Many times it is only through one perspective that we are guided towards the interpretation of our perceptions. Explanations, concepts, theories and opinions are not interpreted as such but passed on as truths. As some kind of guardians and wise men of origins. As if they are at the top of the hierarchical structure, and everything that comes after is conditioned on these truths, the origins, the ever present, the norms.
Darwin's theory of natural selection and the subsequent arguments by social Darwinists were based heavily on the work of T. Malthus (1766-1834), an early nineteenth-century British clergyman who wrote Principles of Population. Malthus predicted that food resources increased arithmetically while human populations, unchecked by war, disease, or famine, increased geometrically. The disparity between resources and population meant a constant struggle among members of a given population for scarce resources. Darwin, being influenced by Malthus, applied Malthusian principle to the natural world and proposed his theory of natural selection. In his work, the Origin of Species (1859), he argued that the scarcity of natural resources led to competition among individuals, which he called "the struggle for survival". Through this competition, the best-adapted members of a given population were most likely to be successful, reproduce, and pass their beneficial adaptations on to their offspring. Social Darwinists argued on the basis of Darwin's theory of natural selection that the best adapted humans naturally rose to the top of social, political, and economic strata. The increasing public interest and respect for the sciences also contributed to the success of social Darwinism, as policies that had the stamp of scientific legitimacy were accepted as above political interest or influence. In the light of observing the intertwining of the trains of thought in different scientific disciplines, we can observe how the collective mind, the society reinforced the ideas about the inevitableness and naturalness of hierarchical order and structure of processes. They related concepts of scarcity, competition for resources and the success to justify the existence of hierarchy and the further concentration of resources and power of those at the “top”. Darwin himself did not promote social Darwinism and probably would have opposed many of the claims of social Darwinists. C. Anderson & C.E. Brown (2010) empirically explored whether the steepness of hierarchies benefits or harms groups. In contrast with functionalist views, the effects of steeper hierarchies are highly mixed and therefore, they proposed five conditions that moderate the effects of hierarchy steepness: the kinds of tasks on which the group is working, whether the right individuals have been selected as leaders, how the possession of power modifies leader’s psychology, whether the hierarchy facilitates or hampers intra-group coordination and whether the hierarchy affects group members’ motivation in positive or deleterious ways. These are all factors that have little to do with computable economic efficiency, working capacities, investment, individual achievement capability or adaptedness to the society.
The above mentioned conditions are subjects of psychological and cognitive scientific considerations, and this further suggests that we should think of the “successfulness of the species or an individual” in alternative terms: For example; through pluralist and interdisciplinary approach that includes looking at the interpersonal skills and connectedness, personal maturity, functional appropriateness of hierarchy as a type of organizational structure: how it affects creativity, growth, learning, co-workers relationships, fulfilling of the purpose of the organization, and other humanist attempts for insight. From the point of view of bi–polarity in the space of meanings; Ideas, materialnesses, goods and people are often ascribed some kind of evaluation and a spot between between the two poles, that have historically characterized the development of thought and other dimensions of cognition in of our civilization – the opposite poles of good and bad. Even in the semantic origins of words and metaphors, used in the rhetoric of socioforming structures, there are attempts to harmonize people’s perceptions and other cognitive processes, ideas about the “good society, good opportunities, good values, good morals” and the political, religious and economic programs. Certainly, the reciprocal is possible as well in the case of attempts to alter the public opinion in ways to make them compatible with the proposed programs, socioforming, developmental and regulatory processes. The bi-polarity is at the core of justification that certain forms and properties should be set above all else, perpetuated, fixed and set as a starting point for everything that comes after. Which is also how institutions are born, and how hierarchies are formed. Like T. Rockwell (2005) argues: “all ontologies can be justified on pragmatic grounds to some degree”, even the ontology that brought about the formation of institutions and normalization of society. He suggests that “any ontology formulated by community of living organisms fighting their way through thick of things, who spent many lifetimes tuning it so as to minimize errors, will inevitably possess some epistemic virtue, along with numerous epistemic vices. But no matter how vice-ridden, an ontology that evolved in the world, will always have some relationship to that world, not just to illusions that exist only in the head”. Thus, we need to look at why the world historically needed to institutionalize society but why were institutions made rigid, fixed and the processing slow, and above all, why have humans become so normalized, so institutionalized, adapted to the absoluteness of hierarchy, that that the identities of people are determined by institutional dimensions and rarely by the souls and groups of connected souls with common or complimentary interests, wanting to live and express. If we, people don’t actively endeavour for the fluidity and dynamic structure of institutions and also apply our own action - the self–initiated action of groups and individuals, then institutions will perpetuate their activity without resistance and even when once institutionalized activities have ceased to be valid.
A case to understand an adverse effect of institutions is through a momentum of the institutions that takes a different, sometimes latent and subversive way of realization: In the area of economic science and public sector’s expertise on economic policy, we observed an abandonment of Keynesian economics in economics profession by around 1980s. Would that lead us to think that military Keynesianism as a phenomenon based on a specific economic logic borrowed from Keynesian doctrine does not exist? As a part of an official economic policy that predicts state intervention into the economy, in order to stimulate and manage demand by such measures as government spending on public projects, military Keynesianism may not be a part of the agenda anymore. However, the essence of a position like the “military Keynesianism”, is simply that the public projects, that the state invests in, are military projects. In contemporary terms, this could mean spending on arms and the defence industry for different purposes. Viewed from a broader perspective, this type of activity is stimulating; managing the whole economy through a “multiplier” effect, as claimed by J.K. Galbraith (1977). World governments in contemporary global economic and political space however, no longer invest massively in the arms and defence industry for the purposes of Keynesian-style economic stimulation and management – this kind of rhetoric has been abolished. However, the booming arms industry is driven firstly by the need for security in a volatile world that some claim is actually more dangerous than during the relative stability of the Cold War “balance of power” era or some manipulate it into becoming one; and secondly by the profit motive. N. Chomsky (1994) explains, why the “peace dividends” are still unlikely to occur (no major shift of resources from military to domestic social spending), by stating that the participative interest in social public projects benefiting a greater part of the nation is in contrast to the arms supply orders that benefit the industry and corporate giants. In a world dominated by one superpower, the US, can there really be genuine security? What are the strategic reasons for massive spending on defence and arms then? N. Chomsky argues that “the domestic and global demand for arms is largely a created one, driven by business and economics and taking full advantage of the built-in obsolescence factor to generate continual profits and economic health”. For example, expenditures on armaments really kept the United States quite prosperous during the Cold War, but it became clear that this prosperity was supported by a complex series of money-power arrangements that depended on the petro-dollar and the willingness of the Saudi Arabian giants to exclude and hinder other sorts of currencies when it came to oil payments. It could be described as a game, using all the possibilities that arise from the institution of money in order to gain large profits.
Some institutions are governing and hold a superior position by their statement, some by actorness, some by economic power, by historical heritage; existing to protect it, some by appropriation of land, by specific economic arrangements, some by academic suitability for desired policies, some by democratic consensus, some because they pose a threat, some by a consent self-initiated communal consent, some are hierarchically structured, some not, some are beneficial for group success, quality of life and performance, some not.
To accept hierarchies when we see the concentration of power going out of proportions is to be indifferent about our lives and the civilization as a whole. For a breakthrough, we need at least the involvement of our best possible cognitive capacities, information and education, conscious thought and empathy; the kind of intelligent empathy that recognizes the needs on improvements and the possibilities for life on Earth. Perhaps this also includes the already set new directions and trends in contemporary economic activity, like small business and start-ups, cooperatives, self-initiated community projects, non-hierarchically organized corporations, etc.. One way to create a world according to the people is to create new entities that perform for a chosen purpose, with a particular way of organizing work, financing and investment, and that wake the old institutions to an altered or a different purpose.