[2Wycked]

A man by the name of Robert Fuller, in 1997, coined the term "anti-rankism." He has inspired a movement that is completely rooted in Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory that aims to eliminate all "untoward" hierarchies, which seems to be most hierarchies. He would refer to it as "flattening" hierarchies, but he a strong proponent of democratizing institutions, where everybody will be given an equal voice and vote to decide the arc of an institution, be it a family, workplace, government and just about any institution that has a hierarchy.

He was a boy genius who eventually got his PhD in physics and was moved by the tumultuous 60's and gained a deep appreciation for identity-based movements. He traveled to India in the 1970's and was upset by the widespread hunger. Once Jimmy Carter got elected, he began to campaign for world leaders to end world hunger.

H was appointed one of the youngest presidents of Oberlin College. You may recall Oberlin College as the college in which a highly disputed - most likely false - accusation of KKK activity was advanced. The situation was needlessly maudlin and completely overblown, but that is completely in line with moral puritanism. As expected, leaders waxed concernedly about the situation and, even if it is false, that it still should spur discussions about how invidiously racist our society is and the still enduring superstructure of white power. In line with false accusations of hate crimes, it is line with the inability to distinguish between polars of good and evil.
Still, he eventually, as I pointed out, coined the term anti-rankism in the late 1990's.

He would go on to pen two books, one in 2003 and one in 2006, entitled, "Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank" and " All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity," respectively. He is regarded as the founder of the movement and the expert on the issues of hierarchy and how to create a society based on dignity instead of power differentials.

First off, before reviewing the theory and breaking it down, understand to have such an obsession with power does speak to narcissism. Movements like Critical Theory and anti-rankism are not just obsessed with power, but completely about power. It is one thing to note that black people are disadvantaged with respects to white people, but to obsess so completely over power means that is what you pursue, above all else - including equality. That is why feminists don't care about women achieving over men. I recall a much liked comment on some feminist's status in which some beta said that there needs to be at least two or three generations of women out-achieving men in order to there to be any sort of equality between the sexes. The comment was hailed as brilliant. Feminism, or just about any mainstream identity movement, isn't based out of a desire for equality, but is nothing but a naked power grab. That is how the psychology works, you can't 100% be for empowering group X, Y or Z and then expect to lay off the gas once you get closer to equality. It IS narcissistic to think that, just as an alcoholic or smoker claims to be able to quit whenever they desire.



The movement, as I have previously noted, is about flattening hierarchies. Fuller has stated that society is composed of somebodies and nobodies (notice he uses a dichotomy) and the nobodies are routinely subject to systemic abuse at the hands of somebodies. A rankist comment, behavior or anything to be deemed rankist is so because the actor is doing that solely because the affected parties' social status. As usual, he then dangerously focuses exclusively on power to explain the impetus for his definition of rankism. He produces the examples of racism - white superstructures oppressing blacks and sexism - male-dominated society oppressing women for men's benefit, etc. He even cites "childism" as a product of rankism. Already, we see major issues with his theory.

As a side note: check out this bizarre quiz: "Are You A "Childist?" Talk about loaded questions. See, the appropriate response is to ignore personal psychology & collective social narcissism and then profess a belief in the power of the state. TLP could break this quiz down.

That quiz aside, consider his problematic portrayal of issues. He talks about sexism as men using their rank in society in order to oppress women. I have limited access to his book online, but it seems he believes men use their privilege in order to erase women's identities by forcing them into the kitchen, forcing them to love their children and then deny them the right to work. As usual, this analysis ignores class and race, but what do you expect from this sort of man? He assumes male privilege because men do he thinks everybody should being doing - working at a job. He would probably assume you are self-actualizing through your work, but I will leave that aside. He assumes childcare is inherently demeaning unless it is unmoored from sex. He flattens relationships from two people contributing expertise to the relationship to one in which both parties are equally expendable.



The most damning problem is the biggest one that MRA's get stonewalled by: Fuller treats sexism as a one-way street that can only affect women and can only flow from men.

Oh, yeah, sure gender roles oppress men - come on every feminist knows the patriarchy hurts men, too! Duh, women can be sexist, too! Why is it so hard for people to understand we have already dealt with these issues?

The reason that anybody on the outside looking in, or feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, already sees the rotten, self-absorbed judgmentalism of the movement. Fuller ties the women's movement to sexism completely, cutting men off from being victims of sexism. They completely universalize what is often an individual issue. If a woman prefers to hire another woman over a man, that is a sexist act. Under Fuller's definition, sexism must be married to power in order for the sexism judgment to kick in. It is usually advanced that said approach exists in order to correct power imbalances. It isn't. It is about assuring they don't get judged by their own standards.

