The irresistible Ms Miss Reporter explores:
Mr Sir Orange: ELITIST OR MAN OF THE PEOPLE
Monday morning on Orange Radio.
Mr Sir Orange: ELITIST OR MAN OF THE PEOPLE
Monday morning on Orange Radio.
“Your Excellency,” started out Ms Miss Reporter, “You are the driving force in the adoption of the New Protocol against all Forms of Discrimination. Yet in a recent statement you say that blue blood is best for leadership. Are you not discriminating against those who don’t have blue blood?”
“My dear Miss,” Mr Sir Orange replied, “First, let us be clear about what the NPaaFoD seeks to achieve. The NPaaFoD seeks to achieve a situation in which populations of different origin and culture can each go about their lives the way they like without discrimination or conflict; and in order to accomplish that we need a certain degree of regional autonomy.”
He paused to let his words sink in and after sufficient sinking in continued. “The NPaaFoD indeed subscribes to the principle that each is equal under the Law. The NPaaFoD, however, does not say that each one under the Law is the same. If such were the case we would not need a NPaaFoD.”
“I understand,” Ms Miss Reporter agreed. “But what do you mean by us, members of a community, not being the same?” she asked.
“Let me go back to the very first principles on which any organisation is based,” replied Mr Sir Orange. “Each extant society is governed by two basic principles. One is that of the division of labour and hence of differentiation and specialization. The other is that of hierarchy, meaning that members of any society occupy higher or lower positions in that society. This principle is about authority, control, power and dependency. These principles are interlocked, meaning, for example, that those in authority are different from those not in authority both by having different status and by doing different things. The combination of these two principles in one statement is the so-called Z-factor Law of Social Organisation. It reads:
All organizations are structured by the interrelated principles of the division of labour and the hierarchical order of its members.
Be it a family, football club, business small or large, or the state, this law always applies.”
“It is said,” ventured Ms Miss Reporter, “that traditional African communities are egalitarian. What about that?”
“It is a complex issue,” declared Mr Sir Orange. “The issue of division of labour does not require debate, it simply is universal also in sub-Sahara black Africa. It may be tied up with gender, or with ethnicity, religion, age, parentage, territorial origin, level of education; whatever it may be tied up with or not be tied up with: division of labour is there, from the smallest unit of society, the family, to the largest - the state itself. The notion of egalitarianism applies especially to authority and economics including rights on private property. There are societies that have an extremely simple material culture. Consequently there is little variation in the properties an individual has. Yet each individual has his/her own property and another does not have the right to take it away without consent of the owner. Such a society may be composed of bands or groups that have communal hunting or farming grounds, a territory so to speak. In this respect there might be communality within the group. But the group as a unit shall protect its territory against similar groups having territories by themselves. As far as authority is concerned: all groups have leaders, all groups have youngsters and elders, all groups have members enjoying more prestige than others. Hierarchical organisation, like the division and specialization of labour, is universal amongst all social formations. The differences are in the application and interrelation of the fundamental principles.”
“Quite a lecture, so early in the morning” commented Ms Miss Reporter, “fascinating for our thinking listeners.”
“There must be a few of those,” uttered Mr Sir Orange optimistically.
“In any case, principles other than the division of labour and hierarchy make up the basics of social organisation,” continued Mr Sir Orange, “such as a biological principle and a principal of survival, but those are perhaps better suited for supper than breakfast.”
“Let’s get back to the superiority issue,” suggested Ms Miss Reporter. “What about the blue blood business?”
“You are born blue blooded or not,” explained Mr Sir Orange, "and if you are, you are automatically designated for leading positions. Just like chiefs in our territories are.”
“You mean,” noted Ms Miss Reporter, “that you don’t need to have qualifications or proven experience to get into the upper strata?”
“For the blue blooded all you need is the ancestral aristocratic heritage.”
“Does not sound democratic or sensible to me.”
“You are right on both accounts,” conceded Mr Sir Orange much to the astonishment of Ms Miss Reporter, “and so felt a great many people in countries that had blue blooded families. Scores of blue bloods were downright nutty, social misfits, perverts, merciless exploiters of privileges endowed to them or engaged in crime. Therefore the system of inherited superiority came under fire. A good number of countries did away with it, usually by killing off the aristocracy. But in other countries it survived exactly because it was much criticized. Blue blooded families realized they had to do something to retain and justify their privileged position. They made sure their children got the very best education and supported the schools that now became the providers of highly educated national elites. As a result a good number of blue bloods became highly qualified which in turn made people believe that the blue bloods had better genes after all…..”
