Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:24:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The state (hierarchy)



This is a thoughtful answer, but too optimistic by half. What the "job" of
experts is, is very much up for grabs, particularily when their
administrative power gives them control over resources they can use to
benefit themselves and their institutions at the expense of others. This
potential for abuse is sharply limited by an initially greater eqaulity
of resources and a higher degree (accordingly) of democratic control, but
the worry is that the initial equality will degenerate as the experts and
authorities use the positions for their own advantage. I do not claim that
the tendency is always fatal. I do claim it is always there and we cannot
simply go to sleep in the assurance that the People's Experts and
Authoritiesa re just doing their job to benefit all of us. --jks

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Ian Hunt wrote:

> Justin's point about hierarchy was originally made by Plato.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 ---





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