Freemasonry is a peculiar system of hierarchies revealed in progressive degrees and structured in ranked offices.
Humility is baked into it all, with the candidate stripped of all worldly possessions, denied his sight, led around by a rope, and instructed to invest his trust in God.
Freedom? This isn’t for everybody, so one’s free will and accord is required. No one is born a Freemason, nor may one be made a Mason unless born free. No one is compelled, and there are ways out even during the degrees.
And that's what's peculiar and quite lovely about our Craft (Order?) that one can be high-ranking one year and not the next. Masonry teaches humility, but it also teaches egalitarianism (that's not socialism or communism BTW), which is the state human cultures have preferred over the long arch of history.
>>>No one is born a Freemason, nor may one be made a Mason unless born free. No one is >>>compelled, and there are ways out even during the degrees.
I've long been fascinated by how many of these 'outs' a man is given before he is made a Mason. How many times he is asked to give his consent. I wrote about it in some detail a few years ago:
Without some sort of structure and with every man for himself, we reduce ourselves to a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short." That structure comes from cooperation. Cooperation requires agreements, agreements require governance, governance requires hierarchy.
Due bounds
We can be totally free in nature. There is not much to recommend it.
We can be totally beholden to hierarchy and live completely subject to someone else's whim. History has shown that this is not a highly desirable state either.
Equally distant from ?
Somewhere between the two extremes of radical anarchy and despotism is a structure and hierarchy that is "just right." It has enough boundaries to allow men to be meaningfully free in a reasonably ordered society. Exactly where the "just right" falls is a question where good men can and do disagree. And will largely devolve to either differing first principles, or reactions to one extreme or the other.
In my opinion, the above applies unchanged whether we are talking about families, societies, governments, or fraternal organizations.
Thank you for this, it makes a great deal of sense and is very well put.
Certainly men (and women) have different comfort levels with freedom and control, and will thrive at different places along that spectrum. I imagine that too leads to disagreement as to what is 'just right.' What may be felt to be 'just right' to one might feel stifling to another.
Before I became a Mason, I joke that I "won a lottery"! In 1969, my birthdate popped up to be #37 in the military "Draft Lottery"! Ultimately, the NY Army Nat'l Guard put me thru their Empire State Military Academy OCS at West Point.
"Humility" allowed me take orders from Superior Officers. Hmmm... S. M. I. B.
Hierarchy versus freedom, is in my opinion the question of our day.
Hierarchy is essentially a vertically oriented power structure. The higher you are, the more power you have. I think this is the natural human organizational structure. Even in groups oriented to consensual decision making and communal distribution of wealth, there are always people who, due to experience, or eloquence some other quality, exert more authority than others. So, to my mind its clear hierarchy is a fact of life. The real questions are much more subtle.
This is the basic formula. Hierarchy is based in a social contract that is implicit. In essence that contract is this, “I will submit to authority (give up some agency/freedom) in exchange for membership in a group that facilitates the success of my life.” When the hierarchy does not produce a better life, then individuals will reassert their need for agency and the hierarchy collapses.
Another important element of the social contract is that the hierarchy will operate within the ethical framework of the society. Failure to do so will eventually be perceived as hypocrisy and again the hierarchy will collapse.
The only alternative is the hierarchy uses force to stay in power. This never ends well, ever.
Within Freemasonry we expect the ideals of our fraternity to be reflected in the product of our hierarchy. We also expect the leadership to be effective. That is a simple equation that Is very hard to achieve. Leaders must, in my opinion, possess equal measures of natural leadership and trained skill. I am not an advocate for the idea that anyone can be a leader with training. A manager can be created with training, but a leader is born and refined, like an artist.
The current challenge in Freemasonry, and its hierarchy, is very similar to the issue of guarding the West gate. If we do not guard the West gate against admitting men who are more ruffian than craftsmen, we fail. If we promote men thru the chairs without care we have the same problem. Our craft requires work; mechanically promoting men thru the line without evaluating their skills, providing morale, ethical, and spiritual development can result in leaders that are motivated by less the best masonic ideals. When that happens the hierarchy collapses, either partially or fully.
So yes, we need hierarchy, BUT it must be a healthy hierarchy that serves our fraternity toward making good men better, and subsequently improving our society in general.
This is a Western interpretation of hierarchy though, it is correct, but only considers hierarchy in Western capitalist/feudalistic sense of meaning. Many indigenous peoples, today and going back thousands of years had hierarchies that changed seasonally. A "chief" for winter, another for summer. Some societies only allowed the king to have rule over whatever was within his/her eyesight. Hierarchy is quite complex as a construct...sorry, I'm a cultural anthropologist... :-)
I agree with you, pretty strongly, that not everyone is suitable to leadership. And won't be, no matter how much leadership training they might receive.
The clearest proof of this, to my mind, is that lots and lots of people, millions and millions of people don't want to be put in positions of leadership. They are more comfortable and happier in places of followership. And that's OK, we shouldn't feel badly if someone doesn't want to step up and lead.
