Hierarchies

The totalitarianism inherent in corporate structures is defined and preserved by the hierarchy, and these structures stretch far beyond for-profit, private enterprises. In an attempt to justify arbitrary positions of power, organizations often portray them as "leadership" positions, deploying corporate doublespeak like "team leaders" or "officers" in their hierarchical arrangement. The problem with this is that leadership, in any true sense, is an absolute contradiction from power; and especially from arbitrary power. The acquisition of money and idleness that becomes synonymous with climbing the ladder makes leadership roles impossible for those who fill these positions to obtain.

We often think about justice and social change in terms of refinement and better implementation of legal or economic theories and categories. Justice and change are often understood as more accountability and participation, as resistance to free movement/ autonomy considerations and an emphasis on social ones, as resistance to the ‘the market’, as a general protection of the weaker party, or a better theory or alignment of the entire legal system with general constitutional values and principles. Change is expected to follow from an overtly political discourse that should free us from the shackles of legal language and enable the concerns of the people to be voiced.
However, "Justice" cannot be understood in terms of any theory or concept. The word justice only makes sense because of the current unjust reality. Justice should be understood dynamically, as constant social transformation. Legal thinking misses the hierarchical structure of society and when considering justice too often assumes an abstract category or theory that can bring about “justice”.
For example, it is generally assumed in legal consciousness that the identity of the weaker party can be generalised and predetermined. Beside its reliance on constitutionalism and on conceptual understanding of the legal structure, the conceptualism of contemporary legal thought, this was one of the main weaknesses of the European Social Justice Manifestos. A legal system favoring an abstract “weaker party” is bound to struggle with concerns of justice. 
We cannot rely on any theory or worldview when thinking about justice. Such thinking about "justice" often contributes to the reproduction of existing hierarchies - to the reproduction of the status quo, particularly when (hierarchical) reality is interpreted according to existing ideology. Justice means a dynamic change of the currently unjust hierarchical reality that needs to be constantly constructed and reconstructed. The aim of social transformation cannot be a final solution, a perfect social order, or ubiquitous affirmations of ‘social’ considerations, nor a stable state of justice, but rather a constant pursuit of “justice”.

Societies are systems composed of a great number of various social institutions that interact and change, which results in that the whole structure of societies changes. This is what social evolution is – the process of structural change. Evolution does not have any particular
direction: any significant, that is, transforming change is evolutionary. Along with complexity measured in levels of political integration, societies as systems of social institutions have yet another fundamental characteristic that can be called a ‘basic principle of societal organization’. The principle of organization a society embodies depends on the way its institutions relate to one another. Specifically, two basic principles can be distinguished here: heterarchy, whereby elements are unranked or can be ranked in different ways, and its opposite – homoarchy, whereby elements in most contexts are ordered mainly according to one principal hierarchical relationship. Homoarchy and heterarchy represent most universal, ‘pure’ (generalized) principles and basic trajectories of socio-cultural organization. There are no universal evolutionary stages: cultures can be (generally) heterarchical or homoarchical and have an equal level of complexity. A culture can change its basic organizational principle without changing its current complexity level. There also exist alternatives within each of the two types. The heterarchy – homoarchy dichotomy runs throughout the whole of human history: it is observable on all levels of social complexity in all historical periods and culture areas, including the globalized world of our time. Transformations in the ways social institutions and complexes thereof, that is, societal subsystems, are ranked (either homoarchically or hetrarchically), on the one hand, and changes in culture complexity overall, on the other, are two different, largely unrelated processes. The heterarchy – homoarchy dichotomy has, to a
considerable degree, predetermined the non-linear and non-fixed nature of the global sociocultural process. An adequate understanding of human socio-cultural history does not appear possible unless one takes into consideration the possibility of alternative basic principles of
societal organization, their complementary and competitive co-existence, and their interrelated dynamics throughout human history. Also, considering this possibility enables discussion of the future of the present-day globalized world as not fixed but variable, where homoarchical and heterarchical principles may intersect in various ways and at different levels – national, international, and transnational.

