The Problem of Growth, Sociology and the Early Church

Jeff Vail says here that :

"If hierarchies gain any advantage in growing in relation to their peers (e.g. peer polity competition), or if they gain any advantage in 'doing it wrong' (e.g. abusing their component humans), then history shows very convincingly that they will do just these things."

My take on that is that the history of Christianity at least early Christianity shows a growing hierarchy not just not abusing but actively working to benefilt its constituent members and others.


Jeff has said elsewhere that for the rhizome (which he suggests is a practical alternative to hierarchy) to work :

".. Additionally, it is important to recognize the cultural programming that hierarchal systems provide, and to consciously reject and replace parts of this with a myth, taboo, and morality that supports rhizome and discourages hierarchy. Rules are inherently hierarchal—they must be enforced by a superior power, and are not appropriate for governing rhizome. However, normative standards—social norms, taboos, and values—are effective means of coordinating rhizome without resorting to hierarchy. For example, within the context of anthropological self-awareness, it would be considered “wrong” or “taboo” to have slaves, to be a lord of the manor, or to “own” more property than you can reasonably put to sustainable use. This wouldn’t be encoded in a set of laws and enforced by a ruling police power, but rather exist as the normative standard, compliance with which is the prerequisite for full participation in the network. .."

Many be religion is the answer but he is just to shy to say so.