I know a Mason really well who is like this. He is a truly excellent asset for his Lodge, and a superb line officer. Except in the East. The one time he did move from West to East he completely collapsed. That's one of the reasons it bothers me when I see a Lodge pushing a man to take the East who clearly doesn't want it.
I don't like authority. It's just my personality. But I love being directed as part of a team, and being a faithful worker. That's easy to reconcile in a Lodge environment because the context is voluntary and temporary. You can be what you want to see in others when it's your turn to lead.
Fascinating question Brother! Anthropologists perspective: Hierarchies have existed in human societies since we started organising into social groups to survive. A primary reason we invented religion and how we eventually ran agrarian societies onwards to today. We see similar actions in other animal species (we often forget we too, are animals). Both matriarchal & patriarchal societies have hierarchical systems. This helps us normalize customs, rituals, behaviours, etc. What I find most interesting with Masonry is that we have a hierarchy, but it exists externally to the individual. It actually promotes egalitarianism. One may be a WM this year and Tyler the next, yet still hold prestige and rank within the Craft.
I think that in order to lead well, one must be able to follow. I think that to follow well, that one should understand how to lead.
The seasonal ebb and flow of responsibility and duty seems essential to a well rounded or balanced world view. Lest we become complacent or overzealous in our stations throughout life.
This was really thought provoking Brother. I’d love to see conversations like this for Lodge education.
I view our need for hierarchy less as a need for rigid structure and more as a flexible framework guided by heuristic rulesets. Order is essential to accomplish anything constructive. When a framework provides clear decision-making hierarchies and establishes accountability, a group can function efficiently. Heuristics enable us to act decisively without becoming bogged down in arguments over methodology, accelerating decision-making, allocating tasks appropriately, and ultimately providing the structure necessary to achieve goals.
That said, both hierarchy and heuristics can be harnessed for good or misused for harm. The same organized framework capable of raising monumental structures can also orchestrate their destruction through barbarous means. Many tragic acts throughout history were executed under the guise of simply following orders. Yet, it is equally true that much of what we recognize as civilization has flourished due to such organizational frameworks. Although the frameworks and heuristic rules evolve over time, the fundamental necessity remains: we require structured frameworks, whether to build or to destroy. It is easier to destroy as one than to build.
Freemasonry is a peculiar system of hierarchies revealed in progressive degrees and structured in ranked offices.
Humility is baked into it all, with the candidate stripped of all worldly possessions, denied his sight, led around by a rope, and instructed to invest his trust in God.
Freedom? This isn’t for everybody, so one’s free will and accord is required. No one is born a Freemason, nor may one be made a Mason unless born free. No one is compelled, and there are ways out even during the degrees.
Jay
And that's what's peculiar and quite lovely about our Craft (Order?) that one can be high-ranking one year and not the next. Masonry teaches humility, but it also teaches egalitarianism (that's not socialism or communism BTW), which is the state human cultures have preferred over the long arch of history.
>>>No one is born a Freemason, nor may one be made a Mason unless born free. No one is >>>compelled, and there are ways out even during the degrees.
I've long been fascinated by how many of these 'outs' a man is given before he is made a Mason. How many times he is asked to give his consent. I wrote about it in some detail a few years ago:
https://emeth.substack.com/p/consent-as-a-masonic-virtue
Ordo Ab Chao
Without some sort of structure and with every man for himself, we reduce ourselves to a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short." That structure comes from cooperation. Cooperation requires agreements, agreements require governance, governance requires hierarchy.
Due bounds
We can be totally free in nature. There is not much to recommend it.
We can be totally beholden to hierarchy and live completely subject to someone else's whim. History has shown that this is not a highly desirable state either.
Equally distant from ?
Somewhere between the two extremes of radical anarchy and despotism is a structure and hierarchy that is "just right." It has enough boundaries to allow men to be meaningfully free in a reasonably ordered society. Exactly where the "just right" falls is a question where good men can and do disagree. And will largely devolve to either differing first principles, or reactions to one extreme or the other.
In my opinion, the above applies unchanged whether we are talking about families, societies, governments, or fraternal organizations.
Somehow Masonry finds the balance between Rousseau and Hobbes. Impressive.
Thank you for this, it makes a great deal of sense and is very well put.
Certainly men (and women) have different comfort levels with freedom and control, and will thrive at different places along that spectrum. I imagine that too leads to disagreement as to what is 'just right.' What may be felt to be 'just right' to one might feel stifling to another.
Before I became a Mason, I joke that I "won a lottery"! In 1969, my birthdate popped up to be #37 in the military "Draft Lottery"! Ultimately, the NY Army Nat'l Guard put me thru their Empire State Military Academy OCS at West Point.
"Humility" allowed me take orders from Superior Officers. Hmmm... S. M. I. B.
Thank you Brother, for your service. Not sure that was a good lottery to win!
Hierarchy versus freedom, is in my opinion the question of our day.
