. Modern cosmology has undermined this idea as we now understand that what was formerly seen as a nonmaterial realm- the heavens- is known to be as material as world. Hence the support for the up and away cosmic order no longer exists and we know that the 'out there' is also the same as right here. "The residence of the spirit now is experienced as centered not in fire, in the animal or plant worlds, or aloft among the planets and beyond, but in men, right here on earth... God is an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere... Each of us- whoever and wherever he may be- is then the center, and within him..." (p.245, 265). Jesus taught the same in saying the kingdom of God was here among and within you, not up and away.
The appreciation of the fallacy of this separation myth and the recognition of its damaging impacts on human consciousness may be important to begin human healing around a variety of pathologies that afflict the human psyche. It may help explain human separation from nature and from community. It may help explain the profound sense in western consciousness of feeling cut off, alone, rejected, alienated (Note article 26 on "Angry Gods and Lonely People").
This is why I refer to the teaching of Jesus for its profound new insight into God's relation to humanity. Jesus' new vision of God stressed the immediacy of God to all. God was here among ordinary people. God was freely and equally available to all, especially the most marginalized and neglected members of society, the outcasts and despised ones. Every person existed immediately in God. No one was an outsider or separated from God. Jesus rejected the idea of God being above or far away. He rejected the old hierarchical cosmic order as a governing pattern for human society.
Another element in domestication and vital to the formalization of vertical hierarchical relating is the trend of centralization. Centralization is the process of domination, control, and coordination becoming concentrated in the hands of the leaders of the strongest bands, the emerging monarchs. The process of centralizing control and power effectively removes responsibility and decision making from individuals or clans and centralizes it in the more powerful leaders of the settling communities. This trend is basic to the development of all states and organizations.
Such centralized control and domination is then legitimized through the development of the concept of authority. Authority is considered legitimate power in which "those subject to domination by others accept that domination as legitimate arrangement" (33). This idea is reinforced through the development of beliefs that the central leaders and their military have the divine right to rule others, to control other people's lives and behavior. Power and domination are in this manner sacralized by appeal to God.
We need to question all human created authority because of the oppression and destruction it has led to over human history. Human authority must be viewed for what it really is which is simply the effort of a powerholding few to validate their domination over others. It is legitimate from whose perspective- the powerholders?
The concept of a social contract also has its origin in this centralization trend. A social contract is the idea that individuals and communities have given up, among other things, individual rights to use force to defend themselves or their property and granted this right of defense and other rights to central 'authorities'. This is the basis of the authority of contemporary governments.
The idea of a social contract with central authorities has been romanticized by political theory writers and used to foster the belief that our ancestors voluntarily gave up individual responsibility to central authorities in order to support the central authority operating for the common good of all.
In reality, the necessity of survival in the face of external threat or the need to gain access to vital resources forced people together under the unwelcome domination of the most powerful local leader. That leader would then use force to maintain the group under his control. This is how most ancient states and even many modern states were initially formed. State formation is not about the voluntary submission to central authority. The idea of citizens voluntarily giving up control to powerholding elites is a myth that controlling governments would like their citizens to believe. Tragically, over the history of states, powerful elites have become very adept at using such ideas to keep citizens subservient to elite control.
The inhumane hierarchical arrangement of controlled human relationships has been used by states and other social institutions for so long that it is now thoughtlessly accepted by many citizens and organizational members as a natural and even divine order of life. But there is nothing natural, normal or healthy about anyone, including God, being above and controlling any other person.
Unfortunately, too much responsibility has been taken by central governments over too many areas of life, leaving communities dangerously dependent on central authorities. People are no longer in control of their own lives or destinies and they feel powerless to influence the critical factors shaping their lives. This loss of control to central authorities hinders human development. It produces all the negative consequences of powerlessness- alienation, depression, illness, conflict, and even early death (see Ellen Langer's 'The Psychology of Control').
It is doubtful if early people ever freely entered social contracts. It is more of a myth perpetuated by central governments that our ancestors voluntarily agreed to these contracts and therefore we now owe strict allegiance to state authority, ideology, and structures. It is all part of the elite effort to control populations and keep people subservient to central authorities despite the documented damage to human well-being that such arrangements cause.
