Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History

Reply to ButyDude Welcome.

It would help if you used more paragraphs to separate your ideas for clarity.

This argument you put is a standard argument, frequently put by conservatives like Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson. Nothing new is arguing that the power trope (which seems to originate with Foucault) is incomplete.

But above and beyond the conservative professors mentioned above, this kind of argument was commonly being put by detractors of feminism decades ago. Especially these kinds of points -

Quoting ButyDude

Women are much better at taking care of children, and at being the one to teach, be patient with, and see to the development of the child into a grown adult. Most women are simply not capable, by biology, to be the providers, builders, and organizers of society at large, because they do not fit cleanly into hierarchical structures.

What you have done here is not provide an argument. You have simply made a claim. Can you demonstrate these claims?

To do justice to these kinds of arguments one needs to have expertise in anthropology and history. Personally, I eschew these kinds of arguments, as they often end up being about as useful as debates over the meaning of Bible verses.

Quoting ButyDude

The women’s studies and historical women’s studies are mostly concerned with the idea of “power.” From the gender perspective, or basically the women’s feminist perspective, society is interpreted as a hierarchy of “power structures,” ranging from government to gender roles. I will offer a rebuttal to this interpretation of society.

But it doesn't claim to be the only possible way to look at society.

Quoting ButyDude

This is critical and absolutely key to understanding why gender roles arise in this situation naturally, and it is not some cruel exercise of male dominance over women.

Cruel domination can easily be natural, but that's not a moral argument.

Quoting ButyDude

This structure is necessary for functioning correctly, and it has been drilled into the biology of males because of the necessity of hunting, and not into females, who traditionally gathered and cared for children.

If there is one thing we know about human social arrangements it's that they're very flexible, often changing between different contexts.

It's not at all clear that one such arrangement is fixed biologically.

Quoting ButyDude

So, gender roles arise naturally from society, and women are meant to be the homemakers and child caretakers, while men are meant to be the organizers and functionality of said society.

Meant by whom?

Quoting ButyDude

The interpretation of “power” both reduces the complex gender interactions to the “oppressor and oppressed,” and overlooks completely the fundamental reason why this gender structure has risen in every single society ever.

How do you know it's "every single society ever"?

Anyways overlooking it is the entire point. It's meant to strip the context so the bare power relation is visible.

Quoting ButyDude

Men are the ones who have to organize society.

Do they? Why?

Quoting ButyDude

The male effort to build society is not a grasp at power; it is an effort to provide.

Why isn't it both?

Quoting ButyDude

Also assuming the traditional belief that to each man is a woman, and marriage is between one man and one woman, this is clearly a collaborative effort between genders for the most efficient society possible.

Where did you get the idea that marriage is about efficiency? Also how would you know what the most efficient society possible even is?

Quoting ButyDude

Most women are simply not capable, by biology, to be the providers, builders, and organizers of society at large, because they do not fit cleanly into hierarchical structures.

So how do you explain all those women who operate successfully within hierarchical structures?

Quoting ButyDude

By having the male provide for the women, at least one parent of the child will be able to stay with the child during its most important a years of its life, in its development.

A single parent for a child or children is not at all what's biologically appropriate for humans.

Quoting ButyDude

Today in our society, we see the devastating effects of divorce, trauma, and parent neglect on our children, and it is becoming increasingly clear that young children must be protected in order to grow into capable adults.

Are we? Like what?

Quoting ButyDude

That protection can only be provided by a mother at home, and a father who protects the community at large.

Homes weren't part of the ancestral environment, so how could that be true?

Quoting ButyDude

It is the natural structure of society that allows for children to be protected, raised, and properly taught by their mothers, for mothers to be able to have children and care for them, and for fathers to be able to protect their families and provide by organizing society.

The natural structure of society is bands of hunter gatherers, who do some farming, living in various kinds of communities, often with vastly different structures according to season. In such a "natural" society child rearing is a communal effort that everyone takes part in. The "atomic family" is not natural, it's a product of the last 200 years.

Reply to ButyDude The anthropology in this is dreadful. But I'm guessing mere facts are not as important to you as maintaining the rage.

Laugh and walk away.

Quoting Tom Storm

Welcome

I admire your civility.

I went through these backwards. Thank you for responding. I appreciate it. These responses are not well thought through at all, just keeping track of some of my thoughts.

The atomic family is not natural, true. But likewise, American society, with its broad range of cultures and peoples living in it, is incompatible with a communal effort to raise children anymore. Nuclear family is the best solution for this that I can see.

Homes were part of the ancestral environment. They weren’t always in the same place, but even a teepee is a home. They moved seasonally, not every day.

Yes, we are seeing the effects of divorce and fatherlessness on children.

Not single parent. Mother stays home with the children, father goes to work and comes home. Both parents.

Are they operating successfully? Women paid 77 cents less than men for the same work, and one of the largest contributors to that is that women, on average across the board, underestimate the value of their work and don’t ask for raises? Women having to work jobs and pick up children from school, take care of them when sick, etc., it is no wonder the average family only has two kids now. On top of that, childless women report feeling depression, regret, and a strong desire to have children at around age 30. Women want to have children, but the economic demands on them are to have full careers. It is incredibly difficult, and I don’t see the state of motherhood now as more successful than it was with the nuclear family.

Marriage is not just efficient, although it is, but it is naturally how we are organized. It’s so fundamental I can’t even explain it with my own thoughts, though I am sure there is an argument out there. One man and one woman, across all cultures and societies.

I guess it could be both. Good point. When i say grasping for power, I am mostly talking about the way a feminist argument would say that men are inherently oppressing women by taking positions of power in society.

Men are the ones who build large, expansive structures. Look at the military, the church, the government. Historically that is how it has happened, I guess you could say it couldn’t be women because they were not in a position of power to do so so I should find a better argument for this.

Most societies.

Meant by the biological calling of each gender. We are more alike than different, but we have our differences, hence the vast majority male prison population and such.

It may not be fixed biologically completely, but heavily influenced at least.

Cruel domination can be natural. I am claiming that men being in power and exercising it is not inherently cruel. Men exercising power can be extraordinarily cruel and evil, like Stalin or Kim Jong-Un. It’s not inherently cruel.

No it doesn’t, but just want to refute this interpretation.

Reply to Banno Wow I just wanted genuine feedback. Please, at least entertain my argument. If it is that bad, it should be easy to disprove.

Reply to Tom Storm Tom, I appreciate the genuine response.

I will look at the evidence on this claim and get back to you.

I don’t think this debate is useless. The post-modernist influence on society is extremely important. There are many people who believe that the study of these power structures is the correct way to analyze society, and I would argue that it is incorrect. You’re right, there are probably tons of errors in my argument that I am not aware of because I am not an anthropologist or historian.

Quoting ButyDude

If it is that bad, it should be easy to disprove.

When an argument so badly misrepresent a whole field of knowledge, a short reply will not suffice. And I'm not too happy about drawing attention to this particular patriarchal self-absolution. Read an introductory anthropology text that is less than fifty years old.

Reply to BannoQuoting Banno

When an argument so badly misrepresent a whole field of knowledge

Tell me why. I am here to learn.

Quoting ButyDude

Tell me why.

Quoting Banno

Read an introductory anthropology text that is less than fifty years old.

Reply to ButyDudeQuoting ButyDude

I am here to learn.

I very much doubt it.

Reply to Banno What is one anthropology text I should read?

Quoting ButyDude

What is one anthropology text I should read?

Apocryphal has it that there was a debate in the House of Lords during a famine in Bangladesh, in which one Lord lamented the thousands who were starving. Another particularly obtuse Lord challenged him, saying "If, as you say, there are thousands starving, then you should have no trouble naming one".

You might start here;

Quoting ButyDude

If it is that bad, it should be easy to disprove.

Why would you think that? Showing you the problems would require you learning a lot.

The naturalistic fallacy would be one place to start.

Reply to Banno nice witty quote, I see your point

I’ll get back to you on this piece

Reply to Banno From an academic article referenced in your article: “A broadly parallel picture emerges with regard to gathering and collecting wild foodstuff. There are two aspects to this: firstly, it has been pointed out that in terms of food quantity, nutrition, and food security, gathering undomesticated plant food is much more important to hunter-gatherers than the hunt, even though ideologically there is commonly an emphasis on game meat. Scholarly preoccupation with the hunting aspect of the hunter-gatherer way of life may therefore be biased, since at least in terms of quantity, gathering is in many settings the main means of survival. Since it is mostly women who concentrate on gathering, the old picture of ‘man the hunter’ (Lee & DeVore 1986) began to be complemented by that of ‘woman the gatherer’ (Dahlberg 1981). This is an oversimplification, since even men who go out hunting often return with gathered fruits (rather than meat) while women’s gathering may include capturing small animals such as lizards and birds. The line between what constitutes ‘hunting’, and who is involved in it, thereby becomes more blurred than anticipated (Kästner 2012). Without the keen observations of women reading animal tracks and movements, many hunts would not be successful. Moreover, collective hunts in forest areas often involve the whole camp, regardless of gender. Despite cases in which some of the meat may be reserved for men (or to particular relatives of the hunter), women in many hunter-gatherer societies enjoy equality that compares favourably with most other societies (see Leacock 1998). This includes their access to resources, but also their social standing and status, their autonomy in making decisions (for instance, in cases of infanticide) and their room for agency. Men, on the other hand, often engage in what may be considered ‘female’ activities, not just gathering but also looking after children (see Hewlett 1991). Despite a frequently observed division of labour, women and men are often equally involved in relevant practices, including economic decisions, politics, healing, and ritual affairs.”

One thing this article says is that the line between “hunter” and “gatherer” is blurred. Women can hunt, as it says, and men can gather, as it says. My specific point about gender relations in society is that men construct the hierarchical structures that are necessary for large, functional societies.

From your article: “ In another example, Gilbert Herdt (1996) describes boy-to-man ritual practices among the Sambia of New Guinea in which boys as young as seven years old are taught and compelled to perform fellatio on older boys. When these same boys become adolescents themselves, they are fellated by younger boys. When they are a few years older, they marry young women and, according to Herdt, never resume sexual relations with boys or men. Among the Sambia, the belief was at the time of study widespread that this practice enabled boys to develop their adult sense of masculinity.”

This is clearly an example of a male hierarchical structure, in which the senior males are of a higher status than the junior males. These rituals of manhood found throughout hunter-gatherer societies are an example of male hierarchical structure.

Here is a scholarly article providing evidence for my claim, men are more associated with hierarchy than women are: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marianne-Mast/publication/232548102_Men_Are_Hierarchical_Women_Are_Egalitarian_An_Implicit_Gender_Stereotype/links/02e7e5165b23b0e6b4000000/Men-Are-Hierarchical-Women-Are-Egalitarian-An-Implicit-Gender-Stereotype.pdf

“The present investigation sought to provide evidence for the existence of an implicit hierarchy gender stereotype. Results showed that indeed such a stereotype exists. Men were associated with hierarchies and women were associated with egalitarian structures more than vice versa… Men, for instance, prefer inequality in status/power among social groups… and men are more motivated to lead in hierarchical organizations than women.”

Reply to ButyDude Wonderful stuff. How to respond to someone who quotes material that contradicts his view, as if it were in support of his view?

OEA:Despite a frequently observed division of labour, women and men are often equally involved in relevant practices, including economic decisions, politics, healing, and ritual affairs.”

Nothing to support your view that hierarchies are necessary, let alone that they are a genetic result of masculinity. But keep digging, you may find something.