Hierarchy is essentially a vertically oriented power structure. The higher you are, the more power you have. I think this is the natural human organizational structure. Even in groups oriented to consensual decision making and communal distribution of wealth, there are always people who, due to experience, or eloquence some other quality, exert more authority than others. So, to my mind its clear hierarchy is a fact of life. The real questions are much more subtle.
This is the basic formula. Hierarchy is based in a social contract that is implicit. In essence that contract is this, “I will submit to authority (give up some agency/freedom) in exchange for membership in a group that facilitates the success of my life.” When the hierarchy does not produce a better life, then individuals will reassert their need for agency and the hierarchy collapses.
Another important element of the social contract is that the hierarchy will operate within the ethical framework of the society. Failure to do so will eventually be perceived as hypocrisy and again the hierarchy will collapse.
The only alternative is the hierarchy uses force to stay in power. This never ends well, ever.
Within Freemasonry we expect the ideals of our fraternity to be reflected in the product of our hierarchy. We also expect the leadership to be effective. That is a simple equation that Is very hard to achieve. Leaders must, in my opinion, possess equal measures of natural leadership and trained skill. I am not an advocate for the idea that anyone can be a leader with training. A manager can be created with training, but a leader is born and refined, like an artist.
The current challenge in Freemasonry, and its hierarchy, is very similar to the issue of guarding the West gate. If we do not guard the West gate against admitting men who are more ruffian than craftsmen, we fail. If we promote men thru the chairs without care we have the same problem. Our craft requires work; mechanically promoting men thru the line without evaluating their skills, providing morale, ethical, and spiritual development can result in leaders that are motivated by less the best masonic ideals. When that happens the hierarchy collapses, either partially or fully.
So yes, we need hierarchy, BUT it must be a healthy hierarchy that serves our fraternity toward making good men better, and subsequently improving our society in general.
This is a Western interpretation of hierarchy though, it is correct, but only considers hierarchy in Western capitalist/feudalistic sense of meaning. Many indigenous peoples, today and going back thousands of years had hierarchies that changed seasonally. A "chief" for winter, another for summer. Some societies only allowed the king to have rule over whatever was within his/her eyesight. Hierarchy is quite complex as a construct...sorry, I'm a cultural anthropologist... :-)
I agree with you, pretty strongly, that not everyone is suitable to leadership. And won't be, no matter how much leadership training they might receive.
The clearest proof of this, to my mind, is that lots and lots of people, millions and millions of people don't want to be put in positions of leadership. They are more comfortable and happier in places of followership. And that's OK, we shouldn't feel badly if someone doesn't want to step up and lead.
I know a Mason really well who is like this. He is a truly excellent asset for his Lodge, and a superb line officer. Except in the East. The one time he did move from West to East he completely collapsed. That's one of the reasons it bothers me when I see a Lodge pushing a man to take the East who clearly doesn't want it.
I don't like authority. It's just my personality. But I love being directed as part of a team, and being a faithful worker. That's easy to reconcile in a Lodge environment because the context is voluntary and temporary. You can be what you want to see in others when it's your turn to lead.
Yeah, I'm like you. I buck authority. But, I too really enjoy my time working together with the guys of the Lodge.
Fascinating question Brother! Anthropologists perspective: Hierarchies have existed in human societies since we started organising into social groups to survive. A primary reason we invented religion and how we eventually ran agrarian societies onwards to today. We see similar actions in other animal species (we often forget we too, are animals). Both matriarchal & patriarchal societies have hierarchical systems. This helps us normalize customs, rituals, behaviours, etc. What I find most interesting with Masonry is that we have a hierarchy, but it exists externally to the individual. It actually promotes egalitarianism. One may be a WM this year and Tyler the next, yet still hold prestige and rank within the Craft.
Thank you Brother. I'm glad that you enjoyed the topic, and I appreciated having the opportunity to read your perspectives on it!
I think that in order to lead well, one must be able to follow. I think that to follow well, that one should understand how to lead.
The seasonal ebb and flow of responsibility and duty seems essential to a well rounded or balanced world view. Lest we become complacent or overzealous in our stations throughout life.
This was really thought provoking Brother. I’d love to see conversations like this for Lodge education.
I view our need for hierarchy less as a need for rigid structure and more as a flexible framework guided by heuristic rulesets. Order is essential to accomplish anything constructive. When a framework provides clear decision-making hierarchies and establishes accountability, a group can function efficiently. Heuristics enable us to act decisively without becoming bogged down in arguments over methodology, accelerating decision-making, allocating tasks appropriately, and ultimately providing the structure necessary to achieve goals.
That said, both hierarchy and heuristics can be harnessed for good or misused for harm. The same organized framework capable of raising monumental structures can also orchestrate their destruction through barbarous means. Many tragic acts throughout history were executed under the guise of simply following orders. Yet, it is equally true that much of what we recognize as civilization has flourished due to such organizational frameworks. Although the frameworks and heuristic rules evolve over time, the fundamental necessity remains: we require structured frameworks, whether to build or to destroy. It is easier to destroy as one than to build.