We saw this in commenter Sita on RoK on one of my posts. I asked her what a man can do in order to divest himself of misogyny. As expected, she said such a question reeked of superficial liberal approaches to cure hatred. She gave the expected speech of how privilege marks its members in order to exclude nonmembers. How does that help somebody cure themselves of hatred? Oh, wait - because Sita wasn't about change, but judgment. Plus, if she answered my question she would have an incredibly difficult time answering it because misogyny doesn't exist in every man's heart like she thinks male privilege would dictate.

As we see with anti-rankism, it bears little resemblance to the world at large. Protecting their egos is the number concern for the movement, as Fuller wholly endorses the idea that sexism only runs against women from men, but clearly endorses the idea that every idea has value, every perspective brings value - everybody deserves a voice, regardless of station.

Imagine going to an anti-rankist group with a copy of "The Myth Of Male Power." They would democratize the discussion, then when you talk about Farrell's theories I envision two situations developing: either a rank appeal to authority (It has already been clearly established that women are the victims of sexism) or you are violating the dignity of the women of the group (Women have dealt so long with misogyny, why would you deny them of their self-identification as a victim of sexism? It sounds to me like you are sexist and are seeking to define their self-identification.) You would quickly learn it isn't about self-expression, but a hierarchy based on "demolishing" hierarchy, which as we have seen in real life, puts white women firmly in control.

One of the most damning issues with rankism, that is also reflected in approaches to racism, sexism and the like, is the creation of dichotomies that are often false. Take racism. Racism has traditionally been thought of as done by whites to blacks. The problem that a diverse society brings is that conflict will emerge between races that are not black and white. Recall the Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman needed to be white in order for the moral puritanism of the Left to kick in - can't judge an oppressed Hispanic in the same manner! Of course, the trial wasn't about whether whites attack blacks because of their race - it was about whether Zimmerman attacked Martin because of his race. To moral puritans looking in, it was about good (the state) versus evil (racism). Recall the exasperated cries of left-wing moral puritans after the trial - remember God can never fail - it was the fault of the federal government (higher power) for not funding the prosecutors enough, the Media got it right (a higher power that didn't fail) and those damn jurors (Others who are racists - evil)). Remember, for the state & the media, it wasn't about George Zimmerman, it was about the media retaining power over decision-making. For the people emotionally invested, they did what authorities wanted.

This incessant universalizing of individual issues is not appropriate. To be sure, you clearly can't treat every particular instance of X, Y or Z to be individual, but the desire to universalize issues in order to split them into black and white categories of good and evil is the drumbeat of moral puritanism.



Anti-rankism reeks of this. The idea that one issue - power differentials - can be used to rid the world of rape, sexual harassment and racism is downright foolish, but completely off-base when it seeks to treat power differentials as simple dichotomies. His approach of Somebodies and Nobodies makes no sense. He talks a great game of what hierarchies are and how they work, but his simple dichotomy falls flat precisely because it does nothing to actually address why people in power - from his biased perspective - do what he considers to be "indignities." You can't just say X is in power and Y is not. What, does X hold ALL the cards? How likely is that situation? The problem is Fuller doesn't understand the nuances of power. He would most likely have a seriously bad reaction to reading the Game forum.

His dichotomies are also dangerous. Rape happens because of power differentials? Male privilege causes entitlement to women's bodies, right? This theory assumes everybody is some form of narcissist, sociopath or something. Always be careful with people who advance the argument rape is purely about power. In their mind, rape can happen at any time as it is based purely on exploiting power differences. Don't pass out in a person's bedroom who thinks this.

Still, consider moral puritanism as it progresses from the Church (God) and to the state. This is most reflective in struggles over gay marriage. Conservatives who oppose gay marriage are signaling that they value the state a bit more than a practicing Christian should, as the most important question is whether their parish performs or accepts gay marriages. Gay marriage advocates are looking for their god in the state. The fight centers over their preferred authority figure is acting in a way that reflects their worship. Conservatives can always fall back on God, but the aggression and vitriol from the Left on gay marriage signals the state is their final & ultimate god. I think this point merits its own post, so I will leave it.

That being said, anti-rankism is based on shifty grounds. There is much more going on than my piece lays out, but it is usual, as it butchers how power operates in order to further the egos of the proponents.