What is clear, is that in the emerging civilizations, power, authority, control, and decision making responsibility were formalized as central top down realities. These functions were removed from smaller groups and moved to the center and top of developing hierarchies in the early proto states. Ideas of gods were used to validate the whole mess.
Specialization is another trend at work in domestication to intensify control over larger groups of people. In previous hunter/gatherer existence, individuals were capable of doing most of the work necessary for individual or band survival. Each band was basically independent and self-sufficient to a much higher degree than that of people in domesticated societies.
Campbell says that "In the earlier, primitive societies of food collecting hunters, foragers, and fishers, the precariously nurtured, nomadic social units were neither very large or complex. The only divisions of labor were in terms of age and sex, with every man, woman, and even youngster pretty much in control of the entire cultural heritage. Every adult in such a context could- in terms at least of the local cultural model- become a total human being" (Myths To Live By, p.62-63).
With emerging agricultural society and more complex social organization, a trend began toward growing specialization of work. In those early emerging societies, certain information, skills, and positions came to be viewed as more important in the functioning of the structures and institutions of those societies. Eventually, only certain people were allowed to hold the special positions controlling the special information and skills. Also, "life became much more complex; and with the gradual increase of such communities both in number and size, highly specialized departments of knowledge and professional skills became increasingly important... By 4500 B.C. ... villages... in the lower Tigris-Euphrates valley were becoming cities... In these there were clearly distinguished governing and serving castes, skilled craftsmen, priestly orders, trading people, and so on; so that no one now could possibly hope to become a total human being. Each was but a part man" (Ibid, p.63).
Also interesting in this regard is the trend to separate and specialize activities that were once a vital part of every working person's life. Campbell notes that "throughout the Oriental world, in India as well as in China and Japan, the ideal of art was never- as it has been largely with us of late years- of an activity set apart from life, confined to studios of sculpture, painting, dancing, music, or acting. Art in the ancient East was the art of life. In the words of Dr. A. K. Coomaraswamy... 'The artist, in the ancient world, was not a special kind of man, but every man a special kind of artist'" (Ibid, p.120).
One consequence of this trend toward specialization was a growing dependence on central governments and the authority of upper strata hierarchical positions where the specialization was focused. Specialization became a means to increase the power of elites as critically important knowledge and skills were placed under the control of their central authority.
This trend has also been called the mystification of expertise. Only certain elite members of societies are viewed as being qualified to know and mediate the various types of knowledge necessary for survival.
This trend still operates in the present in the form of certain disciplines and specialties where only a small group of people control information and skills vital to the well being and survival of all members of a society. It is widely understood that control and monopolization of knowledge or information grants those in control power over others (34).
Rothschild has pointed out that "Sociologists of organizations have long understood that the holding of 'official secrets', that is, the monopolization of knowledge, is a prime source of power in bureaucracy" (Joyce Rothschild and Allen Whitt. 1986. The Cooperative Workplace, p. 105).
But while we might appreciate that it is simply no longer possible for every member of a society to have knowledge of everything necessary for their basic survival, I would argue that there must be more access and control by all members of a society over the critical information, skills, and other factors that affect their lives. The loss of access to basic information and skills contributes to the sense of helplessness and powerlessness that are so destructive to the well being of the majorities that are excluded from such things.
The destructiveness of this dependence has been noted, for instance, in studies of medical treatment programs. The often complete dependence on specialists in these programs produces a debilitating helplessness that negatively affects even the physical well-being of the people involved. They feel powerless to affect the outcomes of treatment involving their own health. Such powerlessness has even been considered a form of disease itself (35).
State governance is another area where powerlessness is experienced by the vast majority of modern state members. In early settling communities kings emerged with royal courts of special advisors, priests, and soldiers. Governing was placed under the control of these elite specialists and was viewed as something which could only be exercised by certain elite members of the society. The rest of society's members were then rendered powerless in terms of governing themselves.
Today, even the most basic skills and information essential for life have been placed under the control of specialists. The majority of the population of modern industrialized societies have become dangerously dependent on specialists for the knowledge and skills needed for their survival. We will note later Oldenquist's argument that increased mediation- the loss of independence as we become more dependent on mediators for life necessities- has made us worse off and damaged our well being.
