The dynamics of social status will cause some problems in ways unique to the EA community, though my experience is that the same will be true for any organized group of people. I’ve never encountered any organized group that doesn’t encounter the general problem of navigating those dynamics coming at the expense of making progress to achieving shared goals. This problem of internal problems may be universal due to human nature, though how much of an adverse impact it has can be managed in organizations with:
1. A standard set of principles and protocols for resolving those problems as they arise. 2. Practices that incentivize all participants to stick to those processes with fidelity and integrity. 3. An overall culture in the organization that reinforces those norms.
All of that is easier cohesive organizations with a singular mission, a formal structure, and an institutional framework providing templates for setting that all up. The most obvious example would be a company with management who all share the same goals in a well-regulated industry. Other than in private companies, my experience is that is most true of membership-based non-profit organizations with a well-designed constitution for establishing and enforcing bylaws among its membership. I haven’t worked in the public sector, though I’m guessing some other effective altruists could speak to their experiences like that in some well-run government departments or agencies.
It’s much harder to set up such a system in coalitions with looser structures and multiple agendas that need to devise appropriate protocols and practices from whatever random position they’re starting from. I’ll use organized religions as an example to clarify the distinction between the two types of social organization. A single sect in a religion, like the Catholic or Presbyterian churches in Christianity, is more like a singular, formal institution. Meanwhile, the whole of Christianity as a religion is almost 2 billion people worldwide that it’s practically impossible to subscribe a single way of life to based on only one interpretation of the Bible.
Massive political parties, like the Democratic or Republican parties in the United States, are another obvious examples of organized institutions that lack a single, coherent culture or framework. Social movements are the other most common kind of less coherent coalitions like that. That includes effective altruism.
It might be appealing to think that unnecessary tension and confrontation should be minimized by a more formal set of enforceable norms. Yet such iron-clad frameworks can threaten to undermine the purpose of any social movement. The stricter any set of rules imposed on any community, the more its culture is at risk of decaying into a draconian status quo. What’s worse is the risk of that happening with the majority of the community members not realizing it before it’s too late. At its most extreme, the internal enforcement of such regressive standards on a movement by its own leadership reduces its community to a cult. The most extreme enforcement of such standards on movements by an an external authority looks like a totalitarian state.
This is the framework I use to think more clearly about how to broach problems caused by status dynamics, though unfortunately I don’t have any simple solutions to prescribe. The takeaways for effective altruists should be:
1. These problems are unavoidable and universal. There is no solution that can eliminate these problems or totally prevent them from arising. Any good solution looks like a robust framework for anticipating these problems and competently addressing them as they continually present themselves.
2. As tempting as it may be to institutionalize a rigid and static system to permanently minimize friction caused by status dynamics, that only works best for institutions that maintain the necessary functions of society as it currently exists. Social movements (including both political movements and intellectual movements) are meant to conduce changes in how society functions, so they’ll only succeed if such a system is devised to be more fluid and dynamic.
The dynamics of social status will cause some problems in ways unique to the EA community, though my experience is that the same will be true for any organized group of people. I’ve never encountered any organized group that doesn’t encounter the general problem of navigating those dynamics coming at the expense of making progress to achieving shared goals. This problem of internal problems may be universal due to human nature, though how much of an adverse impact it has can be managed in organizations with:
1. A standard set of principles and protocols for resolving those problems as they arise.
2. Practices that incentivize all participants to stick to those processes with fidelity and integrity.
3. An overall culture in the organization that reinforces those norms.
All of that is easier cohesive organizations with a singular mission, a formal structure, and an institutional framework providing templates for setting that all up. The most obvious example would be a company with management who all share the same goals in a well-regulated industry. Other than in private companies, my experience is that is most true of membership-based non-profit organizations with a well-designed constitution for establishing and enforcing bylaws among its membership. I haven’t worked in the public sector, though I’m guessing some other effective altruists could speak to their experiences like that in some well-run government departments or agencies.
It’s much harder to set up such a system in coalitions with looser structures and multiple agendas that need to devise appropriate protocols and practices from whatever random position they’re starting from. I’ll use organized religions as an example to clarify the distinction between the two types of social organization. A single sect in a religion, like the Catholic or Presbyterian churches in Christianity, is more like a singular, formal institution. Meanwhile, the whole of Christianity as a religion is almost 2 billion people worldwide that it’s practically impossible to subscribe a single way of life to based on only one interpretation of the Bible.
Massive political parties, like the Democratic or Republican parties in the United States, are another obvious examples of organized institutions that lack a single, coherent culture or framework. Social movements are the other most common kind of less coherent coalitions like that. That includes effective altruism.
It might be appealing to think that unnecessary tension and confrontation should be minimized by a more formal set of enforceable norms. Yet such iron-clad frameworks can threaten to undermine the purpose of any social movement. The stricter any set of rules imposed on any community, the more its culture is at risk of decaying into a draconian status quo. What’s worse is the risk of that happening with the majority of the community members not realizing it before it’s too late. At its most extreme, the internal enforcement of such regressive standards on a movement by its own leadership reduces its community to a cult. The most extreme enforcement of such standards on movements by an an external authority looks like a totalitarian state.
This is the framework I use to think more clearly about how to broach problems caused by status dynamics, though unfortunately I don’t have any simple solutions to prescribe. The takeaways for effective altruists should be:
1. These problems are unavoidable and universal. There is no solution that can eliminate these problems or totally prevent them from arising. Any good solution looks like a robust framework for anticipating these problems and competently addressing them as they continually present themselves.
2. As tempting as it may be to institutionalize a rigid and static system to permanently minimize friction caused by status dynamics, that only works best for institutions that maintain the necessary functions of society as it currently exists. Social movements (including both political movements and intellectual movements) are meant to conduce changes in how society functions, so they’ll only succeed if such a system is devised to be more fluid and dynamic.