Trying To Remove Hierarchy To Prevent Derailments

[joreth]

In my effort to eliminate the use of the word "hierarchy" from my discussions about hierarchy, to prevent the usual derailments of people confusing empowerment with priority, I think I'll try on the word "authority" for size.

"I don't do hierarchical" = "I don't do authoritative where one of my partners has more authority over another of my partners."

"Hierarchy is bad, m'kay?" = "Authoritative is bad, m'kay? It disempowers / disenfranchises / disrespects autonomy & agency."

"Why do you need a hierarchy to maintain your priorities?" = "Why do you need to assign authority of one over another to maintain *your* priorities?"

I need to make a page somewhere that I can find and reference for all the alternative terms that I am trying to use. I replaced primary/secondary with core/satellite. And I made a post like this a while ago but fuck if I can remember when or what terms I used to search for it!

Oh! I think it was replacing "needs" with "niche", as in instead of "he meets my needs", "he is in this niche".  I've also used the word "permission", as in, "permission-based relationships".  It strikes me as bizarre how many people don't mind the infantilizing implications associated with needing "permission" from a partner.  But I think that's a cultural thing - we're so indoctrinated with the idea of giving up our autonomy to a relationship or a partner that all manner of disempowering, and frankly abusive, traits in a relationship are seen as acceptable.

But, then again, that's how "hierarchical" got established in the first place.  No one saw any problem with the assumption that "of course the spouse comes first!"

Comments

Vocabulary problems

[polydad.livejournal.com]

Interesting experience: I was at a software meetup, and the immediate subject turned to how LINUX handles some file-transfer functions. One obnoxious asshole stated an opinion as if it was the received word of God, so I responded "And who appointed *you* Boss?"

"I did. I'm Linus Torvalds; I wrote the thing."

He's *still* an asshole, and situations like this may be why he came to draw some kind of perverted pride in that fact. But it also points out that authority, like hierarchy, *can* be entirely legitimate, and this is why you're having problems in your efforts to dismiss both concepts as *always* wrong. They're not. The author *does* have legitimate authority; that's where the word comes from.

OTOH, to attribute 'Hierarchy' to "I hired you therefore I'm the boss" has no historical referent I can trace. I have experienced legitimate hierarchy, and I would be very surprised if you had not also. If you wish to make the argument that *most* hierarchies are corrupt, and also exist either primarily or entirely to protect the privileges of the folks on the top of that particular pyramid, I will acknowledge the point without contest.

It seems to me that the *reason* this argument is so compelling is that both are such powerful and useful tools *when* used openly, honestly, and correctly. It'd be a shame if we have to use their legitimate uses because of their misuse.

best,

Joel

Re: Vocabulary problems

[joreth]

This whole thing is a non-sequitor and exactly the reason why I'm going to try not using the word hierarchy in the first place.

I have not experienced legitimate hierarchy ever. It is ALWAYS wrong. Period. And I will not argue the point any further because you have clearly not been following my arguments on the subject up to this point, which is the use of the word in a very specific context, not the elimination of the word from the entire English language. This circular argument is EXACTLY what I'm complaining about.

tacit.livejournal.com/577888.html

[belenen.livejournal.com]

*nodnod* authoritative is a much clearer way to put it, I think.