Dominator vs. Growth Hierarchy
Dominator vs. Growth Hierarchy
Wilber's View
Wilber's central move here is to separate hierarchy as such from domination. A holarchy — cells within organs, organs within organisms — is not, in itself, oppressive: the higher level includes and enfolds the lower, it doesn't enslave it. Something only goes wrong when a holarchy turns pathological in one of two opposite directions: pathological hierarchy, where a higher level actually dominates, represses, or alienates the lower levels beneath it (Wilber calls this "ontological fascism" — the one dominating the many); or pathological heterarchy, where difference is flattened out entirely, nothing is allowed to be deeper, higher, or more developed than anything else, and individuality dissolves into an undifferentiated mass ("ontological totalitarianism" — the many dominating the one).
This is Wilber's diagnosis of a common move he sees among deep ecologists and ecofeminists: rejecting all hierarchy because some hierarchies are oppressive, when the actual target should be domination specifically, not the fact of nested, differing levels. He recruits Arne Naess — a founding figure of deep ecology itself — to make the point that "wholism" (rejecting all distinctions of higher/lower) and pure atomism are "two sides of the same problem," and that hierarchy properly understood is the cure for both, not their opposite. The same argument underwrites his broader claim that some ranking of value is unavoidable — even a stance that insists on treating everything as equal is itself a value judgment, so the real question is not whether to rank but how to do it without sliding into domination.
In Sex, Ecology, Spirituality
"An important distinction should be made between domination and actualization hierarchies." (Riane Eisler, quoted by Wilber)
Thus Riane Eisler, herself a rather staunch champion of heterarchy, nonetheless emphatically notes that "an important distinction should be made between domination and actualization hierarchies. The term domination hierarchies describes hierarchies based on force or the express or implied threat of force… These types of hierarchies may be characterized by the term actualization hierarchies because their function is to maximize the organism's potentials. By contrast, human hierarchies based on force or the threat of force not only inhibit personal creativity but also result in social systems in which the lowest (basest) human qualities are reinforced and humanity's higher aspirations… are systematically suppressed."
— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Book 1: The Pattern That Connects
"Pathological hierarchy is ontological fascism, pathological heterarchy is ontological totalitarianism"
Whereas pathological hierarchy is a type of ontological fascism (with the one dominating the many), pathological heterarchy is a type of ontological totalitarianism (with the many dominating the one)—all of which we will discuss in detail in later chapters (where we will see that pathological hierarchy and pathological heterarchy are, respectively, types of pathological agency and pathological communion…
— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Book 1: The Pattern That Connects (source notes cut off mid-sentence here)
"Virtually all deep ecologists and ecofeminists reject the notion of holarchy, for rather confused reasons, it seems to me."
Virtually all deep ecologists and ecofeminists reject the notion of holarchy, for rather confused reasons, it seems to me. From what I can tell, they seem to think that hierarchy and atomism are "bad," and that their "wholism" is the opposite of both. But no less than the patron saint of deep ecology, Arne Naess, clearly points out that "wholism" and "atomism" are actually two sides of the same problem, and that the cure for both is hierarchy… If the deep ecologists and ecofeminists would follow Naess's lead, the whole discussion could move forward more smoothly. As it is now, they are often the defenders of flatland "wholism" and extreme heterarchy, which indeed is the opposite of atomism: two sides of the same problem.
— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Book 1: The Pattern That Connects
"Why is the finding of value in the world inherent in the human situation?"
Why is the finding of value in the world inherent in the human situation? And since, even if we decide to value everything equally, that involves rejecting value systems that do not, why is some sort of ranking unavoidable? Why are qualitative distinctions built into the fabric of the human orientation? Why is trying to deny value itself a value? Why is denying ranking itself a ranking? And given that, how can we sanely and consciously choose our unavoidable hierarchies, and not merely fall into the ethics of unacknowledgment and suppression and inarticulacy?
— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Book 1: The Pattern That Connects
