The Value and Danger of Hierarchical Thinking
Hierarchical thinking is often used to justify violence, but we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater
These days a critique of hierarchy has become commonplace. Many, in my opinion rightfully, point out how the notion that some forms of knowing and being are “higher” than others has been used to justify violence, injustice, and oppression. One of the easiest ways to justify violence is to dehumanize the group you intend to oppress by generating a hierarchy of truth and value with your own group at the top and them at the bottom. This hierarchy of truth justifies putting the “other” in line through forceful means by labeling them as savages, subhuman, irrational, or non-believers. We find this strategy employed again and again throughout history and in within our own communities across national, cultural, religious, racial, and gender divides. Many advocate the solution to this problem as a paradigmatic shift away from hierarchical thinking towards a more horizontal pluralism that respects all ways of knowing and living equally.
Even though moving to a flat pluralism would undercut some of the justification for these forms of violence, from my perspective such a move would also generate a slew of alternative problems. I do not think the answer is to simply dispose of hierarchical thinking. Rather if we understand hierarchical thinking in a nuanced way, we can preserve its virtues while remaining cautious of the way it is often grossly misused.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to recontextualize to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.