Общества представляют собой системы, состоящие из большого
числа разнообразных взаимодействующих и изменяющихся социальных институтов. В результате их взаимодействия и трансформации происходит изменение структуры обществ в целом. Это и есть социальная эволюция – процесс структурного изменения. Эволюция не имеет определенного направления:  любое значимое, т.е. трансформирующее общественную структуру в любом направлении, изменение является эволюционным. Помимо степени сложности, определяемой количеством уровней политической интеграции, общества как системы социальных институтов имеют еще одну фундаментальную характеристику, которую можно назвать базовым принципом организации. То, какой принцип воплощает общество, зависит от характера взаимоотношения социальных институтов в нем. Можно выделить два базовых принципа организации обществ: гетерархический (взаимоотношение институтов, при котором они неранжированы
или обладают потенциалом для того, чтобы быть ранжированными различными способами) и гомоархический (взаимоотношение институтов, при котором они жестко ранжированы единственным образом и не обладают значительным потенциалом для того, чтобы стать неранжированными или ранжированными другими способами, по крайней мере, без кардинального изменения всего общественно-политического устройства). Гомоархия и гетерархия представляют собой наиболее универсальные «идеальные» (обобщенные) принципы и базовые траектории социокультурной организации. Не существует универсальных эволюционных стадий: общества могут быть (преимущественно) гетерархическими или гомоархическими, имея одинаковый уровень сложности. Общество может изменить базовый принцип своей организации, не переходя на иной уровень сложности. Альтернативность существует и внутри каждого из двух типов обществ. Дихотомия гетерархии и гомоархии проходит через всю историю человечества: ее можно наблюдать на всех уровнях социальной сложности во все исторические периоды и во всех географических регионах, включая глoбальный мир нашего времени. Трансформации способов ранжирования социальных институтов и их комплексов – подсистем общественной организации (гомоархического или гетерархического), с одной стороны, и изменения общего уровня социокультурной сложности – с другой, – есть два разных, в целом не связанных друг с другом процесса. Дихотомия гетерархии и гомоархии в значительной степени обусловила неоднолинейную и альтернативную сущность глобального социокультурного процесса. Адекватное понимание социокультурной истории не представляется возможным без учета альтернативности базовых принципов организации обществ, их взаимодополняющего и конкурентного существования и их взаимной динамики на всем протяжении истории человечества. Учет этого также позволяет рассматривать будущее современного глобального мира как не предопределенное, но имеющее несколько возможных сценариев, в которых гомоархический и гетерархический принципы могут по-разному соотноситься на
различных уровнях – национальном, международном и транснациональном.

The purpose of this article is to render literature in the organizational behavior field. Powell (1990) contrast three modes of organization-market, hierarchy, and network-and stress the salient features of each. The logic of network forms demonstrate how networks differ from other forms, illustrative examples of network arrangements in craft and high-technology industries, in regional economies, and in formerly vertically integrated fields. The aim is to develop a number of empirically arguments about the circumstances that give rise to networks and allow them to proliferate. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conditions that give rise to network forms. MARKETS AND FIRMS Literature in this paper followed the fields of international business, technology strategy, industrial relations, organizational sociology, and the new institutional economies. Coase (1937) in article on the nature of the firm, conceived firm as a "black box". Williamson's (1975) argument "transaction that involve uncertainty require specific investments"-of money, time or energy that cannot be easily transferred. Transactions are moved out of markets into hierarchy, where inefficiencies of bureaucratic organization preferred to the relatively greater costs of market transactions, for two reasons: bounded rationality and opportunism. Outside boundaries of firms are competitors, while inside managers exercise authority and curb opportunistic behavior. The view that transactions are distributed at points along a continuum implies that markets are the starting point which other methods evolve. As Moses Finley (1973) tells us "only money in the nature of free booty and treasure trove". Williamson remarks "transactions in the middle range are much more common". For high tech start-ups in the U.S. and craft-based firms in Northern Italy, continuum fails to capture the complex realities of exchange, blinds us by reciprocity and collaboration as alternative governance mechanisms. Goldberg (1980) notes that many market exchanges have been replaced by international collaborations.

Par une présence régulière dans cinq collèges et dans un lycée, l’auteur a pu se livrer à une étude approfondie et envisager l’éducation sous trois grands aspects.

Le premier considère les intitulés éducatifs attachés à des matières (telles que l’éducation physique et sportive) et, d’autre part, à des personnels (AED et CPE). Le deuxième aspect voit ces personnels « d’éducation » astreints à punir les élèves, sur demande fréquente d’autres personnels. La division du travail, enfin, dessine un troisième aspect de l’éducation. Détachés du fonctionnement général de l’établissement et – hors la classe – des élèves eux-mêmes, les professeurs semblent autant protégés qu’écrasés par le rôle de savants. Ils peuvent ainsi refuser la réflexion collective, retenir leurs compétences éducatives et, finalement, soutenir des postures d’exigence qu’ils ne supportent guère.

Ce pouvoir aveugle peut rendre l’éducation négative.

