To understand why Ambiarchy prefers a meritocratic organization, as opposed to a flat or majoritarian one, it may be best to look at the characteristics of cooperatives and collectives, and how they fair in the economy.
The tendency of cooperatives today is to retain a degree of traditional authority and hierarchy, but the justification is that this hierarchical authority is under the authority of the whole. In such a case, it can be argued that the hierarchy or authority is one of form, but not of substance.
An example of a cooperative which uses traditional hierarchy and authority, but under the superauthority of the whole, is a typical consumer cooperative, whose members elect a board, and whose board then delegates an ends policy to a non-board executive of some sort. From the executive onward, there is a traditional hierarchical structure, in which authority flows downward: managers set employee wage rates and schedules, hire and fire, and so on. This kind of structure may also take place in a workers’ cooperative, with the only difference being the owner-stakeholders— who are workers instead of consumers— and the fact that the board is accountable to them.
This is probably not the ideal. At least, it’s not my ideal. My ideal would be a collective, a cooperative that is run directly by the worker- or consumer-owners by way of consensus democracy. Such a structure may still make use of officials, even managers and executives, but they are not given significant powers in the manner that some cooperatives vest power into boards and managers. In a collective, issues of major concern, instead of being decided by a manager or executive, are decided upon directly, in a general assembly, spokescouncil, referendum, or some other device of that nature.
The problem is that going beyond a cooperative to become a collective requires that everyone become familiar with the self-governance processes within the collective. As I have learned the hard way, this is not something that can be expected from most individuals purely out of self-motivation, and so, unfortunately, does not tend to be the rule. For this reason, formally hierarchical cooperatives seem to have an advantage, in that, being structured similarly to institutions within our present society, they can involve the ignorant with greater ease.
Unfortunately, cooperatives that have formal hierarchies do not have the advantages that collectives can achieve. They are also far less revolutionary, in a socio-cultural sense. That is, in repeating the same hierarchies in present society—though they may be merely formal and not substantial— these cooperatives may be only a slightly progressive force. They will fall short of the original socialist goal of social construction: creating a better man.
It is quite often the case that socialists believe that creating a more egalitarian society will have positive effects on the behavior of individuals. There is good reason to believe that a society in which there is less struggling that there will be less issues regarding people’s behaviors. Quite often, anti-social behavior is connected to social struggle. To remedy anti-social behavior, socialists have supported a more egalitarian society. The most radical and interesting of the (small-s) socialists are the anarchists, who believe that equality depends primarily on participation in political processes.
Cooperatives with formal hierarchical authority do nothing to directly involve its membership in the organization. As such, they do nothing to develop an expectation of self-governance in the individual, and so also fall short of the associated responsibility that comes with that. Individuals in cooperatives with formal hierarchy are still looking for external direction, reflecting external loci of control. But ideally, individuals will have internal loci of control, so that they may become self-responsible and functionally self-governing.
So, here we are. We have functional cooperatives in reality, but they are still reflecting the structures of the present society; and we have ideals of consensus-driven collectives, but they aren’t commonly found, because of the dominant culture, and everyone’s immersion in and reflection of it. How do we bridge the gap?
A more meritocratic organizational structure, as found in some guilds, fraternal societies, and mystery schools, may provide the solution. In such an institution—and in particular, the mystery schools—, there is a degree structure, in which individual members may earn merit through display of their knowledge or abilities. This provides a rising action, in which individual members can be elevated from their present condition, and rewarded with merit. It is also rather objective, because others who have been so elevated have had the same expectations applied to them. While it may retain some degree of formal hierarchy within it, it also contains the seeds of such a hierarchy’s destruction. Were all of the members to do the work to have equal merit, for instance, a hierarchy is not essential. All then would be masters.
Ambiarchy focuses on the hard reality, that our ideals are conceivable, and can work, but that in order to work, its participants must understand and adhere to these ideals. It is meritocratic in an effort to raise its membership to the status of a great human being. As Ambiarchy is intended to displace government of human by human, it must better adhere to the natural principles which have given governments their power.
Governments are not lazy, and cannot be expected to be overthrown by the lazy. To establish government, its participants had to develop their character to become great men. This was done through understanding and adherence to values such as honor, nobility, and gentility, which allowed for more cooperation and mutual aid between the governing parties, and thereby enabling their power over the disorganized and less developed. Over time, the honor of tribal oligarchs was displaced by aristocratic nobility, and then aristocratic nobility by bourgeois gentility. The mutualism of Ambiarchy, likewise, will require a new etiquette.
But that etiquette must evolve. Formally hierarchical cooperatives do little to evolve the etiquette necessary for self-government, but because of their familiar structure, are more accessible to the ignorant, and so have been better at keeping afloat. The solution to this problem, as promoted in Ambiarchy, is degree-based meritocracy, which begins with a single master, who starts to raise others to his or her level. In the process of raising one’s merit, one abolishes external authority, and becomes oneself a master. This is how formally-hierarchical cooperatives may evolve into fully-functional collectives, the goal of Ambiarchy. But it must begin with the vision and successful implementation of a single master.
