I remember playing a game when I was young. I like to call it ‘King of the Hill’. It was about trying to be in a certain spot, generally an elevated spot such as the sofa in the living room or the highest spot on the jungle gym.
Everybody would try to be in this spot by pushing and pulling the other away and wrestling towards it.
Harmless play, in the beginning. That is how it always starts.
But there is always the moment when innocent playing becomes a game with winners and losers and someone takes the playing too seriously. Playing becomes a game with a clear objective: Be the king of the hill, no matter what…
And then someone gets hurt.
Depending on the age of the children playing, either the oldest or an adult, tells the children that they need to play according to rules so no one gets hurt.
So who gets to determine the rules? Either the collective or, the king of the hill of course!
And who is the King of the Hill? From a physical perspective, it is the strongest person who is able to push and pull the others away and can take the spot on the hill.
If the King of the HIll doesn’t make rules that others want to play by, the other children go somewhere else.
Playing alone is not really fun so it often happens that it’s a small group of children who are close friends who determine the rules. And they can choose to include or exclude the rest. They form a clan.
Now this is an analogy for something that has been going on for thousands of years since humankind started to change their lifestyle from nomad hunter and gatherers to stationary farming societies.
There was always someone, or more often a small group, that determined the rules. Those who didn’t want to play according to those rules moved elsewhere, creating their own hills and playing their own version of ‘king of the hill’.
And as humankind grew and more people started inhabiting the world, hills grew bigger and more hills got made because there were always some that wanted to play according to different rules.
Until we started to run out of land and there were no more places to build new hills. So it was inevitable that you were always part of someone’s hill and therefore had to abide by someone else’s rules. Over thousands of years, some hills got very big and the kings became very very powerful.
And this is how the world is today. but….
The game is only able to be played as long as there are players. It’s no fun to be king of the hill when there are no other players.
And if we don’t like the rules of the hill we’re playing on, the hard thing is to convince the king to change the rules. It is far easier just to go play somewhere else. But what if there is nowhere else to play because the all places are occupied by other hills where people are playing?
The moral of the story is that we empower the kings but we can take that power away just as easily as long as we can find a different hill to play on.
And this is the same with our current economy and society.
I’m tired of the rules and want to play on a different hill. I don’t need to be king. I just want to play in a way that no one gets hurt.
What I want to say with this story is that we need to try to understand why the world is the way it is. We can not blame the way people act because they act according to the rules that we created and agreed upon.
To make a better world, we need to think deeply about the rules and the desired outcome and find a place where we can play while not offending the rules of the hill that we are building our new hill upon.
If we manage to do that, maybe others will join our hill and the hills of the kings with the rules that we don’t like will become empty.
The children that end up alone on their hill at some point might realise that the game is more fun with different rules, and come down their hill and ask the other children if they can also play on their hill.
We live life by doing, making mistakes and learning from them. It’s all part of the process. It’s how we grow personally and as a species.
I was curious to learn if this analogy and model of explaining the structure and cause of society is original or if someone has used the analogy of ‘king of the hill’ before, so I asked ChatGPT: “ Please tell me if it’s original or if you know of similar story or concept. If so, please tell me the source”
It replied:
Your story is an original conceptualization, yet it touches on themes and allegories that have been explored in various ways in literature and sociology. The “King of the Hill” game as an analogy for power dynamics, societal structure, and governance is insightful.
The notion of vying for a position of power, establishing rules, and determining who gets to establish those rules can remind one of various philosophical and sociological concepts and theories. For instance:
- Thomas Hobbes and his social contract theory wherein people, in the state of nature, come together to establish a sovereign power to enforce rules and maintain order.
- George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” could be seen as somewhat conceptually parallel, especially in the establishment of power, setting of rules, and the eventual corrupting influence of such power.
- The concept of “exit, voice, and loyalty,” framed by Albert O. Hirschman, a political economist, might come to mind. His theory essentially lays out the options available to individuals dissatisfied with an organisation: they can exit (leave), voice (try to implement change), or remain loyal (do nothing and continue to comply).