It has been estimated that if this trend toward dependency on specialist expertise continues then sometime in this century only about twenty percent of the population will be needed to supply the needs of the entire population. The rest will simply be redundant and become marginalized. The continuation of such a trend will intensify the destructive effects of powerlessness.
Interestingly, in the hierarchy of work status's that specialization has produced a distortion in social status has occurred. Sociological studies note, for instance, that farming occupies one of the lowest positions in social status. This is interesting because without farmers a society would not survive for very long. And to the contrary, a lot of high status professional positions, such as those in law and politics, could disappear completely and most societies would survive without so much as a passing hiccup.
The trend toward specialization was also exploited by early priests who developed an ideology of the sacred to validate and support the entire structure of elites controlling specialist knowledge and skills. This was the beginning of a more formal embodiment of mythology in religion. Authority, governance, and decision making were all formalized into sacred and vertical realities with a top down orientation and flow. Even today, it is still widely believed that God grants the special qualities necessary for ruling to only a select few.
This entire trend of specialization in domestication needs to be carefully monitored. Communities should counteract the powerlessness and dependence resulting from this trend by demanding that all members of society be given more access to and control over information and skills that affect the livelihood and destiny of all.
People in specialist positions could also help demystify the expertise of their positions by more freely passing on information and skills to people in the lower strata of community hierarchies. In one sense, we should all be constantly working ourselves out of jobs as we pass information and skills freely to those around us. This is to treat others as genuine equals.
Rothschild points out that democratic institutions/organizations focus on the process of knowledge diffusion in order to avoid the inequality that specialized knowledge and skills bring to groups of people. She says, "Some of the organizations we observed devoted a great deal of energy to cultivating in their members a general knowledge about overall operations of the organization instead of specialized expertise. This was accomplished primarily through extensive job rotation, task sharing, and most broadly, by attempts to 'demystify' normally exclusive or esoteric bodies of knowledge. Members use the word demystification to refer to efforts to simplify, explicate, and make available to the membership at large, formerly exclusive knowledge... In its essence, demystification is the opposite of specialization and professionalization. Where experts and professionals seek licenses to hoard or at least get paid for their knowledge, (democratic organizations) would give it away. Central to their purpose is the breakdown of the division of labor and pretense of expertise. In effect, demystification reinforces egalitarian, democratic control over the organization. In their everyday practices, people in (democratic organizations) are insisting that much of what passes for expertise- not all- can be opened up and taught to any interested party, short-circuiting the usual years of training and certification" (Joyce Rothschild, The Cooperative Workplace, p.106, 114).
"The logical conclusion of the demystification process is equal knowledge: the complete diffusion of knowledge. That is, in the extreme, everyone would have the same demystified understanding of the world. There would be no need for 'doctors' because everyone could doctor themselves, no need for 'teachers' for everyone could teach themselves, no need for 'sociologists' because everyone would possess the 'sociological imagination', and so forth. The extension of the process of demystification to these theoretical extremes would undercut the very basis of rational authority, namely, superior knowledge. That is, if all members were equally competent in the knowledge and skills relevant to the operations of an organization, there would be no rational basis for hierarchical authority" (Ibid, p.115). As Rothschild states above, much, but not all, of what passes for expertise could be passed on to all members of communities.
By allowing specialization and its related secrecy to intensify as it has in the contemporary worldwide trend, we are enabling the entrenchment of elite privilege and powerholding. Many states will even go to the point of severely punishing people who violate the secrecy of elite knowledge.
But to balance this point about the danger of specialization in relation to human independence, I offer the following counterpoint made by Matt Ridley, that specialization promotes cooperation among people. Ridley says, "The secret of this good side to human nature is that, compared with other animals, we are uniquely ill-equipped for self-sufficiency. Like ants and bees, we cannot live outside of a communal society. We have become so dependent on divisions of labor that nobody could conceivably feed, clothe and shelter himself entirely by his own efforts. Many people regret this and yearn to rediscover the virtues of a simpler age of self-sufficiency. But there never was such an age for our species. Anthropologists are gradually discovering that trade, which is an expression of division of labor, started in the Paleolithic, before the Neanderthals were extinct in Europe. Far from regretting the division of labor, we should celebrate it as the cause of cooperation in society, indeed the source of our niceness" (36).
