• Complain

Melvyn L. Fein - Human Hierarchies: A General Theory

Here you can read online Melvyn L. Fein - Human Hierarchies: A General Theory full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2012, publisher: Transaction Publishers, genre: Religion. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:

Romance novel Science fiction Adventure Detective Science History Home and family Prose Art Politics Computer Non-fiction Religion Business Children Humor

Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.

No cover
  • Book:
    Human Hierarchies: A General Theory
  • Author:
  • Publisher:
    Transaction Publishers
  • Genre:
  • Year:
    2012
  • Rating:
    3 / 5
  • Favourites:
    Add to favourites
  • Your mark:
    • 60
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5

Human Hierarchies: A General Theory: summary, description and annotation

We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "Human Hierarchies: A General Theory" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.

Human beings are hierarchical animals. Always and everywhere, people have developed social ranking systems. These differ dramatically in how they are organized, but the underlying causal mechanisms that create and sustain them are the same. Whether they are on the top or bottom of the heap, people attempt to be superior to some other persons or group. This is the root of Melvyn L. Feins thesis presented in Human Hierarchies: A General Theory.

Fein traces the development of changes from hunter-gatherer times to our own techno-commercial society. In moving from small to large communities, humans went from face-to-face contests for superiority to more anonymous and symbolic ones. Societies evolved from hunting bands where the parties knew each other through big-men societies, chieftainships, agrarian empires, patronage chains, caste societies, estate systems, and market-oriented democracies. Where once small groupings were organized primarily by strong forces such as personal relationships, the now standard large groupings are more dependent on weaker forces such as those provided by social roles.

Bureaucracies and professional roles have become prominent. Bureaucracies allow large-scale organizations to maintain control of people by limiting the potential destructiveness of unregulated tests of strength and by clarifying chains of command. Their rigidity and unresponsiveness requires that they be supplemented by professional roles. At the same time, a proliferation of self-motivated experts delegate authority downward, thereby introducing a more flexible decentralization. This analysis is a unique and significant advance in both the sociology and anthropology of stratification among humans.

Melvyn L. Fein: author's other books


Who wrote Human Hierarchies: A General Theory? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.

Human Hierarchies: A General Theory — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work

Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "Human Hierarchies: A General Theory" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.

Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make
HUMAN HIERARCHIES HUMAN HIERARCHIES A GENERAL THEORY Melvyn L Fein - photo 1
HUMAN
HIERARCHIES
HUMAN
HIERARCHIES
A GENERAL THEORY
Melvyn L. Fein
First published 2012 by Transaction Publishers Published 2017 by Routledge 2 - photo 2
First published 2012 by Transaction Publishers
Published 2017 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright 2012 by Taylor & Francis
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2011042481
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fein, Melvyn L.
Human hierarchies : a general theory / Melvyn L. Fein.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4128-4596-0
1. Social stratification. I. Title.
HM821.F45 2012
305.512dc23
2011042481
ISBN 13: 978-1-4128-4596-0 (hbk)
Contents
Aristotle said that man is a political animal. Since all political systems are to some degree ranking systems, he thereby implied that we humans are hierarchical animals, and that moreover this is an essential part of our social nature. Almost two millennia later, Thomas Hobbes in seeking to understand how human societies are possible also found his solution in a hierarchical arrangement. In the Leviathan, he argued that our tendencies toward interpersonal conflict could only be restrained by designating someone to exercise superior power over others. More recently, Randall Collins has distinguished between order-givers and order-takers. This, for him, is the crucial dimension in determining social class and in explaining how social power operates.
Indeed, since their inception, the social sciences have focused on differences in hierarchical rank. Hence, within sociology, generations of investigators sought to explicate social stratification. As a result, they studied distinctions in social class, social caste, and bureaucratic authority. Furthermore, these disparities in power were usually assumed to reside at the center of human societies. The question was not whether they existed, but what their consequences were. Meanwhile, political scientists concentrated on the governmental aspects of power management. Some even defined politics as an ability to create and employ social alliances so as to exercise interpersonal power. The hierarchical distinctions created by these means may not always have met with professional approval, but their reality was rarely questioned. Even anthropologists have studied social hierarchies. Often more explicitly than in other disciplines, they have described the hierarchical aspects of hunter-gatherer and small-scale agricultural communities.
Psychologists, it is true, have been less explicit in their researches regarding hierarchy, but they too have understood the importance of leadership and power. Social psychologists, in particular, have made these the central features of their theories. Nor must we neglect the hierarchical contributions of economists. They could scarcely ignore the importance of social ranking in accumulating wealth or in exercising its prerogatives. Nor could they disregard the importance of hierarchies of authority in managing large-scale economic operations. They have realized that who got to give orders to whomand howwas often decisive in determining what goods got produced and in what quantities.
Most researchers have also recognized that hierarchical arrangements are universal. Despite numerous attempts to prove otherwise, every known society, both large and small, has exhibited some form of stratification. In no society is power ever equally distributed. Nor are these disparities without consequence for the life-chances of the participants. Not just their personal comfort, but also their personal and communal survival may be at stake. As a result, few humans are disinterested in how the hierarchies in which they reside constructed or altered. While not all aspire to be at the apex of these power structures, few are indifferent to being consigned to their base. Accordingly, not just sociologists, but ordinary persons too are concerned about the details of social mobility. Indeed, where it is possible, most aim to move up in status. And even when this is not possible, those situated at their lower extremes are fascinated with the finer points of life above them.
Given the universality ranking systems, it is exceedingly strange that so many contemporary social scientists deny their validity. Indeed, many regard hierarchy as an anomaly. They insist that it is not a fundamental aspect of our humanity. Far from our being hierarchical animals, they regard us as innately egalitarian. Consequently, where inequalities in status exist, they attribute these to corrupting elements. Either self-seeking individuals are distorting social relationships for their own benefit or superfluous social institutions are interfering with normal human impulses. More specifically, unscrupulous elites are regularly accused of hoarding social resources so they can live more comfortably, while communal conventions such as property ownership are thought to enable some individuals to exploit others for their private ends. Either way, the resulting inequities are regarded as intolerable and ripe for elimination.
What has therefore happened is that the study of social hierarchies has been moralized. Instead of investigating what is occurring, the emphasis of many researchers is on establishing that this is unfair and then on determining how it can be reformed. Although those engaged in this activity still refer to themselves as scientists, they are more properly characterized as social activists. Representative of this change in direction has been how most sociologists today describe their object of study. Where once they claimed to analyze social stratification, now they are more concerned with social inequalities. Yet the term inequality is not neutral. It is a pejorative. In contemporary Western societies, it connotes something illegitimate. Viewed as essentially immoral, it therefore begs to be eradicated. This being so, social disparities are regarded as inherently wrong and unwarranted.
Nonetheless, inequality and hierarchy are not interchangeable concepts. Many inequalities have little if anything to do with social ranking. Thus, the length of persons noses may literally make them unequal without affecting their social statuses. They may also be unequal in the color they paint their houses without this influencing who has power over whom. Hierarchies, of course, institutionalize social differences, but these are circumscribed forms of inequality. They generally center around disparities in relative power. Neglecting this distinction has led to significant confusions. The most noteworthy of these concern gender. Inequality theorists have observed the inequalities between men and women and come to the conclusion that these imply exploitation. As a consequence, they recommend the elimination of gender-based differences. Moreover, they assume that once androgyny becomes the norm, males will no longer dominate females. This perspective, unfortunately, discounts the differences between social class and gender relationships. In the rush to achieve social justice, it denies a host of important social facts.
Next page
Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

Similar books «Human Hierarchies: A General Theory»

Look at similar books to Human Hierarchies: A General Theory. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.


Reviews about «Human Hierarchies: A General Theory»

Discussion, reviews of the book Human Hierarchies: A General Theory and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.