The problem of hierarchy
Anarchists in general use the term ‘hierarchy’ in a negative way, but hierarchy itself
is part and parcel of human relationships.
Turner notes the work of A.S. Neil, who believed that education was possible
without any hierarchy. Neil was the founder of the ‘free school’ movement, whose
designs for education, modelled at his Summerhill school, conformed to anarchist
prescriptions. There were to be no compulsory lessons; no authority of teachers
over pupils; an emphasis upon self-development rather than ‘instruction’; no testing
of knowledge against prescribed targets; and no need to attend anything (Turner,
1993: 31).
While Summerhill school may have avoided authoritarianism, did it really avoid
hierarchy as such? It is certainly true that the use of force in relationships is
counterproductive and is incompatible with the nature of relationships themselves.
Hence repressivehierarchy is inherently undesirable. But it does not follow from
this that hierarchy in itself is wrong or oppressive. On the contrary, it exists in all
relationships. The term ‘authority’ can be taken to assume persuasion and consent,
but an authoritative relationship is one based on hierarchy. Surely when one goes
to a doctor, you accept their authority, not because you are unwilling to question
their advice, but because in this situationthere is a hierarchy born of the fact that
the doctor has a specialist knowledge of health which you lack. This is not a static
hierarchy – you may become more knowledgeable yourself – nor is it a
comprehensive hierarchy. If you are a motor mechanic, the doctor may well come
to you for help, and the hierarchy is reversed.
In our view, it is impossible to conceive of a relationship without hierarchy. Each
party is different, and it is this difference that creates the hierarchical character of
relationships. There is clearly a hierarchical relationship between parents and
children. This does not mean that they are not equal, for equality, in our view,
means sameness and difference. The hierarchy is fluid and interpenetrating:
sometimes the parent teaches the child; on other occasions, the parent learns from
the child. It is difficult not to conclude that anarchist opposition to hierarchy arises
from what is essentially a liberal view that equality can only mean sameness, and
that freedom is a spontaneity born of the complete absence of restraint – an
abstraction that derives from the classical liberal view of individuals who originate
in a natural world without constraint or relationship.The question of self-determination and constraint
Anarchists argue for self-determination and this is a valid objective to aim at, but
it is misleading to imagine that self-determination, like autonomy or emancipation
(to take just two related concepts), is a condition that we ‘finally’ reach, for, like
the notion of perfection, emancipation would turn into a nightmare if it ever
‘arrived’. For what would happen to those deemed unemancipated? They would
inevitably be ‘forced to be free’.252 Part 2 Classical ideologies