While I note his point about social interdependence, the trend in recent millennia toward more specialization can and does negatively impact human freedom and personal sense of control. People in the past could do far more things for themselves and therefore were far more self-sufficient than we are today. This self-sufficiency is still evident in many contemporary less-developed societies.
Concluding the above section, while studies on domestication and organization note the above features of hierarchy, they often fail to ground hierarchical formation properly in its animal past. They fail to note the deeper roots of the hierarchical orientation in relating in animal existence. Instead, such studies tend to view hierarchy as a more recent invention for human social life in larger settled communities. Hierarchy is then considered to be a natural and healthy form of social relating. These views do not recognize hierarchy for the destructive animal practice that it is.
The Origin of Control 1&2, Works Cited
Ø Zwemer, Jack. 1994. "The New World Order" in Forum, No.23, p.4.
Ø Cohen, Ronald. 1976. "The Natural History of Hierarchy: A Case Study" in Power and Control, Tom Burns and Walter Buckley, Eds., p.185.
Ø Michels, Robert. 1911. "Political Parties" quoted in Decisions Without Hierarchy, Kathy Iannello, p.3.
Ø Brinsmead, Robert. 1990. "Where Human Liberation Movements Fall Short" in Quest, Essay 5, p.2.
Ø Sandole, Dennis. The Biological Basis of Needs in World Society: The Ultimate Micro-Macro Nexus, p.70.
Ø Ibid, p.71.
Ø Ibid, p.66.
Ø Ibid, p.72.
Ø Brinsmead, Robert. 1990. "Where Human Liberation Movements Fall Short" in Quest, Essay 5, p.3.
Ø Ibid. 1989. "Dare to Blaspheme and Dare to be Free" in Quest, Essay 1.
Ø Zwemer, Jack. 1994. "Mankind Between Two Worlds" in Forum, No. 31, p.2.
Ø Ibid. 1994. "The Freedom of Personhood" in Forum, No. 25, p.2.
Ø Ibid, p.2.
Ø Davies, Paul. 1989. The Cosmic Blueprint, p.198-200.
Ø Wilson, Peter. 1988. The Domestication of the Human Species, p.3.
Ø Burns, Tom and Walter Buckley, Eds. 1976. Power and Control; Origins of the State: the Anthropology of Political Evolution, 1978, Ronald Cohen and Elman Service; Origins of the State and Civilization: the Process of Cultural Evolution, 1975, Elman Service.
Ø Burns, Tom and Walter Buckley, Eds. 1976. Power and Control, p.185.
Ø Michels, Robert quoted in Decisions Without Hierarchy, 1992, by Kathy Iannello, p. 3.
Ø Cohen, Ronald. 1976. "The Natural History of Hierarchy: A Case Study" in Power and Control, Tom Burns and Walter Buckley, Eds., p.186.
Ø Ibid, p.186.
Ø Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, p.67.
Ø Service, Elman. 1975. Origins of State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution, p.49.
Ø Ibid, p.71.
Ø Ibid, p.293.
Ø Cohen, Ronald. 1976. A Natural History of Hierarchy: A Case Study in Power and Control, Tom Burns and Walter Buckley, Eds. P.188.
Ø Ibid.
Ø Ibid, p.189.
Ø Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, p.187.
Ø Morris, Desmond. 1998. The Sexes- series on Arts & Entertainment, Feb. 4. 30. Ibid.
Ø Karen, Armstrong. 1993. A History of God, p. 50.
Ø Ibid, p. 48.
Ø Iannello, Kathy. 1992. Decisions Without Hierarchy, p.15.
Ø Weber, Max. 1968. Economy And Society.
Ø Oldenquist
Ø Ridley, Matt. "On The Origins of Niceness" in Time, Special Issue 1997-1998, p. 72.
From the series 'Taking The
Vertical Out Of God'
copyrighted material.
