The Emergence of Hierarchy, Domination and Centralization

The Emergence of Hierarchy, Domination, and Centralisation Reflections on the Work of Murray Bookchin John Raven Version Date: 15 April 2009 Abstract This article began as an attempt to create a précis of Bookchin’s remarkable book: The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. However, as work progressed, thoughts on what was missing from the book became more insistent. These gradually became more crystallised and elaborated until they became what the author now regards as one of the main contributions of the article. These reflections may be captured by saying that the explanation and elucidation of the seemingly inexorable rise – apparently since time immemorial – of hierarchy, domination, and centralisation (so thoroughly documented by Bookchin) seemed to call for application of socio­cybernetics. Perhaps most disturbingly, however, the accurate representation of those socio­cybernetic forces seemed, like the growth, development, and functioning of other autopoietic systems that are characterised as “organic”, to require representation of the life­force itself. Overview The author of this article originally set out to summarise, or, better, create a précis of, Murray Bookchin’s remarkable book The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy which was re­published in 2005 (Bookchin, 1991/2005). To summarise that précis. Many of the inhabitants of modern society are vaguely aware of a serious paradox. On the one hand, they have the feeling that they are increasingly free. They have endless choice of material goods and services, they are free to express their individuality (at least in certain ways) … and there is much public discussion of the need to accept some previously taboo forms of diversity. On the other hand, they experience emotions that would seem to be best understood as reactions to constraint. If they are “lucky” they have a choice between jobs they do not want or which force them to move away from their family and friends or spend long hours travelling. They know that, if they do not accept these conditions they will be subjected to degrading treatment at the hands of the “welfare” services (as are many of their fellows). In many of these jobs, they are forced, despite their better judgment, to contribute to the unethical and destructive activities of which modern “civilisations” are so largely composed. Many know that if we are to survive as a species we have to radically change the way we live … but most are acutely aware that they can not, in reality, opt for a way of life they would choose. Still less do they have a chance to contribute in any meaningful way to bringing about the changes that they can see are so necessary in society. 1