Google is a wonderful thing, but a study of a bit over a hundred undergrads from a Western University hardly leads to results that we might readily apply to all of human culture and history.

It's perhaps better in this context to stick with reliable tertiary sources, since the information comes pre-digested. For example, the OEA article on hunting and gathering offers several differing accounts of how hierarchies, while mostly absent or nascent, might arise, pointing out that

The primate heritage seems to be characterised by widespread hierarchy... from which human foragers managed to break away.

This appears to directly contradict your view of a male genetic disposition, which is certainly not offered as one of the options.

I remain unconvinced.

Reply to wonderer1 Good point, that even if we grant it, a predisposition for hierarchies might well be something that males ought overcome.

Reply to Banno Thank you for the response.

First, you should make your position clearer. Do you believe that the interpretation of society as a hierarchy of power structures, with men as oppressors and women as oppressed, is correct? Do you believe that the power structures are inherently oppressing women?

Second, hierarchies are absolutely necessary to a functional society. This is simply too fundamental to argue. “Importantly, the organization of social groups into a hierarchy serves an adaptive function that benefits the group as a whole. When essential resources are limited, individual skills vary, and reproductive fitness determines survival, hierarchies are an efficient way to divide goods and labor among group members. Thus, an important function of the hierarchy may be to define social roles (Halevy et al., 2011) and allocate limited resources (Sapolsky, 2005).” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members.

Societies must be organized in order to be functional. The hierarchy is the social organization of humans. Hierarchy is especially important in large societies, as there are more members of society to manage, more resources to distribute, and more social roles to be defined.

Furthermore, hierarchies are less stable among women: “Same-sex female hierarchies are somewhat less stable, showing more frequent fluctuations in rank among mid-ranking and top-ranking members compared to male groups, yet the salience and function of the hierarchy is comparable across genders.” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members.

I don’t believe that “more frequent fluctuations” refers to mobility within the hierarchy, such as an soldier being promoted. I believe it refers to more drastic changes in the hierarchy not based on an explicitly defined systematic order.

(Those are from the same article, which is a tertiary source.)

Looking further into the cited source for this claim, I find that, “Three findings point to the greater instability of the female hierarchy: the greater frequency of fluctuations in dyadic interactions, the disagreement on relative rank among girls on the dominance sociometrics, and the lack of a temporal decrease in the frequency of observed dominance encounters.” - https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/15901917/Child_Dev_1979-libre.pdf?1390864551=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DDominance_hierarchies_in_groups_of_early.pdf&Expires=1696994183&Signature=c1ksksgQnblzucOyaf0XGvMRYoGchP7Vt~ujpjUg2b~7DC~JZ~hatrAczpvuqnQstXjAyzpqlD4gVf1zl9D441E~HRhfSIsEnACDYlQHld3ea4a1Ui-XCEj4FU6HdUY0CGvZ~QpyFuYl-yK4yXXXyS5u7iSv4bGjaraC~uLBx-hL3MjLRVOy6FzRV0GzSAKFKFU~fSlep4M~HBxTvsbgkTOyylyfDJDv18rrmCytyA3Q2xFqQ0PNZ4iNBAiBs6768ULwdGfm-tJpwrK7ZvXdPLX6qSZefcRZ64ZcFLgL4jLvzTGD-2qNAIXftBWNaHBX18cDdInQG-a1GE-LVBIzUg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA.

This may show why men tend to be the organizers and participants of hierarchies that structure society. A stable hierarchy is necessary for a stable society. Another quote from a Stanford website says, “Hierarchy is inevitable. As our Stanford colleagues Deb Gruenfeld and Lara Tiedens show in a detailed review of research on hierarchy, although the forms it takes vary wildly, it is impossible to find groups or organizations where all members have roughly equal status and power. Whether researchers study people, dogs, or baboons, hierarchies are evident after just minutes of observation. And when strangers meet for the first time, a hierarchy of leaders and followers begins to emerge immediately. This rapid development of pecking orders is seen, for example, in groups of college students who meet in psychology experiments and when strangers start chatting on the street corner — leaders, followers and other signs of status differences nearly always emerge (along with more subtle roles such as “joker,” “hero” and even “scapegoat”). Gruenfeld and Tiedens conclude: “When scholars attempt to find an organization that is not characterized by hierarchy, they cannot.” - https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/.

Quoting Banno

This appears to directly contradict your view of a male genetic disposition, which is certainly not offered as one of the options.

Third, I am sure that there is a male disposition, but I am not sure if it is genetic, social, or some other factor. While it is important to understand why the male hierarchy would be more stable than the female hierarchy, it does not specifically pertain to my original argument: men are the members of human society that organize society into a functional state.

@baker should be coming to this thread soon.

Reply to L'éléphant :rofl:

Quoting Banno

Nothing to support your view that hierarchies are necessary, let alone that they are a genetic result of masculinity. But keep digging, you may find something.

Hierarchies are necessary because Jordan Peterson has said so. :wink:

Quoting ButyDude

First, you should make your position clearer.

Well, no. Showing that your suggestion is questionable does not require the presentation of an alternative. Further, your aim is off since feminist theory tends at least as much if not more, towards Marxist and Hegelian critique as towards post modern. Your analysis of power structures is somewhat blunt.

Quoting ButyDude

Second, hierarchies are absolutely necessary to a functional society.

Hmm. Another primary source. In other material folk point out that human culture is astonishingly varied, that there have been successful egalitarian societies, with organisational structures that are not hierarchic, often by explicit choice. There's an ambiguity in "necessary" that allows you to dither between whether social hierarchies do emerge or whether they ought emerge; it may be that we have an obligation to resist your supposed causes of hierarchy. After all, humans can choose how to behave. So, for example, that female social hierarchies are unstable may indicate that matriarchy ought be preferred, in the interests of equality. That is, you are cherry picking.

Quoting ButyDude

Third, I am sure that there is a male disposition

Your certainty is of little interest here.

Reply to Tom Storm How is young Jordan, I wonder? Still persecuting his colon, I presume. Too much hunt, not enough gather. Needs some greens to keep him regular.

Quoting Banno

How is young Jordan, I wonder?

Nicely done.

I expect he is still making profitable use of the vacuum in many people's lives, like L Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand and many others before him. With his strangulated voice and perpetual strained visage, he's more than merely constipated, he's hard to listen to or watch, and seems to be somewhat at war with himself.

Quoting ButyDude

The atomic family is not natural, true. But likewise, American society, with its broad range of cultures and peoples living in it, is incompatible with a communal effort to raise children anymore. Nuclear family is the best solution for this that I can see.

Maybe. But maybe we also need to strengthen care providers. In any event the argument wasn't about what was currently feasible in the US specifically.

Quoting ButyDude

Homes were part of the ancestral environment. They weren’t always in the same place, but even a teepee is a home. They moved seasonally, not every day.

The point was that the main social structure was the band or village, not an individual family dwelling.

Quoting ButyDude

Yes, we are seeing the effects of divorce and fatherlessness on children.

But aren't you arguing for a form of "fatherlessness"? Two generations ago, when the "atomic family" was in full swing, many fathers were essentially absent from child rearing tasks, which were entirely optional for them. It was certainly not expected of fathers to form emotional bonds with their children.

It seems to me the specific model you have in mind is the victorian family model. But nothing particularly tells us that this was ever a great idea. So I'm wondering why you're what the cause of the problems is.

Quoting ButyDude

Are they operating successfully?

In terms of outcomes for society it seems so.

Quoting ButyDude

Marriage is not just efficient, although it is, but it is naturally how we are organized. It’s so fundamental I can’t even explain it with my own thoughts, though I am sure there is an argument out there. One man and one woman, across all cultures and societies.

Perhaps if you can not put it into words, it would be useful to think on it some more. It's certainly not true that marriage is as universal as you claim.

Quoting ButyDude

I guess it could be both. Good point. When i say grasping for power, I am mostly talking about the way a feminist argument would say that men are inherently oppressing women by taking positions of power in society.

Well not all power is necessarily oppressive, I agree. But you do need to consider that the two centuries leading up the the world wars were some of the worst times, in terms of freedom, for women in western society. We're coming out of a deep valley in that sense.

Quoting Banno

that there have been successful egalitarian societies

Yes, mainly hunter-gatherer societies, which still held an implicit hierarchical structure among its members. Read the Stanford article. Read the tertiary source, that is not a primary source, but is a tertiary source. You obviously did not read either of them.

I have to “cherry pick”, I can’t copy and paste the entire article!

It’s clear that you are responding to my arguments but not my evidence. I know well enough that my sources back me up.

Quoting Banno

Your certainty is of little interest here.

Haha thanks. The evidence is certain of a male disposition.

It is acceptable if you don’t want to argue this point with me. But it is unacceptable to ignore the evidence as a whole.

Quoting Banno

there have been successful egalitarian societies, with organisational structures that are not hierarchic, often by explicit choice. There's an ambiguity in "necessary" that allows you to dither between whether social hierarchies do emerge or whether they ought emerge; it may be that we have an obligation to resist your supposed causes of hierarchy.

I don’t see any evidence backing this claim. My evidence refutes this, see the Stanford Article: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/

Quoting Banno

Hmm. Another primary source.

This is a tertiary source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members

Quoting Banno

How is young Jordan, I wonder? Still persecuting his colon, I presume. Too much hunt, not enough gather. Needs some greens to keep him regular.

I would prefer you keep off-topic conversations out of the public thread, thank you.

Quoting Banno

there have been successful egalitarian societies, with organisational structures that are not hierarchic, often by explicit choice. There's an ambiguity in "necessary" that allows you to dither between whether social hierarchies do emerge or whether they ought emerge; it may be that we have an obligation to resist your supposed causes of hierarchy.

I don’t see any evidence backing this claim. My evidence refutes this, see the Stanford Article: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/

Let us consider agriculture for a moment and give the hunter-gatherers a break. Whether it consists of domesticated livestock controlled by nomads, or land controlled improved and cultivated for crops or for livestock, agriculture involves an investment of labour that creates 'property'. And as soon as there is substantial property, the inheritance of property becomes an issue.

Now the obvious "natural" system of inheritance would be matrilineal, since there is rarely any question as to who the mother of a child is. By contrast, paternity is very dubious. Paternity can only be assured by the strictest regulation of female sexual contacts.

So in order for a patrilineal system of inheritance to exist, male control of female sexuality is essential. At this point systematic gendered power has to arise, and one of the major ways such power can be maintained is by representing itself as 'natural', 'God's will', the only possibility, and 'good'. The op covers all of these points of representation, and amounts to a standard defence of the subjugation of women.

Their biology calls them to provide, just as they did hundreds of thousands of years ago in hunting parties

Reply to ButyDude

Your post hoc analysis suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics when trying to use biological and mostly psychological differences between men and women to rationalize what has happened and more importantly what should happen moving forward.

Specifically I am referring to the exaggeration of the differences between the psychological or biological averages of the genders while ignoring the much wider differences within each gender.

Thus, when describing populations, it makes more sense to divide them along the descriptors you are studying, say leadership or aggressiveness or nurturing and including those of both genders with those skills, than by gender. When viewed that way, it is easy to calculate that say women are underrepresented in powerful and wealth generating positions beyond what you would expect based on their innate skillset. That is accounted for by feminist scholars (logically) by the effect of power dynamics and gender bias.

Reply to LuckyR Thank you for the quite well-written response.

That is definitely a shortcoming of my argument. Although across the averages, there is evidence for a more stable hierarchical structure for men than women, thus explaining the early exclusive use of men in government and authority positions, it does not touch upon the extreme differences within gender that actually applies to leaders and the true organizers of society.

My claims about gender differences were quite flat and blanketing.

So it would be correct to say that, at the extremes of males, there are the leaders of society who will organize hierarchies under them, and the average male biology supports that hierarchical structure? And the similar line of logic for women?

Reply to ButyDude So now you turn the argument into one about what is a primary, and what a tertiary, source. Slither and slide. Primary and secondary sources express the opinion of or provide an interpretation by the author, which is what the articles you cite do.

Show me a reputable and recent encyclopaedic entry that makes the claim that patriarchy is a result of biology.

Reply to ButyDude And you have yet to address Reply to wonderer1's point: even if you are correct about the biology (you are not), humans might choose otherwise. Why not opt for greater equity?

Reply to BannoQuoting Banno

Show me a reputable and recent encyclopaedic entry that makes the claim that patriarchy is a result of biology.

Here is a quote from an article, Analysis: How did the patriarchy start - and will evolution get rid of it?, written by Professor Ruth Mace from UCL Anthropology. UCL is the University College of London, named University of the Year 2024, rated 2nd in the UK for research power, ranked 9th in the 2024 QS World University Rankings, and has graduated or staffed 30 Nobel Prize laureates. Professor Ruth Mace is a well respected anthropologist herself, being elected President of the European Human Behavior and Evolution Association. She focuses on the evolutionary ecology of human demography and life history.

“The origin of agriculture, as early as 12,000 years ago in some areas, changed the game. Even relatively simple horticulture necessitated defending crops, and thus staying put. Settlement increased conflict within and between groups. For example, the Yanomamo horticulturalists in Venezuela lived in heavily fortified group households, with violent raids on neighbouring groups and “bride capture” being part of life.

Where cattle-keeping evolved, the local population had to defend herds of livestock from raiding, leading to high levels of warfare. As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending.

As population sizes grew and settled, there were coordination problems. Social inequality sometimes emerged if leaders (usually male) provided some benefits to the population, perhaps in warfare or serving the public good in some other way. The general population, both male and female, therefore often tolerated these elites in return for help hanging on to what they had.

As farming and herding became more intensive, material wealth, now mainly controlled by men, became ever more important. Rules of kinship and descent systems became more formalised to prevent conflict within families over wealth, and marriages became more contractual. The transmission of land or livestock down the generations allowed some families to gain substantial wealth.

Wealth generated by farming and herding enabled polygyny (men having multiple wives). In contrast, women having many husbands (polyandry) was rare. In most systems, young women were the resource in demand, because they had a shorter window of being able to produce children and usually did more parental care.

Men used their wealth to attract young women to the resources on offer. Men competed by paying “bridewealth” to the family of the bride, with the result that rich men could end up with many wives while some poor men ended up single.

So it was males who needed that wealth to compete for marriage partners (whereas females acquired resources needed to reproduce through their husband). If parents wanted to maximise their number of grandchildren, it made sense for them to give their wealth to their sons rather than their daughters.

This lead to wealth and property being formally passed down the male line. It also meant women often ended up living far away from home with their husband’s family after marriage.

Women began to lose agency. If land, livestock and children are the property of the men, then divorce is almost impossible for women. A daughter returning to mum and dad would be unwelcome as the brideprice would need to be returned. The patriarchy was now getting a firm grip.

When individuals disperse away from their natal home and live with their new husband’s family, they do not have as much bargaining power within their new household than if they had stayed in their natal home. Some mathematical models suggest that female dispersal combined with a history of warfare favoured men being treated better than women.

Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the emergence of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.”

Apologies for the length of the quote.

Here is another quote from an article written by Angela Saint, and published on BBC. Angela Saini is a science journalist, who teaches science writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a Logan Nonfiction Program Fellow, a fellow of the Humboldt Residency Program, and a successful author of several books.

“Rather than beginning in the family, then, history points instead to patriarchy beginning with those in power in the first states. Demands from the top filtered down into the family, forcing ruptures in the most basic human relationships, even those between parents and their children.”

It seems that the patriarchy stems from men’s physical ability to fight wars. As Professor Ruth Mace writes, “As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending,” showing that men having the ability to protect society as a whole led to their success in the ensuing social hierarchy. Social hierarchy at the time would place the military at the top of social ranking, because the military actively protected society. This fact led to almost exclusively men being at the top of the social hierarchy.

Interestingly, it seems as if that the gender-specific stabilities of hierarchies may be an effect of a social structure that prioritized the military, as Mace writes, “Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the emergence of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.” This is certainly possible, though I do not see how the social dynamics of a “boys’ club” would not have been developed during hundreds of thousands of years of mostly exclusively male hunting groups. Hunting is also a skill that more or less requires physical ability, so this claim seems dubious to me, especially considering only 10,000 years for a major social evolution across most societies is simply too short of a time period.

Reply to Banno Quoting Banno

And you have yet to address ?wonderer1's point: even if you are correct about the biology (you are not), humans might choose otherwise. Why not opt for greater equity?

This is quite a different discussion. For a discussion like this, I would rather you message me privately. Not that I have some like really extreme views, but this is dipping more into the personal, political, and religious sphere.

Reply to ButyDude Both support the view that spare production allowed the development of a hierarchy. Neither is a tertiary source. Neither argues that hierarchy is a necessary result of masculine genetics. Neither supports your contention.

That societies are in the main hierarchical and patriarchic is not at issue. What is at issue is that this is necessary and unavoidable and good.

Quoting ButyDude

I would rather you message me privately.

Why? This is a philosophy forum. We can and should discuss such ethical issues openly. It seems, on the little shown so far, that your views ethically questionable. Present them for inspection.

Reply to Banno Quoting Banno

Present them for inspection.

What are you, the Philosophy Forum police?

I agree that this is a place that ethics can be openly discussed, but if I personally object, you shouldn’t press me into sharing them unwillingly. By the looks of it, we are going to disagree miserably. I would rather contain such a conversation to private message for that reason.

Both sources support the notion that gender differences in strength allowed men to seize power, because they were the sole protectors of property through the military, which in turn, allowed them to control wealth and power in society.

You are either misreading or disregarding my evidence entirely. I gave you two reliable and credible sources.

All you have done to attack my argument is to say that I must use tertiary sources, and to divert from the topic by moving to my personal views on the topic.Quoting Banno

It seems, on the little shown so far, that your views ethically questionable.

Attacking my personal ethics in an impersonal debate is uncalled for. You didn’t add to the knowledge on the topic. You didn’t put forth an argument. You didn’t engage me, and you did not dissuade me. I was hoping to have genuine dialogue that produced real knowledge and learning, but instead you simply attack my sources, and finally, you attack my personal ethics.

If you want to know, go research yourself.

If you want to talk ethics, message me. I’m more than willing, but I am not comfortable publicly discussing them with you specifically, judging by how our dialogue has gone so far.

Reply to ButyDude You make ethical claims on a philosophy forum and then don't want to discuss ethics.

Go away.

Reply to Banno Please, quote me and show me one exclusively ethical claim that I have made, that is not tangential to ethics or only partially ethical.

Quoting ButyDude

...exclusively...

The OP here makes ethical claims. They have been challenged as examples of the naturalists fallacy.

Stop pissing around.

Reply to Banno You can’t find even one. Thank you for acknowledging that you attacked my personal ethics in a completely unreasonable manner to change the topic of discussion. Extremely petty and unbelievable.

Quoting ButyDude

You can’t find even one

Quoting Banno

Apocryphal has it that there was a debate in the House of Lords during a famine in Bangladesh, in which one Lord lamented the thousands who were starving. Another particularly obtuse Lord challenged him, saying "If, as you say, there are thousands starving, then you should have no trouble naming one".

Your OP makes claims as to how society ought function. They are ethical claims.

Quoting ButyDude

I am looking for criticism on my argument and arguments against this one.

No, you're not. Pertinacious, pretentious crap.

Reply to Banno Sorry, I am not familiar with the term “OP.” My apologies.

Quoting Banno

I am looking for criticism on my argument and arguments against this one.
— ButyDude
No, you're not. Pertinacious, pretentious crap.

Well, you haven’t seriously considered my argument in whole at all. You asserted that hierarchies weren’t necessary for society, and that male biology did not cause the patriarchy, but there is substantial evidence to prove that your claims are false. The only piece of evidence you provided me was a website explaining introductory anthropology. Other than that, all you have done is nitpick certain parts of my argument, and I continue to prove your small criticisms to be untruthful.

Quoting ButyDude

First, you should make your position clearer. Do you believe that the interpretation of society as a hierarchy of power structures, with men as oppressors and women as oppressed, is correct? Do you believe that the power structures are inherently oppressing women?

I ask you again. What is your stance on my original argument? Give me genuine feedback on my argument.

"OP" - opening post. The first post on this thread, in which you made various claims.

Quoting ButyDude

You asserted that hierarchies weren’t necessary for society

No. I pointed out that your assertion that hierarchies are necessary for society is not accepted anthropology. If they were "necessary" there would be no alternative, and yet there plainly are alternative views. Your position relies on not recognising that your view is contentious.

Societies are usually hierarchic and patriarchal. But they are not necessarily so.

Your use of your assertion to critique "gender history" is dependent on patriarchy being necessary. It isn't.

And now you refuse to discus the political and ethical implications of your assertions.

Quoting ButyDude

Give me genuine feedback on my argument.

OP stands for Original Post - the one you started this thread with.

Have you looked into what constitutes a naturalistic fallacy? While you are at it you should look up appeal to nature.

Then, go back and look at your OP and see if you can recognize the ways that those fallacies apply.

Reply to Banno Quoting Banno

And now you refuse to discus the political and ethical implications of your assertions.

Because I feel that my assertions have not been strongly challenged.

For example, on the hierarchies point, is there a modern society that doesn’t have any hierarchy at all? And every nation has a military, because practically, more or less, a military is necessary for a nation, disregarding special cases like the Vatican City or Fiji, one a religious institution and the other an island with no motivations for any other nation to invade. Every military is hierarchical. So isn’t hierarchy, even if not necessary in society, necessary for society?

I am mainly attacking the notion that patriarchy rose out of a power grab by men, with the sole or main goal of controlling and oppressing women. I would argue that the power grab was not a grab, but it was a necessary filling of a power vacuum: the military. Without a military, a society would be looted, its women raped, its people and children slaughtered. Was it not necessary for men in these times to be the ones wielding power, in a time of constant war, rape, looting, and indiscriminate killing? This also means that in modern society today, without the threat of constant war and with institutions working for peace, we can move towards a more egalitarian state. I really want to argue the rising of patriarchy.

Reply to wonderer1 So I see the naturalistic fallacy, saying that if you naturally do something, then it ought to be done. Again, I am arguing that the rise of patriarchy was not an exercise of power with the main purpose of controlling/oppressing women. I would say that it was necessary many times for many societies around the world because of the need for a military. Take for example Europe in the Middle Ages. Constant war. Vikings ravaging, raping, and looting. Mongols indiscriminately slaughtering entire cities. Was it not necessary for a military to protect society? And would that military, because of its protection of its own society, not be rewarded with wealth and power? Governmentally, or organizationally, I don’t necessarily believe that a man was required for that. Take for example many queens throughout history, and especially Queen Tamara, the greatest ruler in Georgian history. I would say that the biological difference that naturally caused men to hold power in society was strength and efficient hierarchical organization.

The military was only good because it was necessary, not because it was natural. The example for this would be the modern day. America maintains a formidable military, but this does not even necessarily require physical strength as with such advanced technologies, like drones. Still requires hierarchical organization. But I would not argue that patriarchy is necessary or good in America because it is not necessary. But imagine if America lived in a historical time where we were a small nation, surrounded by other nations, who were constantly fighting wars with us. I would say that patriarchy would arise in this version of America because of the necessity of men, to fight wars and protect the society.

Reply to ButyDude
There are far more pressing and less banal issues in this world than resurrecting the nuclear family. For me, moving the world back toward that kind of conservativism is not the right step.

Quoting ButyDude

I would say that it was necessary many times for many societies..

In what sense do you mean "necessary"?

Do you mean it in the sense of it being a matter of physical determinism? That would be an unusual position for a Catholic to take.

Do you mean that it's God's plan that his children war on and rape each other?

Something else?

Reply to Apustimelogist It doesn’t need to be the resurrection of the nuclear family, but something needs to be done. There are too many single mothers, struggling their entire life, and too many fatherless children, suffering from the psychological effects of fatherlessness. It’s causing major problems, and unfortunately it is extremely difficult for modern families to raise children.

Yawn. Quoting ButyDude

Because I feel that my assertions have not been strongly challenged.

Yep. The views you espouse here are a manifestation of your more fundamental religious views, expressed elsewhere. You are not here to re-think. That much was obvious from your OP.

Puts me in mind of the feminist joke:

Man says "If there were no men, who would protect you?"

Woman replies "If there were no men, who would I need protecting from?"

Reply to Banno Wow dude, great. Seriously, you didn’t offer me any genuine feedback or information. I don’t even have the information to rethink my position because you were too lazy to cite evidence for your claims.

Yes of course I have religious views, does not everybody have a view on religion and God? It is also quite clear that you’re not religious, get over my religious beliefs.

Reply to ButyDude Again,
Quoting Banno

I pointed out that your assertion that hierarchies are necessary for society is not accepted anthropology. If they were "necessary" there would be no alternative, and yet there plainly are alternative views. Your position relies on not recognising that your view is contentious.

Societies are usually hierarchic and patriarchal. But they are not necessarily so.

Your use of your assertion to critique "gender history" is dependent on patriarchy being necessary. It isn't.

Reply to wonderer1 Look up “Catholic teaching on Just War Theory”.

I am not taking a Catholic stance on this, the necessity of patriarchy in past societies. Even at Catholicism’s height in Europe, society wasn’t Catholic in many ways.

Reply to Banno There are alternative views, but not many alternative realities. Please give me an example of a modern society that exists without any hierarchy whatsoever (excluding special cases like the Vatican City, or islands like Fiji). Hierarchy is necessary for society.

Reply to BannoQuoting Banno

Man says "If there were no men, who would protect you?"

Woman replies "If there were no men, who would I need protecting from?"

Sadly, yes that is what I am arguing, that men were necessary for protecting society because of the constant war, rape, looting, killing, conquest. Obviously the world is much different now, but patriarchy did not arise in the modern world.

Quoting ButyDude

I am not taking a Catholic stance on this, the necessity of patriarchy in past societies.

You didn't answer my question. So I don't know what you mean by "necessity". Do you?

Reply to wonderer1 I mean that for that society to exist, a military was necessary, and because the military determined the state’s existence, access to resources, prosperity, etc., men had claim over wealth and power in society.

I believe that Just War Theory will uphold a society’s right to defend itself and provide for its people. There are special scenarios, and as a whole the Theory is not airtight, not even close yet. It is all tied into the ideas of upholding the Common Good, as an act of Social Justice.

No I do not mean it is “God’s plan.” That is almost a secular saying, that the events in our world happen because of God. Definitely not Catholic, though I am sure some Catholics say it, but that is usually a term used to give kids some sort of reason so they can deal with trauma, like a grandma dying.

Not sure what physical determinism is, but it does not sound like what I am arguing.

Quoting ButyDude

Please give me an example of a modern society that exists without any hierarchy whatsoever (excluding special cases like the Vatican City, or islands like Fiji).

It seems you don't know much about Fiji. Nor, oddly, the Vatican.

That there are no such examples does not show that there could not be such an example. Further, that there are no such examples does not mean that there ought not be such examples.

You have not demonstrated necessity, let alone obligation.

Quoting ButyDude

I mean that for that society to exist, a military was necessary, and because the military determined the state’s existence, access to resources, prosperity, etc., men had claim over wealth and power in society.

You are using "necessary" to explain what you mean by "necessary"?

I guess it is time to move on to circular reasoning.

Reply to wonderer1 Do you not know what “necessary” means? Rephrase your question.

Reply to Banno So your example is a society in the future that does not exist yet. Wow. Deep. Insightful.

Read this article: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/

Hierarchy is the natural way we organize society, and is the only way to organize modern society. What alternatives do you suppose? No leaders? No elites? No social structure?

Quoting ButyDude

Do you not know what “necessary” means?

I don't know what you mean by the word. Perhaps reading the following might help:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/

Reply to wonderer1 I mean that if a society did not have a military, in that time of raping, pillaging, looting, indiscriminate killing, and fighting for resources to survive, then that society would be destroyed.

Military was necessary for society —> society would have been destroyed without a military, other militaries would destroy them

Reply to ButyDude

I am kind of skeptical of the difference that a nuclear family makes here. Kids can thrive I think with any person as caregiver and it is possible yo be be supported with 4 caregivers or even only 1 if that caregiver can handle it. They can equally be supported with caregivers whp are not together and co-parent. The personal and economic hardships of people will endure whether people stay in a nuclear family or they are not; these issues are much deeper.

Quoting ButyDude

I mean that if a society did not have a military, in that time of raping, pillaging, looting, indiscriminate killing, and fighting for resources to survive, then that society would be destroyed.

Military was necessary for society —> society would have been destroyed without a military, other militaries would destroy them

So are you saying it was a matter of pragmatic necessity? What primates felt they needed to do at the time?

Reply to wonderer1 Humans. Not felt what they needed to do, literally what they needed to do.

Like, protect your society through fighting or let yourself, your wife, your children, and your community be raped slaughtered and killed. I don’t know if this is “pragmatic necessity” or what else. Just seems like necessity to me, I don’t know if you can justify knot fighting a war and instead allowing such things to happen to people.

Reply to Apustimelogist Again, I didn’t say nuclear family. There could be another solution, a new family unit.

One issue that causes lots of this hardship is the pressure on women to have a full career, that is, dedicate most of their life to professional work. That is pretty much impossible if you have children, as during pregnancy and early care of the children, you will be set back years compared to male counterparts. So, I believe that a good change could be more support for mothers to have children, maybe paid maternal leave or something like that. Also, very importantly, your family will absolutely be the most important thing to you in your life. Nothing at work is going to fulfill you like your family will. Society has its values in the wrong places.

Reply to ButyDude that’ll be the article written by an academic specialising in management and engineering.

Quoting ButyDude

Nothing at work is going to fulfill you like your family will

I don't think this is true for everyone.

Quoting ButyDude

So, I believe that a good change could be more support for mothers to have children, maybe paid maternal leave or something like that.

I mean, it should be regardless of sex I think.

Reply to Banno Yes, management.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Nothing at work is going to fulfill you like your family will
— ButyDude

I don't think this is true for everyone.

Absolutely. I've known many people for whom: 'Nothing at home will fulfill you like your work will.' I think the problem with these sorts of homilies is they are based on presuppositions which rely upon contingencies.

Society and government are two different concepts, representing two different sets of actors, and formed in two different ways: the former social, the latter anti-social.

Society emerges as the basic social activity within any given space where human beings reside. Government persists as it began, as an institution of war and plunder, the monopoly on violence and crime, and a system meant to exploit one class of people in order to advance the interests of another.

So though it may be true that human males may be better suited to government (which is doubtful, since the history of it shows women can be just as exploitative as men), it cannot be said that they are better suited for society, which I think is proven by anthropology and experience. At any rate, men and women are found to be equally necessary components of one but not the other.

Reply to ButyDude
As a non-expert in the history of leadership, but a close observer of leaders in the present day one aspect of why things are the way they are now is opaque to me, but another is crystal clear. I do not feel confident what exactly accounted for the ancient historical dominance of men in leadership. I don't personally find the tired, old, wornout tropes about testosterone or aggressiveness or physical strength very compelling. But it is clear to that once men were ensconced in power how that tradition was passed down so we currently live in a society that talks the talk on equal opportunity, yet doesn't walk that walk.

Ladies, if you find the natural hierarchy oppressive and resent your physical inferiority, try the new 9 mm Equaliser. No more need to rouse your man from his drunken stupor to defend you from the invading hordes. Technology has come to the rescue. Let your finger do the slaughter with the Smith and Wesson Equaliser. Suitable for wimps and cripples of all genders.

Reply to ButyDude

Quoting ButyDude

Hierarchy is the natural way we organize society, and is the only way to organize modern society. What alternatives do you suppose? No leaders? No elites? No social structure?

I highly recommend The Dawn of Everything by anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wingrow. Their exhaustive look at the anthropological and archeological evidence led them to this conclusion:

Time and again we found ourselves confronted with writing which simply assumes that the larger and more densely populated the social group, the more ‘complex’ the system needed to keep it organized. Complexity, in turn, is still often used as a synonym for hierarchy. Hierarchy, in turn, is used as a euphemism for chains of command (the ‘origins of the state’), which mean that as soon as large numbers of people decided to live in one place or join a common project, they must necessarily abandon the second freedom – to refuse orders – and replace it with legal mechanisms for, say, beating or locking up those who don’t do as they’re told.

As we’ve seen, none of these assumptions are theoretically essential, and history tends not to bear them out. Carole Crumley, an anthropologist and expert on Iron Age Europe, has been pointing this out for years: complex systems don’t have to be organized top-down, either in the natural or in the social world. That we tend to assume otherwise probably tells us more about ourselves than the people or phenomena that we’re studying.Neither is she alone in making this point. But more often than not, such
observations have fallen on deaf ears.

It’s probably time to start listening, because ‘exceptions’ are fast beginning to outnumber the rules. Take cities. It was once assumed that the rise of urban life marked some kind of historical turnstile, whereby everyone who passed through had to permanently surrender their basic
freedoms and submit to the rule of faceless administrators, stern priests, paternalistic kings or warrior-politicians – simply to avert chaos (or cognitive overload). To view human history through such a lens today is really not all that different from taking on the mantle of a modern-day King James, since the overall effect is to portray the violence and inequalities of modern society as somehow arising naturally from structures of rational management and paternalistic care: structures designed for human populations who, we are asked to believe, became suddenly incapable of organizing themselves once their numbers expanded above a certain threshold.

Not only do such views lack a sound basis in human psychology. They are also difficult to reconcile with archaeological evidence of how cities actually began in many parts of the world: as civic experiments on a grand
scale, which frequently lacked the expected features of administrative hierarchy and authoritarian rule. If there is a particular story we should be telling, a big question we should be asking of human history (instead of the ‘origins of social inequality’), is it precisely this: how did we find ourselves stuck in just one form of social reality, and how did relations based ultimately on violence and domination come to be normalized within it?

Quoting ButyDude

Second, hierarchies are absolutely necessary to a functional society. This is simply too fundamental to argue. “Importantly, the organization of social groups into a hierarchy serves an adaptive function that benefits the group as a whole. When essential resources are limited, individual skills vary, and reproductive fitness determines survival, hierarchies are an efficient way to divide goods and labor among group members. Thus, an important function of the hierarchy may be to define social roles (Halevy et al., 2011) and allocate limited resources (Sapolsky, 2005).” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members.

Societies must be organized in order to be functional. The hierarchy is the social organization of humans. Hierarchy is especially important in large societies, as there are more members of society to manage, more resources to distribute, and more social roles to be defined.

What is hierarchy, such that it's a necessity for all functional societies? (And notice how "functional" can beg the question -- it's a necessity for all societies you deem worthy of being functional, which could just mean "hierarchically organized").

What is a non-hierarchical society? In order to make the claim between hierarchy and function you have to define these things independently of one another. And it seems that you begin, from the outset, to define any society which exists to be hierarchical, which would indicate that there will be no examples of a non-hierarchical society -- but then how is it we're supposed to infer that non-hierarchy is not functional, if all societies are hierarchical?

Your https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494206/#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20the%20organization%20of%20social,and%20labor%20among%20group%20members is of no help here. Let's begin with the abstract, rather than looking for sentences which might support our view one way or the other:

Social groups across species rapidly self-organize into hierarchies, where members vary in their level of power, influence, skill, or dominance. In this review we explore the nature of social hierarchies and the traits associated with status in both humans and nonhuman primates, and how status varies across development in humans. Our review finds that we can rapidly identify social status based on a wide range of cues. Like monkeys, we tend to use certain cues, like physical strength, to make status judgments, although layered on top of these more primitive perceptual cues are socio-cultural status cues like job titles and educational attainment. One's relative status has profound effects on attention, memory, and social interactions, as well as health and wellness. These effects can be particularly pernicious in children and adolescents. Developmental research on peer groups and social exclusion suggests teenagers may be particularly sensitive to social status information, but research focused specifically on status processing and associated brain areas is very limited. Recent evidence from neuroscience suggests there may be an underlying neural network, including regions involved in executive, emotional, and reward processing, that is sensitive to status information. We conclude with questions for future research as well as stressing the need to expand social neuroscience research on status processing to adolescents.

Hierarchies here aren't even cross-social, but cross-species -- it's a biological trait where members of a group have different "levels" (whatever that means) of power, influence, skill, or dominance. One of the things I'm suspicious of here is "levels" -- if we're speaking scientifically then what unit is common not just across all societies, but even across species? Is the unit of "power" identical between chimpanzees and homo sapiens? I don't think it's common between capitalism and feudalism, so I have reason to believe that homo sapien society doesn't even use the same units for "power" -- but rather it varies with what social organization is of interest -- giving me much less reason to believe that this review somehow managed to determine a unit to measure the "levels" of power across species.

At most your review states: we see some people rapidly doing what we believe they'd do anyways and our conclusion is this calls for further research. Yes, we can identify social status. We do it by how much property someone has access to. Sometimes we really admire a person for some deed or stance, but the rewards are financial or they are simply not seen as being a real reward -- the hierarchy we find ourselves organized around is the hierarchy of property, which in turn, through the law, is just the ability to enact ones will over more things which are tracked within the social organism.

But this doesn't say anything that you're saying about men and women, the necessity of hierarchy, or the relationship between hierarchy and function.

Moving onto your: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/articles/hierarchy-is-good-hierarchy-is-essential-and-less-isnt-always-better/

This is more or less a confessional, but it falls to the same problem I opened with. As it states in your article:

Gruenfeld and Tiedens conclude: “When scholars attempt to find an organization that is not characterized by hierarchy, they cannot.”

But "hierarchy" here is so vague that it can be substituted with "pecking order", as it is throughout the essay, in which case it's not very surprising that the scholars couldn't find an organization that is not characterized by hierarchy -- they didn't bother to crisply define what they meant, and any sort of perceived difference between individuals would count as a hierarchy (a "pecking order"). That's just silly.

Funnily enough there's a naive view of hierarchy/non-hierarchy which I'd even agree with that I believe underlies that article. I've been in enough well-meaning management lead meetings which seem to attempt to pursue non-hierarchical relationships. The problem there is that a corporation just is a hierarchy -- it's like trying to construct an army on the basis of the social rules of a dinner party. It's a ruthless organization built on exploitation and maximizing exploitation.

But even here -- something to note -- neither of these deal with patriarchy or its necessity. You're several steps away from demonstrating what you seem to want to argue which has something to do with men and women, and how looking at history through the prism of power differentials is bad.

Quoting ButyDude

I have no idea if I am waffling or if I make sense at all.

Strike one.

The women’s studies and historical women’s studies are mostly concerned with the idea of “power.” From the gender perspective, or basically the women’s feminist perspective, society is interpreted as a hierarchy of “power structures,” ranging from government to gender roles. I will offer a rebuttal to this interpretation of society.
/.../
The interpretation of “power” both reduces the complex gender interactions to the “oppressor and oppressed,” and overlooks completely the fundamental reason why this gender structure has risen in every single society ever. First, it attacks this idea simply by saying men are the oppressors, and women are the oppressed. This is absolutely ridiculous. Men are the ones who have to organize society. Their biology calls them to provide, just as they did hundreds of thousands of years ago in hunting parties.
/.../
Women are much better at taking care of children, and at being the one to teach, be patient with, and see to the development of the child into a grown adult. Most women are simply not capable, by biology, to be the providers, builders, and organizers of society at large, because they do not fit cleanly into hierarchical structures.

You're making the same kind of simplifications as the feminists you argue against.

It's not just women who are traditionally usually barred from obtaining positions of explicit power in society, it's quite a number of categories:
those that are too young,
those that are too old,
those that are of too poor health, mentally, physically, or both,
those that are too poor,
those that have a reputation as criminals,
those who don't have any particular reputation at all and few social connections,
those that are in prison,
foreigners,
and other outsiders.

In other words, a considerable percentage of the population, not just women. I would guess somewhere around 90% of humans aren't fit for positions of power.

Quoting LuckyR

I don't personally find the tired, old, wornout tropes about testosterone or aggressiveness or physical strength very compelling.

Neither do I.
Besides, many, if not most men, don't fit the trope anyway, or if they do, only for a part of their lives.

But it is clear to that once men were ensconced in power how that tradition was passed down

Yes. It seems that being male is part of the job requirement.

But on the other hand, there's the saying "Behind every successful man there is a woman". It seems women are more suitable to rule from the shadows, from behind and below. And they do rule.

Quoting Joshs

I highly recommend The Dawn of Everything by anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wingrow. Their exhaustive look at the anthropological and archeological evidence led them to this conclusion:

/.../ Not only do such views lack a sound basis in human psychology. They are also difficult to reconcile with archaeological evidence of how cities actually began in many parts of the world: as civic experiments on a grand
scale, which frequently lacked the expected features of administrative hierarchy and authoritarian rule. If there is a particular story we should be telling, a big question we should be asking of human history (instead of the ‘origins of social inequality’), is it precisely this: how did we find ourselves stuck in just one form of social reality, and how did relations based ultimately on violence and domination come to be normalized within it?

It's conceivable that relations based ultimately on violence and domination are the default for humans anyway, at all levels. But when everyone is that way (everyone carries a weapon), there emerges a certain mutual respect and relative social peace and harmony.
It's when the government monopolizes the right to weapons or otherwise regulates and restricts it that a characteristic sense of oppression and inequality emerges.

Quoting baker

It's when the government monopolizes the right to weapons or otherwise regulates and restricts it that a characteristic sense of oppression and inequality emerges.

I will never understand this obsession which only seems to exist in America.

Reply to Apustimelogist The US is still the Wild West in its mentality. Of course any restrictions of rights, esp. the rights to self-defense will seem oppressive in such a Wild West setting.

Went to a random thread. Was not disappointed. First time i've felt like responding the way Banno does.

Is the general consensus around here that social hierarchy is not either default, or efficient?

Reply to AmadeusD

Most people, most of the time will do what they are told. This is right and proper and the necessary foundation of civil society. We stop at red lights, obey the highway code, shut the gate in the countryside, pay for stuff we want from the supermarket, pass the salt at the dinner table and so on. Tyrants and other criminals take advantage of our amenability and it is unfortunately necessary to be vigilant against such exploitation, both on one's own behalf and that of one's neighbour.

It should, however, be obvious that tyranny and oppression can only come into being as parasitic on such a pro-social basic tendency; prey does not cooperate with predator. What the tyrant does not understand is that the chief belongs to the tribe equally as much as his servant does. The hierarchy is efficient only when it is superficial, and interests are not divided by it.

Quoting Tom Storm

How is young Jordan, I wonder?
— Banno

I expect he is still making profitable use of the vacuum in many people's lives, like L Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand and many others before him.

:up:

Like tRump, charlatanry never sleeps because gullibility and stupidity never sleep.

Quoting ButyDude

... the biology of males [ ... ] Simply put, the necessity for governors, administrators, military, and more for a society to function calls upon the male biology of a hierarchical structure. The female biology of gathering and caring for children [ ... ] gender roles arise naturally ... and women are meant to be the homemakers and child caretakers, while men are meant to be the organizers [ ... ] Most women are simply not capable, by biology ...

For fuck's sake – Biological determinism? Teleological reductionism? Pre-(ahistorical)-historicism? etc :zip:

Quoting ButyDude

Yes of course I have religious views, does not everybody have a view on religion and God?

Not "Eeerybody has a view on religion and God" that is evidence-free – faith-based – and thereby supports an ideology (e.g. patriarchy-misogyny-caste) rationalized with logical fallacies and sophistry.

... get over my religious beliefs

In this dialectical context, "religious beliefs" are problematic only when they're relied upon in lieu of reasonable assumptions or valid arguments. No one here cares what you "believe", BDude; instead what matters is how good (or poorly) you reason despite (or because of) your unstated, so-caalled "religious beliefs". :mask:

Quoting Joshs

I highly recommend The Dawn of Everything by anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wingrow.

:clap: Excellent!

Reply to unenlightened :100: :up:

I'm actually interested in the OP, but this thread seems to be going the way of all flesh. I don't know what the answers are, and I'm interested in hearing the arguments.

Quoting Banno

You make ethical claims on a philosophy forum and then don't want to discuss ethics.

Go away.

Banno, isn't it customary to regard the OP as defining the scope of discussion in a thread?

Reply to Vaskane You're not lacking an excess of negatives there.

@ButyDude Your OP introduces a lot of 'culture war' topics, which naturally excite some of the less moderate responses. To mitigate this, it can be helpful to pick one aspect and focus narrowly on it and ask a specific question ending in a question mark. Your OP does not clearly tell the readers what kind of response you are looking for, and a more hierarchical top-down approach might help you here, as @unenlightened says, we like to be told what to do. You present a very cursory characterisation of feminism and offer your rebuttal of your own characterisation (inviting accusations of 'straw man'). We are invited to insult you by confirming your own (correct) suspicion that you are waffling. Consider:

Quoting ButyDude

The women’s studies and historical women’s studies are mostly concerned with the idea of “power.” From the gender perspective, or basically the women’s feminist perspective, society is interpreted as a hierarchy of “power structures,” ranging from government to gender roles. I will offer a rebuttal to this interpretation of society.

Quoting a seminal feminist work here would be useful, to get a horse's mouth concept you can then attack. The second sentence here is very unclear. What is a 'gender perspective'? The 'feminist perspective' is not the same thing as the 'women's perspective', there can be male feminists (or can there? - a topic for a thread perhaps). Is there a perspective that all women share? If so, what is it? How do you know what it is? You set yourself up as disagreeing with (your characterisation of) the feminist perspective as interpreting society in terms of 'power structures', yet you seem to be endorsing that very view, that society very much is comprised of power structures. Are you therefore a feminist?

There is a lack of agreed definitions in your OP which would help focus the responses, I feel. @Banno says you are full of rage, which I gather from his own angry responses to you he approves. Similarly, @Banno thinks definitions are not helpful in philosophy discussions, so again, despite appearances, he seems to be your friend in this thread, and I your enemy.

EDIT: Here's a question I'd be interested in someone answering for me (I can't be bothered) "Are all feminist views anti-hierarchical?" Even that's probably way too broad and blobby a question to tackle.

Quoting 180 Proof

Biological determinism?

Is a fact of life. Its a shame that there are entire political discourses that think biology is not a determining factor in almost all behaviour, or that mentioning it is somehow counter-justice. The wiley attempt to dismiss biology as a technique for dismissing views is utterly absurd. Very hard to take seriously people who think that social hierarchies are "forceful" in nature.

Reply to unenlightened That didn't do anything for my question, unfortunately. Just illustrated that excess is in fact, excess. I wanted to know if the general thought here was that hierarchy is artificially instantiated.

Quoting AmadeusD

I wanted to know if the general thought here was that hierarchy is artificially instantiated.

No the thought was more particular than that. Hierarchies are naturally occurring in many species, with nothing I can see of artifice or artificiality. That is uncontroversial. But they only happen in socially cooperating species. That sometimes gets neglected.

Reply to unenlightened Fair enough - I guess i was Socratizing an enquiry as to why it appears a large number of posters here take HUmans to be somehow out of evolutionary matrix and just off on their own making up their impulses and desires as they go to service greed and bigotry.

I assumed no one would own that, despite it being easily read into the posts around the topic. I agree with you, though. Social animals, such as primates, live in male-dominated hierarchies ;)

Horses live in harems with a dominant male that kills all the male foals until he becomes too weak. But humans can and do make conscious choices and arrive at wildly diverging arrangements of their societies. I'd prefer you didn't imply I hold opinions that I don't hold. Patriarchy is more common than matriarchy in humans but it is not universal, and therefore not biologically determined.

Quoting AmadeusD

Is a fact of life.

Biology trivially determines behavior in the way that physics does. All our behaviours are the output of biological processes, scaffolded on processes of fundamental physics.

Yes, but what does it mean in the context of a political or social topic like under this thread? Almost nothing imo. What is nature, what is biology... its just whatever happens to happen.

When you take quotes like this:

Quoting ButyDude

... the biology of males [ ... ] Simply put, the necessity for governors, administrators, military, and more for a society to function calls upon the male biology of a hierarchical structure. The female biology of gathering and caring for children [ ... ] gender roles arise naturally ... and women are meant to be the homemakers and child caretakers, while men are meant to be the organizers [ ... ] Most women are simply not capable, by biology

With uses of words like 'meant' or 'necessity' in these quotes, I don't see them as justifiable. They assume or presume these things function in some preferrable way or even perfect way in the first place and could not be done in any other way. Moreover, they don't consider that when you get deviations from the norm, then surely those deviations or changes are too just natural, because its just the consequence of biology in exactly the same way - because biology is what caused them. So how can you use biology as a foundation for discussions about the social or political? You cannot. You can have arguments based on merit, but if certain merits happen to - or happen to not - be general common occurrence in nature, that should not be the point at all. Thats just completely incidental.

Arguing the benefits of social norms or hierarchies should have nothing to do with biology. Yes, social hierarchies tend to happen in various ways and this is a consequence of biology in the trivial sense that any organism behavior must be an output of biology.

But this is the interest of the biologist, not the concern of a politician.

Quoting AmadeusD

Biological determinism?
— 180 Proof

Is a fact of life.

Evidence (i.e. a reputable scientific source)?

Quoting unenlightened

humans can and do make conscious choices and arrive at wildly diverging arrangements of their societies

I disagree, and it seems pretty clear that almost every society shares some similar characteristics - even if you're going to take it by stages. Nomadism -> Tribal living-->larger societies->networks. We move in that direction until forced off the path. The conscious choices being subsequent to self-awareness isn't going to defeat a biological basis for whatever impulse is being over-ridden. I'm also not claiming these are the better attributes, but the biologically determined ones.

Quoting unenlightened

but it is not universal, and therefore not biologically determined.

Rejecting this as the C does not follow P for any reason. Social hierarchies dominated by males are universal unless that conscious choice has been made. This is the reason we can infer that its biologically determined. It takes self-awareness to notice it and overcome it. We can also do that with eating, so the logic doesn't hold.

I don't appreciate people who either don't get jokes, or reject their previous statements. So, meh.

Reply to 180 Proof What? A "reputable scientific source"? Are you aware of biology?

Look at your body's functions, 180. Look at them. It requires nothing more than this simple act of non-rejection of one's reality to determine that biology is determining of many, many facets of your life and inescapably so. Wanting a study for that is ridiculous and beneath you.

If, on the other hand, you want to narrow it to dominance hierarchies and their explanation, it's in it's infancy and so that wouldn't be available at this time, though it seems clear to researchers that a genetic component to dominance hierarchies in humans is worth pursing - Largely because of the total silliness of pretending humans are somehow not going to be highly influenced by the 98% of DNA we inherit from species with inarguably biologically determined dominance hierarchies (higher primates). However, I did not claim that. I merely rejected your abjectly stupid claim that biological determinism is somehow worthy of derision as a concept in humans. Risible.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Biology trivially determines behavior in the way that physics does.

Trivially? I can't get on that train, unfortunately.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Yes, but what does it mean in the context of a political or social topic like under this thread?

Well, its the fundamental question we need to asnwer before building policy, so its actually extremely important here. Particularly as people do suffer from policies that are ill-fitting for their reality (assuming a higher importance of bio determinism than being painted here).

Quoting Apustimelogist

With uses of words like 'meant' or 'necessity' in these quotes, I don't see them as justifiable.

I agree, as it's a choice (noted by unenlightened above). But that says nothing about hte biological basis for the impulse which the choice has to be made around. People group in very predictable ways cross-culturally.

Quoting Apustimelogist

They assume or presume these things function in some preferrable way or even perfect way in the first place and could not be done in any other way.

Yes, and that is silly, I agree. Quoting Apustimelogist

Arguing the benefits of social norms or hierarchies should have nothing to do with biology

I think this is highly misguided and is a symptom of exactly why politics is such an absolute shit show. No one wants to accept reality and work from there. Its all about ideals.

Reply to AmadeusD :ok: Gotcha. So you cannot cite a single reputable scientific source to warrant acceptance of 'biological determinism of patriarchical hierarchies'.

Reply to 180 Proof Hi 180,

Am very over pretending you deserve politeness.

Either you cannot read, or you're the most obtuse, dishonest person on this forum. Pretending to quote me in such a patently dishonest way is, apparently not beneath you, and absolutely fits with your character.

Quoting AmadeusD

If, on the other hand, you want to narrow it to dominance hierarchies and their explanation

Quoting AmadeusD

However, I did not claim that. I merely rejected your abjectly stupid claim that biological determinism is somehow worthy of derision as a concept in humans. Risible.

So, again.. risible. Going to be really hard to take someone who chooses to either not read, or lie about another's posts very seriously. Particularly one who is afraid of biology. Have fun out there pretending.

Reply to AmadeusD :rofl: Typical.

@Banno

I have a proposition for a clean and fair argument.

I propose the topic “To what extent do differences in biological gender affect society’s hierarchical structures, and what is the reason for biology’s effects on those power structures?”

Each of us will write two posts.

The first post will consist of an opening statement (3 sentences max), an argument paragraph discussing the extent (7 sentences max), and an explanation of the reason for it (5 sentences max) citing a tertiary source.

The second post will consist of a rebuttal (10 sentences max) and a closing statement (3 sentences max).

I am proposing this to you because our first argument had an unsatisfying end. I would like to finish our argument, giving both of us an equal and fair chance to voice our own arguments, keeping focus on the main ideas and having productive discussion.

I am open to amendments and additions to the rules. As the rules are written now, they are meant to give each of us a fair chance; however, fair also means giving you equal say on the rules. Let’s discuss and do this right.

Reply to 180 Proof you lie, you get called out. MO it seems. If you hadn’t lied, you’d have nothing to say.

:ok: :rofl:

Well I think I understand a distinction between physical, biological, and social determination, roughly like this.
Physics decrees that everything falls towards the ground with a terminal velocity dependent on size and density such that it cannot move further from its place of origin further than the average horizontal wind speed at the time takes it.

Biology overcomes or rather exploits physics in the Dandelion by producing a seed with long 'fingers that trap a large volume of air producing a seed with a terminal velocity due to gravity so slight that the mildest turbulence in a gentle zephyr will propel it upwards to such an extent that it can travel the whole globe. Just one of many ways that biology attains heavier than air flight. Spiders manage the same thing by spinning a kite-string of silk into the breeze until it is long enough to pull them into the air.

Intelligence evolved as a way of speeding up adaptation to an unstable world by the preservation of social learning, such that if one monkey learns to fish for ants with a stick, or crack open an oyster with a rock, the tribe will copy them without biological evolution occurring, and the behaviour will be preserved as long as it benefits the tribe. And thus the limits of biological determination are likewise circumvented.

Biology does not break the laws of physics, and intelligence does not break the laws of of biology. Nevertheless much different shit goes down in the city from what goes down in the wilderness., and what goes down in sterile conditions. Humans are biologically flightless, but have learned to fly round the world.

Reply to AmadeusD

I think I have to ask for an elaboration on what your view is exactly to answer any of this because I am not sure of the direction you are coming from.

Quoting AmadeusD

I disagree, and it seems pretty clear that almost every society shares some similar characteristics - even if you're going to take it by stages. Nomadism -> Tribal living-->larger societies->networks. We move in that direction until forced off the path. The conscious choices being subsequent to self-awareness isn't going to defeat a biological basis for whatever impulse is being over-ridden. I'm also not claiming these are the better attributes, but the biologically determined ones.

But wouldn't you say that all these examples are very different and societies can live in many different ways? Sometimes its more egalitarian, sometimes more strictly hierarchical. So what is biological determinism helping here if there is still a broad range of ways people can live and people can change the way they choose to live and the hierarchies they live in? How does that apply to policy when policies are based on specific situations, cultures, socio-economic climates, not the generality of human biology which itself is diverse and results in a diverse range of societies. The fact that some kinds of societies are more common than others too is somewhat incidental. You can imagine some kind of novel or different society developed the way it did based on specific kinds of rare conditions, but is it not incidental that those conditions may be rare? Is there really an "overriding of impulse" if such conditions naturally led to that kind of society? Just as say the conditions that change with a progressed humankind have led our hierarchies to change since 1100 AD "naturally"?

Quoting Apustimelogist

But wouldn't you say that all these examples are very different and societies can live in many different ways?

I don't think 'very' is justified here. They only seem to be different by virtue of volume, and not really behaviour. That's an entire study on it's own, though, so understand if that comes across as a bold unsupported claim. I take that on the chin.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Sometimes its more egalitarian, sometimes more strictly hierarchical.

Again, agree empirically, but I can't see that there's any appreciable difference in aim (which would be the determined feature, i guess). I think forcefully overcoming a biologically determined state would appear this way, regardless. It's, then, a problem for which situation has required an 'overcoming' of biology, as it were. Though, I'm not really trying to support that, and I'm not arguing that all non-hierachy-driven societies would fail by that light - but I would argue they fail unless constantly maintained from without (and usually, that's a form of hierarchies of society, rather than individuals). That often requires far more force than is typically seen in a hierarchical structure, as positions are accepted, ideally the latter, and in the former they are demanded, or assumed or whatever else is required to make decisions that don't seem obvious.