The digital image functions as a simulacrum that channels meaning, value and culture in multidirectional semiotic exchanges that have behavioural and cultural implications and manifestations which directly impact our lives as individuals and in societies. Images made, shared and observed, shape our present, redefine our past, and implicate us in the values and choices we carry forward into the future. The new digital power structures of observation and being observed, require new semiotic interpretations.

Layered sensing provides a hierarchical net-centric architecture for universal situational awareness with global coverage and persistent surveillance. Sensors in the layered hierarchy provide spatial, temporal, spectral, and polarization diversity with different scales and resolutions over different time horizons. Cooperative management of netted sensors is a successful strategy to achieve targeting performance and overall measures of merit (MOM) goals. After a brief introduction to issues in layered sensors, a resource management strategy based on geometry information is described so as to enhance performance in target detection (minimum detectable Doppler) and tracking accuracy (geometric dilution of precision). Preliminary simulation results are presented to illustrate this Geometric Approach to Layered Sensing (GALS) concept.

La distinction centrale dans la société mauritanienne, tous groupes ethniques confondus, est celle qui sépare les personnes en fonction de leur statut de liberté et de servilité. Cette distinction se fonde sur l’opposition forte entre la pureté et l’impureté du sang et elle se reproduit par la fermeture relative des alliances matrimoniales. L’extrême dépendance concerne en particulier la société hassanophone du pays, dont les groupes serviles (« hrâtîn ») représentent au moins 50% de la population totale (près de 4 millions de personnes). Ce texte avance que le nœud de la question servile se situe non pas dans le cadre étatique, mais dans le contexte de l’idéologie islamique et coutumière qui considère que la servilité se transmette par « le sang » pendant plusieurs générations.

En Mauritanie, où prédomine la culture des Bidân, anciens nomades parlant le hassaniyya, l'ordre social hiérarchique est maintenu par le biais du respect de l'honneur [ashraf] et de la sahwa, sentiment de honte, de pudeur vis-à-vis des Autres : les parents, le groupe de parenté (qabîla, pl. qabâil), les groupes statutaires et les autres groupes ethniques [Halpular'en, Soninké et Wolof].
Dans cette contribution, je présente d’abord un tableau rapide de la hiérarchie statutaire, et dans un second temps on s’attachera à montrer d’abord de quelle manière s’exprime le sens de l’honneur et de la honte, chez les nobles bidân. La troisième partie du texte abordera les discours des nobles sur l’absence d’honneur des groupes subordonnés ; et nous évoquerons enfin les difficultés de l’émancipation de ces groupes dominés, tant du point de vue pratique que discursif.
[Cet article accepté en juillet 2015 est sous presse dans la Revue d'anthropologie et santé]

The purpose of this article is to render literature in the organizational behavior field. Powell (1990) contrast three modes of organization-market, hierarchy, and network-and stress the salient features of each. The logic of network forms demonstrate how networks differ from other forms, illustrative examples of network arrangements in craft and high-technology industries, in regional economies, and in formerly vertically integrated fields. The aim is to develop a number of empirically arguments about the circumstances that give rise to networks and allow them to proliferate. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conditions that give rise to network forms. MARKETS AND FIRMS Literature in this paper followed the fields of international business, technology strategy, industrial relations, organizational sociology, and the new institutional economies. Coase (1937) in article on the nature of the firm, conceived firm as a "black box". Williamson's (1975) argument "transaction that involve uncertainty require specific investments"-of money, time or energy that cannot be easily transferred. Transactions are moved out of markets into hierarchy, where inefficiencies of bureaucratic organization preferred to the relatively greater costs of market transactions, for two reasons: bounded rationality and opportunism. Outside boundaries of firms are competitors, while inside managers exercise authority and curb opportunistic behavior. The view that transactions are distributed at points along a continuum implies that markets are the starting point which other methods evolve. As Moses Finley (1973) tells us "only money in the nature of free booty and treasure trove". Williamson remarks "transactions in the middle range are much more common". For high tech start-ups in the U.S. and craft-based firms in Northern Italy, continuum fails to capture the complex realities of exchange, blinds us by reciprocity and collaboration as alternative governance mechanisms. Goldberg (1980) notes that many market exchanges have been replaced by international collaborations.

In the Netsiv's commentary on the Torah, העמק דבר, the Netsiv lays out a two-tiered approach to the nature of humanity. Based on this division it is possible to pick out a parallel two-tiered approach to education. With this background we can speculate fruitfully about the Netsiv's opinion on the study of secular subjects in Jewish society and, relatedly, on the closing of the Volozhin Yeshiva under his leadership in 1892.

