Hey.

I had a thought about an old IshThink(Con) subject. I wanted to share it.

  Previously, we identified two types of hierarchy that we dubbed SOCIAL hierarchy and PRODUCTION hierarchy.

Long story short:

Band tribe organised themselves COOPERATIVELY. They relied on interpersonal relationships to maintain coherence. This is supported by ROBIN DUNBAR'S work in which he suggests that humans can maintain meanigful relationships with a maximum average of 150 people at any given time. Most band tribes fall below that number. When the Natufian rolled around and hunter-gatherer groups became sedentary (pre-agriculture, there was that much food to be hunted and foraged) their populations began to grow. Whenever agriculture was included into the mix, populations grew even further. They passed the DUNBAR NUMBER and could no longer rely on interpersonal relationships to maintain coherence nor could they split the group. Territories can be divided, one group can always move to a new area. But when you're sedentary, who gets the permanent structures? So almost universally, the groups that passed the Dunbar number adopted HIERARCHY as their form of organisation. A SOCIAL hierarchy occurs when groups pass the Dunbar number, engage in hierarchy, but the leaders DO NOT have access to a CONCENTRATION OF POWER. They have no armies, no coercive force and informal authority. No one could be IMPELED to produce a surplus, so when the food supply shrank, they typically dropped back below the Dunbar number and returned to a cooperative organisation. Most CHIEFDOMS are social hierarchies (like the Insect tribe from Papua New Guinea). What we dubbed a PRODUCTION hierarchy occured when leaders DID gain access to a concentration of power. This is the case in all CIVILSIATIONS. All members are subject to the rule of the leaders. If they disagree, the leaders will use their power against them. Surplus production is impelled. Fast forward a few thousand years and poof, here we are.

 That's as far as we got.

I realised that this picture is incomplete and slightly inacurate.

SOCIAL hierarchy is fine. I don't propose any changes there.

PRODUCTION hierarchy is misdefined.

I propose that we re-dub what we called production hierarchy, GOVERNANCE HIERARCHY.

Governance is really the primary function of the rulers; be they kings, emperors, pharoes, presidents or chairmen. 

All states, kingdoms and empires are run by Governance hierarchies. 

 ---

 Now the reason I propose this change is because I identified a THIRD type of hierarchy. Once I had broken the dichotomy, I identified two more.

 My theatre union, Canadian Actors Equity Association, recently adopted a new form of organisation called POLICY GOVERNANCE.

The MEMBERSHIP, all actors, elect a BOARD. The board is comprised of VOLUNTEER (non-paid!!!) members. They then appoint an EXECUTIVE to head the organisation (the nitty gritty office types that manage our money and do all the legaleese stuff). In the old days, the board would meddle in the daily affairs of the executive. Because of that, no one was ever accountable. If the executive tried something, the board intervened and it all tanked, whose fault was it? So they changed the system.

In policy governance, a system designed to govern the daily activities of the executive branches of non-profit organisations, the elected board represents their memberships interests. That hasn't changed. They still appoint an executive but are not allowed to interfear with the daily operations of the executive. This means no meddling and that all of the responsibility is held by the executive. Instead, the board outlines POLICIES. They tell the executive what their mandate is (we want you to do A, B and C). They then tell the executive what, in the execution of the mandate, they ARE NOT ALLOWED to do (you can't do 1, 2 and 3). At any time, the board can ask the executive to justify a decision. If the executive cannot prove to the board that the decision was made as a result of a REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY, then the executive is sanctioned.

Policy governance doesn't just apply to the actors union. Any organisation can use it. 

In this way, you could tell an executive that you want them to provide the membership with, say, energy, but that they can't endanger the environment, relocate indigenous populations or use force.

 What I realised is that this sort of hierarchy can best be described as a SERVICE HIERARCHY.

SERVICE hierarchies have nothing to do with governance. Nothing whatsoever. The CAEA executive manages my union's money, not a geographical territory. They can't tell me how to live my life and they can't send me to jail. And they never will be allowed to do that. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to PROVIDE A SERVICE TO THE MEMBERSHIP. And memership isn't mandatory. If you don't want in, you just don't get the services they provide (guaranteed minimum wages, RRSP contributions, worksite safety minuimums, etc...). They charge dues but never overcharge the membership. It serves no point. They operate at cost. They have no problem collecting their dues. You either pay them, or you don't get the service. EVERYTHING is voluntary.

What I realised is that hierarchy provides certain advantages. Hierarchy allows us to organise in complex ways to accomplish complex tasks. The PROBLEM is that right now, we rely heavilly on GOVERNANCE HIERARCHY. That's what civilisation is built on. That's why we build our pyramids. CLEARLY we want to get rid of civilisaiton, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Imagine, if you will, a tribal world. Thousands of autonomous tribes. They all decide that they want a few servives that are best handled by a hierarchical organisation. So they create a number of agencies. Each agency controls a single SERVICE HIERARCHY. Each one has its own INDEPENDENT board of volunteers elected from candidates from the tribes. These board members have NO AUTHORITY BEYOND their watchdog role over the service hierarchy. There is no CENTRAL organisation that runs all of the service hierarchies. Each one NEEDS to remain independent. Tribes either opt into them or opt out of them.

In this way, tribes could maintain a number of services like:

• Roads
• Sewers
• Mail
• Internet
• Hospitals
• Power

The BEAUTY of service hierarchies is that their mandate is to PROVIDE A SERVICE, not, I say again, not TO TURN A PROFIT. Because of this, they can run at a deficit. They can produce what is needed and no more. Think of Canada Post. It doesn't matter if it turns a profit. It only matters that mail gets to where it's supposed to go.

Plus, there is a benefit for people. Some people, the ones who like to earn a salary, CAN. They can get a job with an executive, make their paycheque and go home if they want.

---

After I thought of all of this, I identified two other types of hierarchy: PRODUCTION and MILITARY

 A PRODUCTION hierarchy (newly dubbed, not what we used to call production hierarchy) is any organisation whose mandate is the production of surplus. Coca-Cola is a production hierarchy. Ben and Jerry's is a production hierarchy.

Production hierarchies differ from governance hierarchies. 

Production hierarchies are NOT exclusive to the CORPORATIST mode of productions. In the Capitalist mode of production, companies are production hierarchies. In the slave MOP, plantations are PHs. In the communist mode of production, the PH is run almost exclusively by the Governance Hierarchy (it's a centralised economy). In the Feudal MOP, it was similar. The governance hierarchy, led by the aristocracy, directly controlled the Production hierarchy; the tithe system. 

A MILITARY hierarchy is easy to imagine. Just think of the army. Militaries don't govern, they don't produce, they fight. That's it. They typically (unless there is a Junta) fight on behalf of the GOVERNANCE hierarchy.

I'm not saying that a tribal future needs a military hierarchy, just that I realised that accross the world, there is no ONE hierarchy that runs a country. There are SEVERAL. There are dominant ones, subordinate ones and equal status ones. 

So that's it. I've identified five types of hierarchy:

• Social hierarchy
• Governance hierarchy
• Service hierarchy
• Production hierarchy
• Military hierarchy

I'm sure there are others. Just can't think of them for the time being.

What do y'all think?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt