Thread by @assembleequally

hostilarchy (n) - a system of rule by people whose unreflected, reactionary, anxiety-based aggression has been normalized, especially through existing and pervasive ageism, sexism, racism, ableism, classism, colonialism and other forms of oppression

(Latin 'hostilia' = 'aggression' + Greek 'arkhia' = leadership, rule, government)

Hostilarchy can be mapped within other social hierarchies, such that 'hostilarchs' ignore or neglect their own e.g. gerontarchical, patriarchal, white-supremacist, ableist, etc. behaviour(s).

Hostilarchy operates through normative relations of domination, such that hostilarchs perceive themselves as (or feel they should be) the 'top', 'dominant', 'alpha', etc. in familial, sexual, political, economic and other social relationships or contexts

This perception of dominance is normative, but it is often post hoc justified or rationalized through further descriptive perceptions of how the world is, including e.g. that other people are stupid, inferior, or otherwise deficient and so less valuable or human

The root of hostilarchy is (mostly unexpressed) social anxiety. Due to this anxiety, hostilarchs (intentionally or not) take advantage of various privileged social 'paths of least resistance', and so cannot differentiate between their own hardships and perceived victimhood

Hostilarchy is context-dependent: a hostilararch is not necessarily in a high position within a hierarchy, but rather (consciously or not) upholds a given hierarchy through relations of domination, in turn through conditioned sufficiently reactionary aggression

Criteria for sufficiently reactionary aggression:
- aggression (verbal, physical, or otherwise) in response to a perceived threat is disproportional (i.e., not self-defensive)
- aggressive acts are 'downwards' within the context of existing hierarchies or relations of domination

Criteria for sufficiently reactionary aggression (cont.):
- through downwards aggression, the aggressor falsely perceives other persons as a real threat
- there was time to explicitly and self-critically ask whether the threat or 'threatening person' is perceived or real

Criteria for sufficiently reactionary aggression (cont.):
- the aggressor neglects to explicitly check their relative position with respect to the others within given hierarchies or relations of domination
- the aggressor is not open for (i.e. answer to) criticism

Given these criteria, there are innumerable cases of hostilarchy, due to innumerable cases of reactionary aggression. Importantly, most people have probably practiced hostilarchy in some form, and so contribute to it, but that is not sufficient to make them hostilarchs.

Hostilarchs practice hostilarchy consistently over time, due to their conditioned inability to reflect on their aggressive behaviour, due in turn to their (unexpressed) social anxiety. But that inability is thus socially conditioned, though it may be based in material conditions.

Hostilarchy, like all hierarchy, must be undrestood as a collective problem, not of individuals. Society's general focus on individuals (e.g. 'self-interest') hides that hierarchies and relations of domination take the general form of aggressor(s) over non-aggressor(s).

Thus, through relations of domination, hostilarchy transcends hierarchies, insofar as 'aggressors/non-aggressors' can be found across the full economic, political, and|or social (etc.) spectra. That is, wherever their (unexpressed) social anxiety creates perceived threats.

The aggressor/non-aggressor relation is not stable across individuals (or indeed identities or classes). An aggressor in one context can become the non-aggressor in another (and vice versa). Moreover, others may perceive a non-aggressor as the aggressor (and vice versa).

Salient here is the reactionary nature of the aggression, not that some form of aggression may be justified, nor that aggressors are always so. That means much of what hostilarchs do may be justifiable, which they can use (intentionally or not) to rationalize their aggression

Hostilarchy is most pervasive in concepts, especially (unexpressed) concepts of other people or imagined scenarios in which thoughts evoke aggression towards others. Conceptual aggression is the basis for verbal and physical aggression in hierarchies and relations of domination

That is, hostilarchal behaviour (verbal or physical) matches hostile thoughts, which are aggressive thoughts towards other people perceived as threats. While not all such thoughts are hostilarchal, social anxiety in aggressors and non-aggressors means they are not expressed

Thus society tends towards e.g. debate, 'shouting matches', politics, and other competitive forms of discourse that match the pervasive concepts of competition and self-interest, which are in turn the justifications for e.g. oppression, war, and other forms of structural violence

In this light, the concepts of competition and self-interest (i.e. people who concieve them) mistake anxiety|aggression for intentional behaviour. These concepts were developed before we understood the anxiety|aggression spectrum of behaviour, which is generally unintentional.

That understanding requires taking perspectives as a 'transdisciplinary' or 'social-ecological' approach that founds knowledge in being, including our thoughts, feelings, senses, words, etc. that are physical things underlying our concepts of each other, ourselves and nature.

General observations about hostilarchs:
- they hide (consciously or not) behind e.g. anonymity, existing power relations, laws, bureaucracy, or age
- they're a vocal minority within existing hierarchies and relations of domination (i.e. there are fewer 'dominant' people)

General observations about hostilarchs:
(cont.):
- they're fundamentally unwilling to treat or perceive others as cooperative equals, except within a given hierarchy or relation of domination as co-dominant persons
-- given self-interest and competition, co-domination is unstable

General observations about hostilarchs:
(cont.):
- they perceive e.g. feminism, racism, anti-ableism, and so equality, social justice, etc., as threats
- due to their anxiety, they are unaware of their aggression, or perceive their own aggressive behaviour as 'normal'

General observations about hostilarchs:
(cont.):
- due to anxiety, they cherry-pick other's claims, including in public discourse, scientific or philosophical literature, etc.
- they defer to likewise cherry-picked perceived authority
- they are unaware of their cherry-picking

TL;DR: Hostilarchy, based in social anxiety, is a pervasive, conditioned form of hierarchy that transcends other hierachies through existing relations of domination in the form of aggressor/non-aggressor -- and now that there's a word for it, we should talk about it.

Before listing a bibliography: @threadreaderapp unroll

A bibliography (of sorts)
[#People] #bellhooks #NancyFraser #SoranReader #JanetBiehl #MurrayBookchin #RobertMSapolsky #EmmanuelLevinas
[#Concepts] #Feminism #SocialEcology #SocialHierarchy #DialecticalNaturalism #chaos #anarchy #equality #AnarchaCommunism #PerspectiveTaking #need

(Sorry if these hashtags have existing accounts. Also, this bibliography is incomplete. I will be adding hashtags as I think of them.)