“My dear Miss,” Mr Sir Orange replied, “First, let us be clear about what the NPaaFoD seeks to achieve. The NPaaFoD seeks to achieve a situation in which populations of different origin and culture can each go about their lives the way they like without discrimination or conflict; and in order to accomplish that we need a certain degree of regional autonomy.”
He paused to let his words sink in and after sufficient sinking in continued. “The NPaaFoD indeed subscribes to the principle that each is equal under the Law. The NPaaFoD, however, does not say that each one under the Law is the same. If such were the case we would not need a NPaaFoD.”
“I understand,” Ms Miss Reporter agreed. “But what do you mean by us, members of a community, not being the same?” she asked.
“Let me go back to the very first principles on which any organisation is based,” replied Mr Sir Orange. “Each extant society is governed by two basic principles. One is that of the division of labour and hence of differentiation and specialization. The other is that of hierarchy, meaning that members of any society occupy higher or lower positions in that society. This principle is about authority, control, power and dependency. These principles are interlocked, meaning, for example, that those in authority are different from those not in authority both by having different status and by doing different things. The combination of these two principles in one statement is the so-called Z-factor Law of Social Organisation. It reads:
All organizations are structured by the interrelated principles of the division of labour and the hierarchical order of its members.
Be it a family, football club, business small or large, or the state, this law always applies.”
“It is said,” ventured Ms Miss Reporter, “that traditional African communities are egalitarian. What about that?”
“It is a complex issue,” declared Mr Sir Orange. “The issue of division of labour does not require debate, it simply is universal also in sub-Sahara black Africa. It may be tied up with gender, or with ethnicity, religion, age, parentage, territorial origin, level of education; whatever it may be tied up with or not be tied up with: division of labour is there, from the smallest unit of society, the family, to the largest - the state itself. The notion of egalitarianism applies especially to authority and economics including rights on private property. There are societies that have an extremely simple material culture. Consequently there is little variation in the properties an individual has. Yet each individual has his/her own property and another does not have the right to take it away without consent of the owner. Such a society may be composed of bands or groups that have communal hunting or farming grounds, a territory so to speak. In this respect there might be communality within the group. But the group as a unit shall protect its territory against similar groups having territories by themselves. As far as authority is concerned: all groups have leaders, all groups have youngsters and elders, all groups have members enjoying more prestige than others. Hierarchical organisation, like the division and specialization of labour, is universal amongst all social formations. The differences are in the application and interrelation of the fundamental principles.”
“Quite a lecture, so early in the morning” commented Ms Miss Reporter, “fascinating for our thinking listeners.”
“There must be a few of those,” uttered Mr Sir Orange optimistically.
“In any case, principles other than the division of labour and hierarchy make up the basics of social organisation,” continued Mr Sir Orange, “such as a biological principle and a principal of survival, but those are perhaps better suited for supper than breakfast.”
“Let’s get back to the superiority issue,” suggested Ms Miss Reporter. “What about the blue blood business?”
“You are born blue blooded or not,” explained Mr Sir Orange, "and if you are, you are automatically designated for leading positions. Just like chiefs in our territories are.”
“You mean,” noted Ms Miss Reporter, “that you don’t need to have qualifications or proven experience to get into the upper strata?”
“For the blue blooded all you need is the ancestral aristocratic heritage.”
“Does not sound democratic or sensible to me.”
“You are right on both accounts,” conceded Mr Sir Orange much to the astonishment of Ms Miss Reporter, “and so felt a great many people in countries that had blue blooded families. Scores of blue bloods were downright nutty, social misfits, perverts, merciless exploiters of privileges endowed to them or engaged in crime. Therefore the system of inherited superiority came under fire. A good number of countries did away with it, usually by killing off the aristocracy. But in other countries it survived exactly because it was much criticized. Blue blooded families realized they had to do something to retain and justify their privileged position. They made sure their children got the very best education and supported the schools that now became the providers of highly educated national elites. As a result a good number of blue bloods became highly qualified which in turn made people believe that the blue bloods had better genes after all…..”
