If any one of us fully acted out our innate biological instincts, we'd rob, murder, or rape most anyone in our path. Why don't we? Have we reasoned our way to an agreed-upon self-regulative ethic? Are we just afraid of the law? Mostly not.
Rather, like a raging two-year-old without creed or reason, we reshape our instinctual desires to fit whatever social order we're born into. We absorb our groups' desires mimetically, and to the degree we don't, we're labeled a "misfit" or "sociopath" and socially punished accordingly.
What is this invisible order that regulates how we relate to everyone?
Over millennia, we develop tacit ways of relating to others in families, commerce, and communities. Certain behaviors induce feelings of shame or acclaim, outrage or awe, love or hate in any given group.
Behavior A = B emotional response.
As we mimic these patterns together, the strongest ones survive the relational chaos and encode as social norms & power structures.
As emerging relational order lends more stability within it than outside of it, our groups expand.
Relational patterns that enable procreation are the genesis for all order because they make group survival possible. Our most primitive ancestors enforced norms that protected the tribe's children well before the conception of coded law or individual rights. (Many of these norms were barbaric from our modern perspective. But if they hadn't held them, we wouldn't be reading this.)
As foundational relational order strengthens, new patterns become possible to support more people and social practices. Modern societies don't just do a better job of protecting children physically; they also shame those who emotionally abuse children even while the law allows it. Millennials venerate Mr. Rogers as a modern-day saint partially to bring about a kinder, more sophisticated relational order to future children.
(Here, it's important to note that conceptual order – beliefs, knowledge, technology, etc. - are the essential stabilizing and nourishing roots of relational order. Mr. Rogers’s influence is inseparable from his rooted faith in love over fear and imaginative use of a new technology called television.)
The more robust our relational order becomes, the more previously unthinkable relationships and kinds of people it can harbor.
Yet, as order grows more sophisticated, the essential aspects of traditional patterns don't matter less. They matter more. If they weaken and break, the whole house of cards built on top of them will collapse:
Without stable families, we can't reach or maintain stable communities.
Without stable communities, we can't reach or maintain stable countries.
A company, school, or friend group is only as stable as its foundational social order.
How many wealth or fame-seekers choke with regret on their deathbed for exchanging superficial status for lasting, loving relationships?
How many employees will continue to work for a demeaning, unreliable, and uncaring boss regardless of how well-paid they are?
How long will a homeless person or celebrity go on living without a single loving, human relationship?
"Tell me that you want the kind of things That money just can't buyI don't care too much for moneyMoney can't buy me love. – The Beatles
"What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love." — Fyodor Dostoyevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.
No amount of conceptual prowess – wealth, technology, or science – can prop up a loveless relational order for long.
When we think of "hierarchy" or "social norms," our minds go to the large, traditional structures we love to hate.
But it's important to recognize that every group necessarily has a relational order, from an old country club to the TikTok subculture.
The older the social order, the more cycles of relational chaos it's survived. Its relational patterns live on because they're highly resistant to change. So it's challenging to transform an old relational pattern, whether we're considering our love life or a country.
On the other hand, new companies, counter-cultures, and newly unshackled teenagers adapt quickly. As norms and power structures mimetically spread, weaker patterns get swept aside. The patterns that survive the initial, rapid cycle of relational chaos become foundational.
We all participate in the relational order of our world. Some of us have a strong affinity for it while others, the more relationally chaotic, participate reluctantly.
We participate as "players" when we readily engage with the signals (fashion, public achievement) and norms (a "nice person") to gain status as a leader or follower.
We participate as "enforcers" when we socially punish players who violate the power structure or norms. Enforcers use subtle and not-so-subtle shaming techniques to police acceptable group speech and behavior, gain participation in social rituals, and maintain the power structure (Watch any war movie or "Mean Girls" to see social enforcers in action.)
Our world's relational order is the water we swim in, but most people live their whole lives and never see it. We won't see it either unless we put in the effort it takes to map it.
The more precisely we map the relational orders we're part of, the better we'll play within it. More importantly, we'll gain a deeper understanding and appreciation for those groups of humans that are so different from our group of humans.
These diagnostic prompts can help you trace the relational order of your map:
-
As a first step, pick a social group to map: Perhaps your company, twitter following, friend group, church, or school. Got it?
-
It’s often easier to map relational norms first and then to outline the power structure. With your group in mind, consider the following:
- What phrases, words, or ideas are frowned on? What ideas or phrases are repeated by almost all members?
- What public behaviors bring shame? What public behaviors gain recognition?
- What do people wear to show they're in the group? What products or symbols do they display on social media or on their person?
- What recurring events would everyone hate to miss?
-
Which member(s) of the group exhibit all the elements above the most successfully? Alternatively, who are most people mimicking? (This is the top tier.)
-
How does the top tier show dominance? (Often, this looks like operating on the edge of group norms that other members wouldn't try and couldn't get away with while staying above the fray.)
-
What group enforces the dominance of the top tier on the players? (This is typically the second tier).
-
Finally, who are the players?
-
Now that you've mapped your group's relational order, can you spot which broader relational groups it’s a smaller part of?



