Social heirarchies

Post Reply New Topic

A while back I had a lecture in Distributed Information Systems, and the lecturer got to discussing general principles of organisation. I have been considering for some time how to describe logically the methods by which any heirarchy system functions, and today started writing them down during the lecture, as they occured to me. So, if you're interested, here is what I wrote:

In any heirarchy there are tiers. An example might be:

• Tier 1: Executive
• Tier 2: Management
• Tier 3: Labourers

No matter the number of tiers, they commonly consist of fewer members as you go toward the top, of course. Using the smaller number to represent tiers with fewer members:

Information available to tiers: 1 > 2 > 3 ...

Energy expended per unit of value in the system: 1 < 2 < 3 ...

Reward per unit of value: 1 > 2 > 3 ...

Reward and information increase as energy expended decreases. Therefore any heirachy system is inherently less rewarding the greater the number of members of any given tier.

Of course a heirachy system requires this, as value is intended to flow upward, toward the top/the few.

However, in theory, responsibility should increase as the number of members of a tier decreases: 1 > 2 > 3 ...

Unfortunately, since authority also increases as the number of tier members decreases, and humans will naturally try to avoid negative consequences of their actions, the smaller the tier size, the less likely its members are to actualyl face the negative effects of their actions. Thus, the likelihood of the previous point (about reponsibility) actually applying decreases as tier size decreases.

In a free society, those on the largest tier must achieve a reward/labour ratio of more than 1:1, else they have no incentive to expend energy. This ratio sets the minimum conditions for voluntary inclusion in a heirachy. Ie. the lowest tier members must actually gain through their participation.

Participation due to any form of necessity, without actual gain, does not meet the requirements of the previous point, thus does not constitute voluntary participation in a heirarchy.

And that's all I got. Then it was the end of the lecture.

What was your Professor smoking??

Interesting ideas. There is some merit but it is not very deep into the nature of things.

I would add that who ever enforces such a necessity will risk revolt against them, as much as the participant will risk annihilation by remaining in a hierarchy without gain.


There's a great book out there called Class - A guide through the American status systems.The author, Paul Fussell identifies nine classes:

• Top out-of-sight
• Upper
• Upper middle
• Middle
• High proletarian
• Mid-proletarian
• Low proletarian
• Destitute
• Bottom out-of-sight

Here's a link to a review of the book:http://wesclark.com/am/class.html