Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:49:51 +0930
Subject: Re: The state (hierarchy)


Justin's point about hierarchy was originally made by Plato. Plato
notoriously extended it through the metaphor of helmsman to the state,
claiming that just as a ship relies on the helmsman's expertise to steer
clear of shoals, so does the state rely on rulers to steer it clear of
disaster. Justin is sensitive to why this argument does not work. State
policy is not just a matter of expertise, it is a matter of paying regard
to interests. An architect is halway between doctors and political decision
makers, bringing expertise to the design of a building but having to pay
regard to the interests of those who will live in it. So clearly are
lawyers, as Justin would know. (The patient autonomy movement shows that it
is now recognized that doctors and other such experts also have to pay
regard to the interests of their patients, clients , etc). This sort of
'hierarchy' is real and can in certain circumstances provide the basis for
oppressive power (doctors clearly have power over their patients but, as
grateful patients show, it need not be oppressive. That it can be
oppressive is demonstrated by doctors exploiting their power to extract
sexual or business favours from patients) However, why speak of 'hierarchy'
if there is only a slight possiblity of oppressive power (taking oppressive
power as a systematic capacity to force others to suffer a significant
disadvantage in life): experts need not 'rule' in any real sense if all
they do is their job, so why speak of hierarchy? Anyone delegated to doing
a job has power over others if the outcome of the job affects others, but
would we say a society has a 'hierarchy' simply because its garbage
collectors must have authority to collect garbage?

Political representatives need not be able to wield oppressive power over
their constituency either. Nor need they show any real tendency to take
decisions with favour self-interest. Only in a society where
self-interested behaviour pays-off in a big way will the temptation be
real. Only in societies where deprivation must be born by some in order
that others enjoy a decent or luxurious life, are there strong incentives
to transform the power of expertise into oppressive power. While I think a
society of absolute abundance (ie where no good has any opportunity cost)
is impossible, I don't think it impossible that there be societies where
everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living. If everyone enjoys a decent
standard of living and no-one lives in great luxury, there will only be
very weak incentives, I believe, for self-serving exploitation of the power
of expertise or the power of representation. So I do not agree with Justin
that hierarchy (other than in the trivial sense of those delegated to doing
a job having authority to do it and others being dependent on them) will
always be with us.




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---