Daniel Bell’s Just Hierarchy: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World (co-written with Wang Pei) explores the role of hierarchies in human societies, arguing that not all forms of hierarchy are inherently unjust or oppressive. Bell and Wang contend that hierarchies can be ethically justified if they are grounded in principles of fairness, merit, and functional necessity. The book sparked considerable debate among scholars and critics because it challenged modern egalitarian ideals by examining the importance of context and cultural values in assessing social arrangements.
Daniel Bell, a former colleague at the National University of Singapore, once told me that the Daniel Bell of Harvard -- famous for his book Post-Industrial Society -- wrote to him saying that he was receiving undeserved congratulatory emails for the writings of his namesake. The younger Daniel Bell is a Canadian political scientist, now based in China who made a name for himself for writing many interesting, and thus controversial, things on China. Trained in political philosophy at Oxford, Daniel Bell taught at the National University of Singapore during my time there.
The inspiration for the title of my op-ed today came from their book. Bell and Wang offer a critique of Western liberalism where a young person addresses an older man by his first name, among other things compared to many Asian societies where a young person addresses his or her elder relative by some honorific such as “uncle” etc. This seems to be a trivial example, but it reveals many interesting things about a society.
My point is not so much the positionalities in society but to make a point that some hierarchies are justified. The challenge is how do we create justified hierarchies and make society accept that.
During my student days I used to play cricket, and I was pretty good at it (I think). As a young lecturer I played for the Dhaka University teacher’s eleven and in an important match against the diplomatic corps of the Commonwealth countries (which included Britain, Australia, NZ etc) I had the distinction of scoring the highest run -- a mere 36 or 37 -- and taking five wickets with my leg-spin. But would that make me comparable to Shakib Al Hasan or Mehidy Hasan Miraz (both all-rounders)? Definitely not. They are superstars, and my cricket career declined as I pursued graduate education. I continued to play cricket in Canada and the US and later as a university lecturer in Singapore. But the point is not crowing about my curricular vitae in cricket.
The point is that in cricket or in any other sport you can generally identify who is better or worse by some measurable criteria -- number of wickets, number of runs, etc. But it is difficult to rank academics so easily. In Bangladesh, once such ranking was made by academic results in the university as to who stood first in the class and other things. Under the letter grades system, such ranking makes less sense now. Yet, we rank academics and academic institutions by reputations, number of publications, citations, and so on. In all these Daniel Bell (not the Harvard doyen, but the one based in China) is well recognized.
Many young people defend their critique of hierarchy as they seek to reform a society where multiple hierarchies create a culture of discrimination and nurture an elitist society
The point is that the academic world is a hierarchical world. And mostly that hierarchy is justifiable if it is merit based. Pilots earn more than cabin crew and enjoy higher status which can be justified by their differential functional roles and skills set. Bell and Wang argue that hierarchies are inevitable in societies due to differences in age, expertise, and societal roles. However, hierarchies must be scrutinized to ensure they promote justice and social well-being.
The authors highlight cultural differences in how hierarchies are perceived. In East Asian traditions, hierarchical relationships (eg parent-child, ruler-subject) are often seen as natural and even beneficial when balanced with reciprocal obligations. The authors discuss China’s meritocratic political system, where leaders are selected based on competence rather than purely democratic processes. They argue that this system can be justified if it delivers good governance and accountability.
Bell and Wang address hierarchies within families, asserting that they can function justly if guided by mutual care and respect, such as prioritizing the elderly’s wisdom and the youth’s needs. In gender relations, hierarchy becomes controversial but they deal it with great care. The book even examines international hierarchies, suggesting that power asymmetries between nations can sometimes lead to stability and cooperation, provided they are not exploitative.
The authors critique extreme egalitarianism for ignoring the functional roles of hierarchies and the complexities of social relationships. For Bell and Wang, a hierarchy is just if it is: Open to revision and critique, based on merit, or functional necessity and guided by ethical principles that ensure fairness and mutual benefit.
In the Bangladesh context today, many young people defend their critique of hierarchy as they seek to reform a society where multiple hierarchies create a culture of discrimination and nurture an elitist society.
The movement is surely laudable because, in essence, the younger people are right. But what is needed is a careful and critical distinction between justified and unjustified hierarchies. Bell and Wang argued that flattening hierarchies indiscriminately may lead to inefficiency and disorder, a point that must not go unheeded.
Habibul Haque Khondker is a sociologist and columnist.
