Eisler on social development

Continuing this post, I'm also reminded of Eisler's distinction between dominator and actualization hierarchies. From this IPS Ning discussion.

As you may or not know, I do not reject hierarchy per se, just a certain kind. I went into this in detail in a few threads, like real/false reason and the fold. Dominator hierarchies are based in the same metaphysical premises as capitalism, both arising from what Lakoff calls false reason, or Gebser calls deficient rationality.

 

Eisler's partnership model expresses healthy hierarchy/heterarchy with real reason. Note that her partnership societies are gender equitable, as well as in/out, one/many balanced. Male-dominated societies are not gender equitable and arise from the unbalanced sort of metaphysical dominator hierarchies. What you call "mutually supportive networks" is that sort of partnership balance. As is the emerging new Commons beyond capitalism and private property.

 

To the extent kennilingus holds on to capitalism, even conscious capitalism, is the extent to which it participates in a dominator hierarchy. And quite a few in the broader integral movement have noticed this. I'd mentioned somewhere that I was reading Eisler's The Real Wealth of Nations. I've attached this document that summarizes the chapters. From chapter two:

 

Opposing Economic Societal Structures

 

The domination system allows only for dominating or being dominated. Hierarchies of domination result in scarce trust, high tension, and system cohesiveness based on fear and force. Leaders control and disempower. To succeed, a domination system suppresses caring and empathy.

 

In contrast, a partnership system supports mutually respectful and caring relations. Hierarchies of actualization allow for accountability, bi-directional respect, and input from all levels. Leaders facilitate, inspire, and empower. Economic policies and practices support needs: basic survival, community, creativity, meaning and caring – the realization of highest human potentials.

 

No society is pure partnership or domination system – it’s always a matter of degree. The top-down domination system is a holdover from earlier feudal and monarchic times.

 

And this post, specific to Graeber and Wengrow's challenge to equating social organization with technological hierarchies:

Footnote 10 of her [Eisler's] 2015 article clarifies what I said in this post using Wilber, contrary to the notion that it is merely the technological base that governs most of our individual consciousness and social organization:

"In contrast to the view that technological modes of production determine social organization, cultural transformation theory takes into account evidence that cultures with the same technological base can have different structures and beliefs depending on the degree they orient to either end of the partnership-domination continuum. For example, instead of the dehumanizing assembly lines of industrialization in times that oriented more to the domination side of the continuum, in the 1960s more partnership-oriented Sweden and Norway introduced what became known as industrial democracy where workers controlled their manufacturing work" (34).

 

PS: See the ongoing discussion on the topic in this Facebook thread.