It’s worth noting that the theme of finding a new place to create one’s own rules or society also reminds of the plot behind many dystopian or societal structuring stories. For example, the concept of establishing a new society with different rules is somewhat present in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and in many utopian/dystopian literary traditions.
Your analogy using the childhood game “King of the Hill” adds a fresh perspective to these themes and offers an easy-to-understand parallel to societal structures and dynamics. Your reflections on power, leadership, rule-setting, conformity, and resistance find resonance with a multitude of societal and political theories and narratives.
While the core themes have been explored in various formats, your specific analogy and articulation provide a distinct lens through which to view these concepts. This story could potentially be developed further, exploring the nuanced dynamics of power, governance, rebellion, and conformity in a society. It could delve deeper into the moral, ethical, and existential questions posed by such a societal structure, potentially exploring what happens when the “hills” are indeed all occupied and no new frontiers remain.
The end of ChatGPT output, below are my thoughts
I read George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ a long time ago in school (a time when I did not enjoy reading). I agree that it also relates to the concept of how power develops.
Brave New World has been on my ‘to-read list’ for a very long time. Maybe I should move it up.
With regards to Thomas Hobbes, I have not studied his work but have read up a bit about him when I encountered his name while reading ‘Humand Kind, a Hopeful History’ by Rutger Bregman.
I intuitively don’t agree with Hobbes’s concept of the ‘state of nature’ where he believed that in the natural state, human beings act on their own self-interest and seek to maximize their own welfare and that the state of nature is characterized by the “war of every man against every man,” a condition in which individual interests conflict, leading to violence and chaos.
I think the concept of ‘state of nature’ was learned and that by nature we humans have evolved to be social rather than individualistic. We are all initially egocentric and this generally changes over time when gathering more knowledge. But I don’t believe we are all born egoistic and that is a trait developed due to our current society and culture.
Egoistic or egocentric? Lets ask ChatGPT!
The difference between egoistic and egocentric.
“Egoistic” and “egocentric” are terms often used interchangeably, but they embody different concepts in psychology and philosophy.
Egoistic (or Egoism):
- Definition: Egoism refers to a doctrine where individuals act in their own self-interest or benefit. In psychology and ethics, it refers to prioritizing one’s own welfare, desires, and needs over others.
- In Philosophy: Different forms of egoism exist, such as ethical egoism (the belief that acting in one’s self-interest is morally right) and psychological egoism (the belief that people are motivated primarily by self-interest).
- In General Use: An egoistic person tends to put their own needs, desires, and well-being above others, potentially to the detriment of others around them.
Egocentric:
- Definition: Egocentrism refers to a person’s tendency to perceive the world primarily from their own perspective, having difficulty recognizing other points of view. It is not just about prioritizing one’s needs but having a limited understanding or consideration of other’s needs, perspectives, or feelings.
- In Developmental Psychology: Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, utilized the term to describe a developmental stage in children where they believe everyone sees the world as they do because they are not able to understand different perspectives.
- In General Use: An egocentric individual often believes that their own perspective is central and may disregard the views, feelings, and needs of others.
Comparing egoistic vs egocentric.
Focus vs. Perspective:
Egoistic: This revolves around a focus on self-interest and is often associated with selfishness. An egoistic person understands other’s needs but chooses to prioritize their own.
Egocentric: This relates more to perspective, wherein an egocentric person might not fully comprehend or acknowledge that other valid perspectives or needs exist outside of their own.
Morality vs. Development:
Egoistic: In moral and ethical discussions, egoism is often evaluated in terms of its ethical implications and various philosophical standings.
Egocentric: In developmental psychology, egocentrism is generally viewed as a natural developmental stage rather than a moral failing.
While both terms imply a focus on self, egoism is more associated with self-interest and selfishness, while egocentrism is related to limited perspective-taking and understanding of others’ viewpoints. Both present insightful pathways to understanding human behaviour and morality from different angles.