Is Hierarchy Necessary for Human Societies?

I am critical of Bookchin’s assertion that hierarchy is the root of our environmental problems because of his lack of comparative evidence with his utopia. His goal is to destroy hierarchy and have humanity be equal with the environment (Bookchin 242). I am skeptical of the removal of hierarchy because of Bookchin’s lack of societal examples, and his evidence of hierarchy throughout human culture (Bookchin 246). While Bookchin’s argument of re- individualization strengthens the offense against hierarchy, it does not do so adequately because of the vague nature of the concept. It would be more convincing if Bookchin gave a process to this transformation.

Bookchin focuses on a primarily negative view of hierarchy, and does not examine its possible benefits, such as societal order. Considering the history of hierarchy, I would argue that nature selects for such a system, and that Bookchin’s utopia could be unsustainable. If every human were to be conceptually “re-individualized” and had a powerful empathy with the oppressed of the world, would they follow “social ecology”? How will a human group remove hierarchical values and how would their symbiotic society function? These are questions that Bookchin considers but only gives optimal answers for without considering negative alternatives.

I believe that a social ecology could occur, but that it will break down, as hierarchy manifests itself again in human nature. I do not believe that hierarchy can be destroyed but at the same time I do not want to believe that humanity’s true nature is to dominate. While Bookchin’s argument progresses the understanding of human domination in environmental problems, I believe he demonizes it too early, without weighing the pros and the cons in comparison to his utopia.