Think of an upside down parabola. What you could name as 'the feet  in the air' for the tips of the curve at the top; they represent those of the most satiated over-compensated decompression while those at the bottom of the U-curve are the most frustrated and dissatisfied. One could say that the  two legs of the U-curve are metaphors for an indefinite number of such    legs (stems) that could exist in a 360 degree pattern circling around.      The metaphorical two stem-legs represent the juxtaposition of contrasting material fates and their reflective opposite equivalents.

Getting back to decompression from emotionally confining circumstances.  I'm beginning to think that our feral, pre-complex-acculturaton to socializing from our genetic nature-back to the pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer days: there was more intuitive, aka gut-based, behaviors than    the present pre-programmed templates-informal and formal. The  acculturation is much like an exoskeleton on the psyche. When it is ubiquitously common condition shared by most, there is the same    common acceptance.

When stark differences and disparities become acknowledged, then the privileged "freedom" of some affect those of more restrictive privileges ,      at first, with personal dissatisfaction with one's condition before seeing factors beyond one's self as contributing-to-conspiring against one's aspiration for equivalent satiated satisfaction.

In my case, going from having dominant control of the when, how,        and where of my time to the protocols of a part-time job has revealed        the contrasting emotions of little-to-no need to decompress at the end        of a work day to seeing the need for a much needed recess for my      cognitive energies to matters more resonant and congruent to the former privilege of being the determiner of my time, than the now one who's    time is obliged for less enjoyable means.

If I in a relative less onerous and dangerous condition can be so    consciously aware of this cognitive contrast, what about those for      whom work is a dire or necessary, if not involuntary subordinate    necessity. What ever free time and space they could get, it would not        be unexpected for them to seek an amplitude of decompression that    would be more acutely intense than me typing these words of analysis      for you with relatively equivalent decompression needs similar to mine.  And those whose conditions are more restrictive and repressive on their latitude of options? Compound that with physical and emotional    assaults-micro/macro-on their persona for which simple unwinding decompression is not enough!!

It's the nature of the depths and the crushing intensity found at those depths at the bottom of that U-curve that the crushing nature of the acculturated socialization is known for its literal bare, nakedness of brutality. Everything up the chains and their reflective, juxtaposed  opposites are the less traumatic versions of what occurs at the bottom        of the U-curve (bottom of the crab basket) of emotionally 'humane'  survival.


https://capitalismthesocietalseedsofimp-juny.blogspot.com/2022/03/u-shaped-curve-of-over-compensating.html

An abundant trait of biological protein materials are hierarchical nanostructures, ranging through atomistic, molecular to macroscopic scales. By utilizing the recently developed Hierarchical Bell Model, here we show that the use of hierarchical structures leads to an extended physical dimension in the material design space that resolves the conflict between disparate material properties such as strength and robustness, a limitation faced by many synthetic materials. We report materiomics studies in which we combine a large number of alpha-helical elements in all possible hierarchical combinations and measure their performance in the strength-robustness space while keeping the total material use constant. We find that for a large number of constitutive elements, most random structural combinations of elements (> 98%) lead to either high strength or high robustness, reflecting the so-called banana-curve performance in which strength and robustness are mutually exclusive properties. This banana-curve type behavior is common to most engineered materials. In contrast, for few, very specific types of combinations of the elements in hierarchies (< 2%) it is possible to maintain high strength at high robustness levels. This behavior is reminiscent of naturally observed material performance in biological materials, suggesting that the existence of particular hierarchical structures facilitates a fundamental change of the material performance. The results suggest that biological materials may have developed under evolutionary pressure to yield materials with multiple objectives, such as high strength and high robustness, a trait that can be achieved by utilization of hierarchical structures. Our results indicate that both the formation of hierarchies and the assembly of specific hierarchical structures play a crucial role in achieving these mechanical traits. Our findings may enable the development of self-assembled de novo bioinspired nanomaterials based on peptide and protein building blocks.

An invariable characteristic of any successful entity is its ability to effectively and efficiently manage its corporate information. The benefits gained as a result of maintaining such a resource have been echoed repeatedly through the years. Codifying the information and lessons learned from the past allow for the potential cost and time savings of the future. Towards this end, the Ballistic Vulnerability Lethality Division (BVLD) of the U.S. Army Research laboratory (ARL) bas adopted a policy of strict configuration management for its computer models and associated data. One requirement of this new policy is that every finished analysis be marked by a complete audit trail of pertinent information. All requisite input and resultant data are to be archived to the extent that future reproducibility and interrogation of results will exist. This report presents a prototype information management system named Archival Information Management System (AIMS), designed to meet the audit tra...