Quoting Apustimelogist

How does that apply to policy when policies are based on specific situations, cultures, socio-economic climates, not the generality of human biology which itself is diverse and results in a diverse range of societies.

I think this is a half-good point. There are plenty of laws that are intended to be universal, and biologically-derived (protections for females in law tend to be universal in absence of an ideological principle that precludes it, but yes, all societies differ in various degrees as to policy - but most policies aren't relevant to anything that would be biologically determined. I've mentioned that some are - so, you make a point worth noting but I think it doesn't do a lot. At best it gets us to the question, again, of which laws are 'counter' to biological factors, and which are 'in line' with them. Couldn't know, on current data. I think either assumption is reasonable, as I can see both arguments fairly clearly.

Quoting Apustimelogist

The fact that some kinds of societies are more common than others too is somewhat incidental.

I think its more incidental when societies aren't aligned. Usually, incidental to a prevailing non-empirical ideology (religious, for instance). Most societies develop in the same direction in lieu of over-riding principle-driven resistance. There aren't multiple strains of secular social development, from what I can tell. Just triffling differences in detail - probbaly based on geography, largely.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Is there really an "overriding of impulse" if such conditions naturally led to that kind of society?

My argument, in a given case, would be that if the supporting conditions are that of social enforcement, it would hard to argue it was 'natural' versus something more general. A society of homosexuals would be an example (ignoring hte problem of sustenance lol) where the overarching nature of the society is artificial as no where in nature has that ever occurred without the express intention for that novel situation to satisfy specific, individual sensibilities. So, only in humans. That's a very rough example, but I hope the approach is clear, even if the detail is shaky.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Just as say the conditions that change with a progressed humankind have led our hierarchies to change since 1100 AD "naturally"?

Could you outline how you feel they have? I don't see a significant difference between 2000BC and now, frankly. Tinkering, and some rights-based progress - but a reduction in intensity of the biological determining factors wouldn't negate them (on an account that accepts them).

Quoting AmadeusD

They only seem to be different by virtue of volume, and not really behaviour.

Volume?Quoting AmadeusD

but I can't see that there's any appreciable difference in aim (which would be the determined feature, i guess).

What do you mean?

Quoting AmadeusD

At best it gets us to the question, again, of which laws are 'counter' to biological factors, and which are 'in line' with them.

What should matter is empirical facts about the actual scenario? There is no need to ask "what is in line with biological factors" because what you want is just what is empirically best for that situation. There is no fact of the matter about biological factors since they are context-depenxent. You are asking about the genetic factors that are related to strict hierarchies in feudal japan to egalitarian hunter gatherer societies to modern democracies. Biological factors behind the structure of a university rugby club compared to a knitting group. All you will get from studying the biology is generality which cannot possibly be compared to any individual situation. I mean, this kind of generality is so general it probably applies to many social animals in some way. I don't think there is some kind of foxed constrained way humans are meant to be, novel behaviors may emerge that adapt in novel situations and humans are probably especially good at this because of their intelligence. The finding that humans may commonly behave in a certain kind of way doesn't entail that that is like an essential inherent thing given that it depends on an environmental context. Saying that laws are some how in or out of line with this is then tantamount to saying there is a certain way humans should be which I disagree with. Nor does the idea of laws being in or out of line with that kind of thing can make any sense without a goal for the law. I'm not sure what that even means. Is murder being illegal out of line or in line? Given that murder is a common human behavior. Are our laws just going against people's impulse to murder? I think the false assumption is that there is such a thing as a policy that is "in line with biology".

Quoting AmadeusD

I think its more incidental when societies aren't aligned.

Its incidental both ways because the context could have been otherwise and it often is in different times in history. You may amhave heavily hierarchical restrictive feudal or even slave driven societies in the first millenia as opposed to more egalitarian kinds of small societies much earlier in history. You have completely different norms in different times and place.

Quoting AmadeusD

Most societies develop in the same direction in lieu of over-riding principle-driven resistance. There aren't multiple strains of secular social development, from what I can tell. Just triffling differences in detail - probbaly based on geography, largely.

You don't think there are big differences between western society now, medieval europe and maybe some prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribe? Sure they may all have some kind of hierarchy in some sense but thats so general its trivial and it isn't even restricted to humans so I don't see how that is useful for anything.

Quoting AmadeusD

My argument, in a given case, would be that if the supporting conditions are that of social enforcement, it would hard to argue it was 'natural' versus something more general.

But social enforcement is ubiquitious. Most social behaviors are enforced by ideas of norms and deviance in society, to differing extents of stringency.

Quoting AmadeusD

where the overarching nature of the society is artificial as no where in nature has that ever occurred without the express intention for that novel situation to satisfy specific, individual sensibilities.

But everything in biology is artificial in the sense that at some point it was once novel. How do you think evolution occurs? The precise nature of biological adaptation is degeneracy in that biological systems re-purpose and re-organize themselves in novel ways depending on the context. Wings evolved from limbs. Sex is diffeeent for humans compared to a butterfly. The idea of "natural" makes no sense because biology is in flux, biology is always context-dependent on the environment. Biology isn't even perfectly optimized. Just look at a human body. No human can survive outside of the tropics without clothes, a completely "artificial" yet now ubiquitious aspect of human society. Same with things like fire. Tools. We couldn't survive without these things that are not parts of us, especially in a place like Norway or Canada. All of these things were novel at some point. The idea of artificiality is very thin I think in a biological context.

Quoting AmadeusD

Could you outline how you feel they have?

Well we no longer have serfs or slaves who are controlled by lords and barons. We have much better laws and rights for workers now. Thats totally different. If you went and traveled back in time there do you really think you would just have the attitude that it was more or less the same? Especially if you were a serf?

Really appreciate the full, thoughtful and in some ways crushing response :lol:

Quoting Apustimelogist

Volume?

Explanation by implication being that its a different requirement to feed a million than ten thousand. That type of volume-driven difference.

Quoting Apustimelogist

What do you mean?

I mean to say that the aim of the (different) behaviours does not seem appreciably different to me, in these various scenarios, unless purposefully ignored/changed to the societies detriment (noted elsewhere in the comment you quote). And, where that is the case, I don't really understand Humans to be askance from the determining factor simply because it was ignored (on this account.. Im not tied to it).

Quoting Apustimelogist

There is no need to ask "what is in line with biological factors" because what you want is just what is empirically best for that situation

"best" reads, to me, on this account, as "what is in line with biological factors(goes to the above response too). The food example was a good one to illustrate that. Hunger Strikes are fine, and have an aim that isn't biological, while over-riding, to the individual's ultimate detriment, the biologically-determined factor of needing sustenance.

Quoting Apustimelogist

You don't think there are big differences between western society now, medieval europe and maybe some prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribe? Sure they may all have some kind of hierarchy in some sense but thats so general its trivial and it isn't even restricted to humans so I don't see how that is useful for anything.

Hm, good. I think I disagree that its general, trivial or avoidable in discussion of social development. There are no societies I'm aware of that have developed in contrary forms, and survived (which is where the "determined" would come in, if this ends up holding any water). I see differences of detail, but no appreciable differences of type or kind. The results, in aggregate, are roughly the same. Though, this is an empirical argument, so im stepping on my own toes now..

Quoting Apustimelogist

Most social behaviors are enforced by ideas of norms and deviance in society, to differing extents of stringency.

I agree, as enforcement goes - but I would have to bite the bullet that 'hierarchy' (if this view holds any water) is not a purely social phenomenon. I think it would be very hard to argue that co-operation in obtaining food isn't driven by biological need and state-of-affairs (chemical bonding), even though different systems are clearly social in their contrasts. "socially enforced" isnt to imply that there's a conscious intention but that a norm is enforced by the natural (on this view, biologically determined), required behaviour of humans based on their biology in concert with one another toward the organisms aim. Whether that holds weight, who knows. But I'm just wanting to be careful that 'socially enforced' doesn't mean the mechanisms origins are social, but manifest in social relations.

Quoting Apustimelogist

novel

Not the type of novelty I was expressing there. Conscious choice v natural development due to biological factors. I think you're describing the latter. But this likely just speaks to my inability to be precise and articulate in my thoughts yet.

Quoting Apustimelogist

The idea of "natural" makes no sense because biology is in flux

This is precisely how I make sense of it. Biology being in flux accounts for differences across time, traced to evolutionary origins. The fundamental driving force is the same, in that their is am aim to our organism (though, this is up in the air, i take survival/propagation to be safe assumptions), but the required behaviour may be changing (epigenetics is a spanner in the works) and biology implores us to meet its requirements, regardless. That's the beauty of evolution!

Quoting Apustimelogist

No human can survive outside of the tropics without clothes, a completely "artificial" yet now ubiquitious aspect of human society.

So then, to me, it's biologically determined that a lack of clothes outside the tropics would, given enough time, extinct the species. Therefore, its biologically determined that we wear clothes outside the tropics to achieve (or,maintain) the overarching aim of the species (non-extinction, plainly put).

Quoting Apustimelogist

The idea of artificiality is very thin I think in a biological context.

I do agree with this, and it presents problems for my language, but I would just, if pushed, define my own terms to delineate between true artificiality and something required by biological function, such as clothes in the example. Although, fire, being a totally natural product, would do the work with the right organisation. Quoting Apustimelogist

more or less the same

Yes. I am in a pretty privileged position, as were many people at that time. But, we absolutely still have serfdom the world over, and in fact more slaves than we've had since the dark ages. Maybe we use the term 'pirate' or 'king' now. But they are ubiquitous, anywhere but the West - and that is arguable. Many believe the working class is in fact a class of serfs. Not entirely dismissable, i think.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Thats totally different.

Only in detail. The aim is hte same.

Quoting AmadeusD

Explanation by implication being that its a different requirement to feed a million than ten thousand. That type of volume-driven difference.

Quoting AmadeusD

I mean to say that the aim of the (different) behaviours does not seem appreciably different to me, in these various scenarios, unless purposefully ignored/changed to the societies detriment (noted elsewhere in the comment you quote). And, where that is the case, I don't really understand Humans to be askance from the determining factor simply because it was ignored (on this account.. Im not tied to it).

Sorry, I'm finding it hard to follow what you mean on either of these but nevermind.

Quoting AmadeusD

"best" reads, to me, on this account, as "what is in line with biological factors(goes to the above response too). The food example was a good one to illustrate that. Hunger Strikes are fine, and have an aim that isn't biological, while over-riding, to the individual's ultimate detriment, the biologically-determined factor of needing sustenance.

This seems redundant to me. I find it hard to believe what is best is anything other than what brings benefit to people and reduces harm, regardless of biological context. There's absolutely no reason to bring biology into it. The fact that someone wants to eat to survive in order to survive is something that has value or should be respected because of the desire of that person, not because of some set of biological facts. Honestly, do we really care about the biological facts beyond them being a possible means to an end which is ultimately in people's wants and desires? Are we compelled to behave in accordance to what some people believe might be a kind of biological imperative? I don't see any reason for this personally.

Quoting AmadeusD

Hm, good. I think I disagree that its general, trivial or avoidable in discussion of social development.

I don't think you understand the point. My point is that if you are not talking about the kinds of differences that I am delineating then you are talking about a phenomena so universal, even in other animals, that it doesn't really have any implication for anything. It might even be that social hierarchies of some kind are unavoidable purely on a basis of things like optimization or game theory or selectionism... in other words, if you have groups of organisms which compete and are capable of certain kinds of basic biologically based capabilities, then maybe hierarchical kinds of behavior are inevitably emergent in how they interact. But if you are talking about something so general as that then it has no political implication. Political or social implication is arguments about things like the nuclear family or whether children need fathers and stuff like that, or whether aociety needs to be authoritarian or egalitarian etc etc. Things that are more specific.

