Solace in hierarchies...

I found a passage in the Žižek and Gunjević book, God in pain, quite interesting. (I am not putting forth any solutions - it is just a curious passage that I wanted to share).The passage looks at hierarchal structures in society and specifically how to eliminate the "pain" associated with falling in an inferior class structure. I almost paraphrase the entire section (taken from p.66) - most of this is quoted from Jean-Pierre Dupuy in Petite métaphysique des tsunamis.

There are four procedures of hierarchy, whose function is to make the relationship of superiority non-humiliating to subordinates:

1.          Hierarchy itself: Experiencing one's lower status as independent of one's inherent value.

2.       Demystification: The relationship between superiority and inferiority is not based on meritocracy, but are the result of ideological and social struggles. I.e. One's status depends on social processes and not on merits. This helps us to avoid painful conclusions that the other's superiority is a result of merit and achievement.

3.       Contingency: One's position on a social scale depends on a natural and social lottery. I.e. lucky are the ones who were born with better dispositions and into rich families.

4.  Complexity: Superiority or inferiority depends on complex social processes independent of individuals' intentions or merits. E.g. despite me being smarter and working harder, my neighbour's success outweighs mine.

The pillars do not threaten hierarchy, but is supposed to make it palatable. Dupuy  -"what triggers the turmoil of envy is the idea that the other deserves his good luck and not the opposite idea which is the only one that can be openly expressed".

Dupuy further states that it is a mistake to think that a society that thinks it is just and proclaims that it is just will be free of resentment. And in these societies it is the people who occupy inferior positions that will burst out in violent resentment.

Žižek quotes Rousseau's example of perverted self-love: One cares more for the destruction of one's enemies (they serve as an obstacle to one's happiness) as opposed to one's own happiness.

What does this have to do with South Africa?

South Africa proclaims that it is a democracy. It claims that it is just and free. Yet, there seems to be social turmoil every day. There are clear class distinctions and those that fall in the inferior classes are supremely unhappy about it. High income inequality, affirmative action (i.e. exclusive rights for some and isolation for others) and corruption are just a few examples of how unjust the country really is. The consequence is violent uprisings undermining every economic and social activity (strikes, destruction of property, crime are a few examples). South Africans, and many others in the world, then surely make a great mistake (in context of Dupuy) in thinking that South Africa is just and proclaiming it is just.

The ideal of demolishing hierarchy stands in opposition to the idea of making hierarchy palatable. Are we really able to demolish hierarchy? In effect this would imply some form of communism. History is definitely not kind to the examples of communism we have seen - numerous people have lost their lives for this ideal and almost always the ideals were perverted by the leaders who exploited the general population. Is the alternative better? Is it better to accept that things are simply unfair and unequal? That no matter what skills or abilities a person has, that person is subject to factors outside his control, or in the very least try to make something from nothing in what we call capitalist societies (there is no promise that hard work and ability will be rewarded). Unfortunately accepting ones circumstances does nothing to help starving people, and a system that proclaims equality cannot truly promise equality and food portions of the same size for everyone. 

These are deep philosophical questions that touch all of us.

While the South African government has done a great deal to improve the lives of the poor since 1994, it never, or hardly, acknowledges its shortcomings (the opposition parties and newspapers do a reasonable job at highlighting inefficiencies). (We also don't know whether future governments will do any better). Perhaps this is what Dupuy wants - societies should acknowledge its mistakes and maybe people will find solace in that - it is sometimes the government and its policies that constrains me and not my merit or ability and on the other spectrum that this same government that constrains me helps another who might be more in need (not always Pareto optimal, and not always welfare enhancing) It does not make it fair, but it surely helps ease the psychological pain of being unfairly treated.