What is Natural

The concept of building a society on natural structures has been the cliché of social critique since the beginning of time: it is the argument against democracy from kings, against femininity from patriarchs, against emancipation from slavers—against progress from conservatism. It is no surprise that each one of these arguments is broken down: there is simply no basis for any of these arguments being “natural.” Just as there is no science behind the natural flaws of a certain race, there is no science behind the submission of women, no science behind the superiority of kings… All such arguments based on nature are rejected, making evident that our understanding of what is natural is often nurtured into us through culture, structure, power, etc. Can we extrapolate from this? Does this imply that all arguments based on nature are just an illusion, taking what is nurtured into us as “natural”?

There is one that seemingly eludes our case—hierarchies. It appears to us that hierarchies are truly natural: we find them plentiful in nature and universal in human society (we see them in many mammals—lions, wolves, apes—and in many societies—ancient Greeks, hunter-gatherer tribes, Medieval, and modern societies). Beyond this, one can find many arguments to organize according to hierarchies, including assigning identity, prompting people to try harder (move up the ladder) to increase societal productivity, and ensuring stability.

Yet, there is one more thing that eludes our grasp of hierarchy: the power of structures and narratives. It is evident in the connotation of our language that there lies a hierarchy: stability over instability, reason over emotions, productivity over idleness… This natural hierarchy within our language serves as a testament to the extent to which hierarchies extend: it permeates our everyday reality to the extent that it generates it. The question then beckons: is hierarchy conceived as an observation of reality (nature), or is the conception of hierarchy what shapes reality itself?

There is no answer to this question; we have simply no proof, but it does not hinder our inquiry. As this conclusion only leads to an even more interesting question: why is it that most people throughout history conceive of hierarchy as natural and not the other way around?

The answer to this question will only lead to Lacan: hierarchy is precisely a point de capiton—a signifier totalizing all meanings not by the richness of meaning, but through its lack, its emptiness that allows us to assign it a meaning.

And it is precisely the concept of point de capiton that provides us with the perfect tool for analyzing current politics.