The problem of hierarchy

It is fascinating sometimes when one realizes that they are not completely unique. The meaning being that, although each of us shares many things with other members of our species, we are also thoroughly unique. Even the offspring of a person, while sharing traits with a parent, is, of course, not identical. When looking at a child, a parent could see some partial reflections of himself, but not a complete picture, like looking at a mosaic where some pieces of a mirror have been used. We are unique in our combination, yet we are also partly the same. This is perhaps why, from time to time, we discover things and feelings that have been experienced by millions before us, and will be felt by many after us. Each of us is a unique entity in this spatiotemporal part of the universe; I am unique, yet I reflect some aspects of others. This is how and why we sometimes approximate the essence of our species, and sometimes even ascribe qualities of race, sex, nation, or tribe. We always end up creating fixed ideas, or "spooks," so to speak.

The problem of hierarchy came to light through a feisty woman, Dora Marsden, nearly 120 years ago on a cold, damp island - England. She articulated this problem as "archism versus anarchism." The same or a similar epiphany occurs when another unique individual grapples with similar situations. The mosaics are different, yet they are partly made of pieces from broken mirrors that reflect similar things. Dora found out that true anarchism is, of course, impossible. The state is merely an organized form of domination, but domination is a part of our behavior. Removing the state would not, therefore, eliminate domination or hierarchy of all kinds. Her fierce disagreement with the anarchists of her day stemmed from this realization.

Sidney Parker eloquently summarized this dispute: "Anarchism is a redemptionist secular religion concerned to purge the world of political government. Its adherents envisage a “free society” in which all archist [domination] acts are forbidden”. One might even propose that anarchy itself is a fixed idea; certainly, we could have known this without needing to be intimately familiar with any particular political movement, as all political movements are based on metaphysical assumptions about the existence and importance of ideas such as humanity, law, justice, and society.

"Archism," or the unique’s will to rule and dominate, is a natural and normal survival instinct. Without such a drive, no one would exist or thrive. However, we cannot deny that the opposite is sometimes true as well; the tendency to accept domination and submission are, in fact, the same. In short, dominating or submitting to a dominant power, both are archist acts, signifying an acceptance of hierarchy and domination.

Why then is the urge to reject domination so powerful? Firstly, this tendency is not as universal as we might assume, and secondly, it is mostly a matter of positioning and perspective. People reject outside domination and dominators, not domination itself. Anarchism, as a novel and liberating idea akin to a new secular religion, capitalizes on this rejection of external authority. However, it fails to recognize that this rejection is externally derived (from the unique society around us). This is the problem with anarchism; it recognizes a natural tendency, then formulates a political ideology based on it, all the while missing its perspective.

We are all archists. We have archists within us; we are anarchists (as well) but archists to others. Faced with this deep and real contradiction, the anarchist then, like any adept creator of spooks (be it a priest, shaman, or philosopher), resorts to metaphysics. Both left and right anarchists weave alien ideas to justify anarchism (to make it reasonable). The metaphysical principle employed by right-wing anarchists is the so-called "non-aggression principle." There is nothing inherently nefarious about assuming such a rule; the real issue lies in assuming any rule, law, principle, or edict. There is no guarantee that any given principle must be in the interest of any unique person at any time or place.

As Wolfie Landstreicher wrote, "[Philosophers] conceive of wisdom as something objective, as something that exists beyond any individual, and so, something they must pursue rather than possess as their own property, to use as they see fit." He goes on to say, "Stirner chose to be a 'wise guy,' not a wise man." There is no general wisdom that is universally beneficial; wisdom is personal, fitting to the individual. One can live wisely by owning wisdom that suits him. Perhaps Wolfie was contrasting the "wise guy" to the colloquial meaning of the expression - akin to Tony Soprano. Regardless, this leads to the actual resolution of our internal archist conflict with external hierarchies (state, religion, society, etc.) - breaking all laws wisely, acting against as many laws and rules as possible without leading to consequences that negate the whole idea of breaking rules (i.e., against the unique's own interests). This is being a wise guy. This is how one can sidestep hierarchies and live in real freedom.

Left anarchists rightfully recognize that state hierarchy is not the only hierarchy imposed on the individual, but they lack a way out of this dilemma. As said, hierarchies have always been part of our lives and are shared among all species. Right-wing anarchists deny this as a problem and focus solely on the organized and monopolistic hierarchy of the state, assuming its abolition as the sole solution. The egoist, in contrast, acknowledges the objective reality of life - that we are all archists. The egoist does not offer metaphysical solutions; he does not propose general ideas. The egoists accept life as it is and encourage individuals to consume ideas - to use them if they serve their interests and discard them if they do not. Be the archist; dominate and consume ideas, use resources, and have it your way. Sometimes, this means being a state employee, at other times a member of an illegal gang/group , or perhaps a school teacher, etc. Just remember, there has never been a spatiotemporal being quite like you, and there never will be again. Live freely.