Self-rule of Human Society

Human society, in its most basic sense, is a conglomerate of naturally formed ethnic units struggling for survival. Each such unit self-organizes according to its own laws, developed during this struggle. Success in this struggle depends on the effectiveness of the adopted laws. Humans have inherited the hierarchical principle of self-organization from the animal kingdom, and this principle must be present in every ethnic unit in addition to human laws, because observations indicate that the phenomenon of hierarchy is universal:

Life as a bios is a hierarchical structure – from molecules, cells, simple organisms, and up to mammals and Homo Sapiens. Astronomical bodies in space are organized into hierarchical structures – metagalaxies, galaxies, stars, and planetary systems. Every manifested form is a phenomenon of hierarchy, and manifestation as such is possible insofar as hierarchy is possible [BUTUZOV GLEB. 2021, 16].

L.N. Vasilyeva echoes this idea when she writes that social existence is a continuation of natural existence, and that each person lives by its laws. Based on this, she draws the following logical conclusion:

Scientific inquiry, therefore, consists of understanding these laws. In this sense, we come closer to perceiving the fact that existence is hierarchical, has a history, and is in a process of constant formation, where complexity gives way to simplicity. To what extent, in the process of scientific knowledge, we come closer to understanding this complexity is a crucial question of epistemology (VASILYEVA L.N.)

Both quotes speak of hierarchy, which ensures the stability of any complex structure. Unfortunately, human society today, if extended to Europe, exhibits instability, as evidenced by the devastating wars that began after the French Revolution. The path to such human development was paved by the Enlightenment, which conceived of social existence as independent of the laws of nature. In particular, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that universal equality was the natural state of humans, not presuming the possibility of an evolution from animal society to a human one. He wisely reinterpreted Thomas Hobbes's theory of the social contract, which stipulated the necessity of moral obligations of those in power to their subjects, and of parents to their children. In return, children should love and respect their parents, and subjects should love and respect the authorities more than ordinary members of society. Rousseau, in turn, advanced the idea of popular sovereignty. This idea shaped the sentiments of a certain segment of educated Europeans and fueled the French Revolution. It was this understanding of equality in the absolute sense that developed the liberal humanism that now reigns in the Western world. Ensuring global stability became the imperative of the times, leading to the belief that it was possible after Ilya Prigogine studied the causes of instability using physics as an example. He founded a philosophy of instability, beginning with the following considerations:

First, let's ask ourselves: why is instability being discussed in natural science today, when determinism previously dominated? The idea of instability not only theoretically supplanted determinism in a certain sense but also allowed human activity to be included in the field of natural science, thus enabling a more complete integration of humans into nature. Accordingly, instability, unpredictability, and, ultimately, time as an essential variable, have now come to play a significant role in overcoming the disconnect that has always existed between social research and the natural sciences [PRIGOGINE .I. 1991]

As a follower of Prigogine, Mrs Vasilyeva believes that modern scientific paradigms are symbolic representations of the world. The fractal category, introduced by Benoit Mandelbrot, is such a paradigm, as it reflects the structural features of many natural systems. This term characterizes a structure composed of parts similar to the figure itself; thus, in a certain sense, a hierarchical structure. In such a structure, each part functions independently of the others, but in harmony with the whole, in accordance with the idea adopted for its construction. Moreover, for the stability of a complex system, each element of its structure is equally important and valuable. The idea of the great importance of small elements goes back centuries. Poet George Herbert included it in a 1640 collection of aphorisms as "For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost, for want of a horse the rider is lost."

The fractal principle is a manifestation of necessary, but no more than sufficient, freedom in any design. In particular, the human body, river systems, and much else, including, to a certain extent, the cosmos, are constructed according to the fractal principle. The fractal principle is all-encompassing in the physical world, and the spiritual world should be created according to the same principle, meaning it can be applied to any creative work. We will proceed from this, considering the Universe an act of creativity, and observe the facts of similarity within it, like the idea of a fractal, in various phenomena of the physical and spiritual worlds.

Any complex structure exhibits both hierarchy and autonomy among its constituent elements, imparting a networked nature. In general, human society must have a three-dimensional form—vertically hierarchical and horizontally networked, united by a single idea that underpins both the overall structure and its individual elements. Based on this, we begin our search for the necessary principles for constructing human society by studying the organization of the animal kingdom, from which it historically evolved. Relationships between people evolved as a result of the behavior of herds of animals, where hierarchy reigns. Moreover, collective struggle exists among animals, similar to the modern struggle between political parties [HARARI Yu.N. 2016,: 40]. The development of interhuman relations was influenced by factors absent from the animal kingdom. Under the influence of these factors, humans are fundamentally different from animals. Fukuyama sees this difference in humans' desire to be creatures with a certain dignity. He views dignity as "the first glimmer of freedom" [FRANCIS UKUYAMA. 2004: 16], that is, it is a response to relationships between people. Consequently, when comparing the organization of human society and the animal world, one should abstract from the phenomenon of dignity, but the phenomenon of freedom is present in the animal world, although it is structured hierarchically in accordance with the fractal principle. Nature is conditioned by the hierarchy of relationships between animals. Hierarchy is a fundamental principle of nature, which must be modernized by human qualities absent in animals. Hierarchy in the form of a fractal must be present in human society and reflect its vertical structuring.

The principle of hierarchy in interpersonal relationships is evident in the teachings of the Chinese thinker Kong Fuji (551-470 BC), better known as Confucius. His moral teaching is based on the principle of ren—a special kind of humanity, structured by the law of justice and understood according to the responsibilities of elders and juniors in family and society in a hierarchical order: between prince and retinue, husband and wife, father and son, elder and younger brother, and between friends. Aristotle also thought similarly, writing about proportional justice, which is only sometimes equal:

A father can repudiate his son if he is wicked, but a son cannot repudiate his father, because he owes him more than he can repay, especially existence. In unequal relations, it is right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the superior more than the superior loves the inferior: wives, children, and subjects, should have more love for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them. In a good marriage, "the man rules following his worth, and in those matters in which a man should rule, but the matters that befit a woman he hands over to her" [RUSSELL BERTRAND. 1995: 157).