Quoting AmadeusD

I agree, as enforcement goes - but I would have to bite the bullet that 'hierarchy' (if this view holds any water) is not a purely social phenomenon. I think it would be very hard to argue that co-operation in obtaining food isn't driven by biological need and state-of-affairs (chemical bonding), even though different systems are clearly social in their contrasts.

I just want to emphasize that its not that I don'tthink that there is a biological, genetic basis in behavior. There obviously is, though generally quite complicated I would say. My issue with the idea is that biology should be seen as implying what people should do. My point about variety in societies shouldn't be taken as a point about social behavior not being biologically influenced but about about the flexibility and context-dependence of behavior. It is possible for peopleto thrive in many different ways and in ways that we have not even foreseen. If people can exist happily in a way that seems to contradict something we have learned about our biological past or present then it makes the idea that biology should inform how we behave utterly pointless. Again, as I said earlier, biology can inform the means to our ends. Like in the sense that may be I am hungry and want food because I biologically require food. But I don't take the food because of I think I should abide by biology, I take the food because I want it. If someone wanted to not eat, maybe like Bobby Sands on hunger strike, then that is up to them and their desires. Maybe we wouldn't want them to do that because it would harm them. But is my concern because of some biological imperative that I think they should abide by or is it because I am concerned about someone's subjective suffering? I think the latter. I think we don't want others to die because we think they would want to live or we want them in our lives. Seems pointless to add some kind of biological prescription or "aim" onto that. Redundant. Who cares.

On the contrary, there's absolutely no reason for me to care about biology if it isn't in line with what I or other people want.

Quoting AmadeusD

"socially enforced" isnt to imply that there's a conscious intention but that a norm is enforced by the natural (on this view, biologically determined), required behaviour of humans based on their biology in concert with one another toward the organisms aim. Whether that holds weight, who knows. But I'm just wanting to be careful that 'socially enforced' doesn't mean the mechanisms origins are social, but manifest in social relations.

I don't think its easy to make this distinction when it comes to behavior. I am not sure I would say it exists in the same way that genes and environmental influences are inextricably entwined.

Quoting AmadeusD

Not the type of novelty I was expressing there. Conscious choice v natural development due to biological factors.

No, I think am including both; afterall, tools are not biological.

Quoting AmadeusD

The fundamental driving force is the same, in that their is am aim to our organism (though, this is up in the air, i take survival/propagation to be safe assumptions), but the required behaviour may be changing (epigenetics is a spanner in the works) and biology implores us to meet its requirements, regardless. That's the beauty of evolution!

I disagree. We use notions of goals and teleology in biology all the time as a kind of convenience but I don't see how we can say that about nature. There are no pre-determined goals that biological orgamisms are evolving towards. Its pure selectionism, what happens to survive passes on its genes regardless of how or why it survived. Its just blind physical interactions.

Quoting AmadeusD

So then, to me, it's biologically determined that a lack of clothes outside the tropics would, given enough time, extinct the species. Therefore, its biologically determined that we wear clothes outside the tropics to achieve (or,maintain) the overarching aim of the species (non-extinction, plainly put).

Well it isn't biologically determined that we wear clothes outside the tropics, its just required that we keep warm or we will die. That isn't biological determinism. I don't think you could even conceptualize that as something we evolved to do. At the same time, the fact I may want to keep clothes on me and stay warm has everything to do with my desires and nothing about biology. There is no overarching aim of a species and there is nothing thay compels people to behave in accord to such a thing if they did not wish to. The desires of people are the immediate concern.

Quoting AmadeusD

true artificiality and something required by biological function, such as clothes in the example

I just don't see why you need the distinction or how any fact can uphold that distinction. Its arbitrary and incidental on what happened to happen based on luck.

Quoting AmadeusD

Although, fire, being a totally natural product, would do the work with the right organisation.

Another arbitrary distinction. All human technology is "natural" in a similar way.

Quoting AmadeusD

But, we absolutely still have serfdom the world over, and in fact more slaves than we've had since the dark ages.

Just means the difference I was talking about is also spatial as well as temporal.

Quoting AmadeusD

Many believe the working class is in fact a class of serfs. Not entirely dismissable, i think.

Well it's about where you choose to ignore the differences isn't it.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Sorry, I'm finding it hard to follow what you mean on either of these but nevermind.

Its crucial, so I'm not going to nevermind it.

If you do not understand what im saying, you wont udnerstand anything im saying. if the aim of the behaviour is the same in both cases, its determining factor hasn't changed (that being, on whatever account, Biology of some kind). Can you outline why this isn't hitting? I'll try to respond to all else, but if this hasn't become clear, I think the rest may be redundant (as you seem to note hehe).

Quoting Apustimelogist

There's absolutely no reason to bring biology into it.

I don't think you're really engaging with the account, which presupposes (and then argues for) biology actually being the reason. If they are causally related then bringing Biology in is the only way to explain it. This seems like a bit of hand waving, to my mind.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Honestly, do we really care about the biological facts beyond them being a possible means to an end which is ultimately in people's wants and desires?

Preface: I do understand the point. My account doesn't entail it, so it's left off. Those facts are directly causative of those wants and desires in effect, and so as above, saying this isn't determining of behaviour, and important to note just seems bizarre to me.

Quoting Apustimelogist

it has no political implication.

Particularly this type of claim. I fail to see how the basis for human decision making toward determined goals (if they be all biologically determined, in an extreme example) isn't politically relevant. Could you explain?

Quoting Apustimelogist

On the contrary, there's absolutely no reason for me to care about biology if it isn't in line with what I or other people want.

Again, you're not actually engaging my account here (whether it holds water or not)... On my account, the bolded is a direct result of the underlined. Call it wrong, sure, if that's your position, but if taken seriously you cannot engage with it while claiming a different set of circumstances applies other than the one the account requires. However, in this way, its entirely possible you're actually talking about biologically determined desires without noting that that's the case because you're trying to remove your conscious intent from determined aims. I'm unsure that can be done, particularly if you reject libertarian free will.

Quoting Apustimelogist

I am not sure I would say it exists in the same way that genes and environmental influences are inextricably entwined.

I'm not sure either, but it seems entirely plausible to me. Maybe not highly.

Quoting Apustimelogist

tools are not biological

No, but their use may be biologically required to fulfil the organism's aim. But at this point, I would agree, my account gets very weak at any rate at all.

Quoting Apustimelogist

I disagree.... There are no pre-determined goals that biological orgamisms are evolving towards.

Quoting Apustimelogist

to survive passes on its genes regardless of how or why it survived

Ok. But the 'how or why' is actually what we're discussing, surely. The fact that that is what happens seems inarguable, but how that happens seems determined by hte biology of the organism. I can't really understand how this isn't the case - plenty of behaviours just aren't open to humans, or dogs, or horses respectively, if they are to survive and propagate.

Quoting Apustimelogist

the fact I may want to keep clothes on me and stay warm has everything to do with my desires and nothing about biology

This is seems very much unserious to me, and akin to saying "I don't drink water because of biology, i drink water because I want to stay alive". I just can't really take that claim seriously.

Quoting Apustimelogist

The desires of people are the immediate concern.

Those desires are biologically informed on this account, and so the behaviours toward them are the same. Again, not sure you're necessarily getting that this is a stark difference, and not a difference in detail between your notion and mine.

Quoting Apustimelogist

I just don't see why you need the distinction

Because it is there - something not required to maintain life, or to propagate(again, accepting that those axioms hold) versus something which is. But, i do concede entirely that this maay not actually be relevant to what we're discussing and was more illustrative poetically than anything else, in hindsight.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Another arbitrary distinction. All human technology is "natural" in a similar way.

Fire exists without humans. Human technology does not, by definition. There is a patent and inarguable distinction here. Whether you see it as relevant, or whether i could defend as relevant is separate imo. Quoting Apustimelogist

Just means the difference I was talking about is also spatial as well as temporal.

It is empirically a different situation to the one you implied, though? We, in fact, do still have those institutions you relied on no longer being around.

Quoting Apustimelogist

Well it's about where you choose to ignore the differences isn't it.

Not to my mind. I think its more important where you arbitrarily assert there are any meaningful ones. If its only a difference of detail, and not of kind, I think this becomes your Quoting Apustimelogist

something so general as that then it has no political implication

Quoting AmadeusD

No, but their use may be biologically required to fulfil the organism's aim.

Well I said both.

Quoting AmadeusD

Can you outline why this isn't hitting?

I just don't understand the context of what you have said, you'll have to explain the entire context.

Quoting AmadeusD

Particularly this type of claim. I fail to see how the basis for human decision making toward determined goals (if they be all biologically determined, in an extreme example) isn't politically relevant. Could you explain?

The point is that biology is redundant as a prescription of what people should do. Saying "humans are like this so people should do this" I don't think makes any sense. Biological facts can obviously be useful if you have a goal in mind where there is biological relevance, but prescribing directly from biology is redundant. We should prescribe based on people's desires.

but how that happens seems determined by the biology of the organism. I can't really understand how this isn't the case - plenty of behaviours just aren't open to humans, or dogs, or horses respectively, if they are to survive and propagate.

The point is there is no objective goal, no intention, no notion that things are meant to be one way or another. Its not fate, its just physical chains of events.

Quoting AmadeusD

Ok. But the 'how or why' is actually what we're discussing, surely.

No, what I have been discussing is whether an 'is' means an 'ought' or whether a 'how' entails a 'meant'

Quoting AmadeusD

This is seems very much unserious to me, and akin to saying "I don't drink water because of biology, i drink water because I want to stay alive". I just can't really take that claim seriously.

Obviously people drink water because of biology. The point is that we don't prescribe rules because biology says we need water. We prescribe rules because we have desires we want to fulfill.

Quoting AmadeusD

Because it is there

Well I don't think it is.

Quoting AmadeusD

Fire exists without humans

Well on one hand, what is "natural" is incidental on what happens to happen in the world and the context. Fire could be natural under some purview in that it may occur without human intervention in places. It may seem unnatural in many contexts where it will never occur without human intervention. And obviously these contexts are incidental to how the world happened to pan out. You can then also zoom out and then say surely all human interventions are natural... why not... because its rare? There are also many rare events we would call natural. We can make as many arbitrary distinctions as we like about what is natural or not. Thats why I think its pointless. "naturalness" is a construct we have created which relates us to the rest of the world. It isn't an objective scientific category.

Quoting AmadeusD

It is empirically a different situation to the one you implied, though? We, in fact, do still have those institutions you relied on no longer being around.

My point was we have different ways of living in different times. Implying that those differences exist now just in different places is still making the same point i was trying to make.

Quoting AmadeusD

If its only a difference of detail, and not of kind

You can zoom in or out as much as you want regarding differences and similarities. My point of bringing up this whole discussion was about how biological findings can be used to prescribe politics. if the meaningful similarities are far too general to have any actual significance on a political level then how is it going to be useful. the differences are the important things because it is the details on how one country differs from another which informs useful policy, not general broad brushstrokes. the general claim that people live in hierarchies isnt very interesting. the claim that people live in specific kinds of structures is.

Quoting Apustimelogist

No, what I have been discussing is whether an 'is' means an 'ought' or whether a 'how' entails a 'meant'

In this case you’ll need to let me know whether I should reply.

We are clearly discussing biological determinism and not ethics