Are social structures led from the top, or pushed from the bottom?

[Anonymous No.14514931]

We pay a lot of attention to the CEO, or the President, or the Head Coach. But they wouldn't be in their positions if they didn't meet the criteria of the social structure they're a part of. That structure is determined by the implicit consent of the majority. So that sense they're participating in the same game as everyone else.

With this in mind, we can look at the behavior of social structures as a 'wisdom-of-the-crowd' effect, determined by no one in particular but simply the average of the whole. I think this is supported by some arguments in the Philosophy of Mind which shift emphasis from the individual to the group they're in to explain certain aspects of language and thought (ex. Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein 1955).

Is this a tenable position in contemporary sociology and social theory? What are the relevant issues and debates? Can anyone direct me to resources where I can learn more about this? FYI I have background in linguistics and philosophy.

Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.14514999]

"We have the world we deserve"

[Anonymous No.14516419]

i dont think wisdom of the crowd is precisely true. even in those situations a crowd is implicitely disproportionately determined by a smaller subset of individuals.

I am someone who thinks group behaviour is more top down than bottom up atleast in an institutional setting. obviously smaller groups i think there will be less top down effect.

the balance is dependent on the need for a structure to balance flexibility and stability. smaller groups engender a less severe top down effect because the number of moving parts is much smaller.

[Anonymous No.14516436]

>>14514931
>that .webm
Look at her. Serene, powerful, unphased by the barrage of filth accosting her.
This is femininity. This is real power.

[Anonymous No.14516450]

>>14516436
That'll be a man, roastie.

[Anonymous No.14516470]

>>14516450
>long hair
>man
not likely

[Anonymous No.14516480]

>>14516436
>>14516450
>>14516470
Isn't that Shiva?

[Anonymous No.14516493]

>>14514931
There are an extremely small fraction of the population with an out-sized influence on the social structure. Their influence depends on where people get their information, how likely they are to be skeptical of that information, how many "downstream" people with big audiences they can influence, and how they compare that information to their present knowledge. The way society is structured right now I think there are a good distribution of unknown people and known people who have this outsized effect. The best ideas win, no matter the social station of that person. As long as the ideas get out of course.

[Anonymous No.14516496]

>>14514931
Depends on the social structure. There's some interesting discussion on the power dynamics between large superstructural states and small war machines in D+G, nomadology and 1000 plateaus

[Anonymous No.14516501]

>>14516470
No way those shoulders and torso belong to a woman.

[Anonymous No.14516507]

>>14516480
Shiva has a male or female aspect.

[Anonymous No.14516538]

>>14514931
>That structure is determined by the implicit consent of the majority
This preposses the liberal notion sovereign individual. Here's another question: did this concept -- of the individual before society -- gain significance and functional reality from bottom-up or top-down processes?

[Anonymous No.14516552]

>>14516501
Maybe its all the female bodybuilder porn I'm enjoying now but long hair and muscular shoulders = diamonds.

[Anonymous No.14516590]

>>14516538
True liberalism which is at the root of modern liberal democracies, not this tranny pozzed rainbow shit, is a product of individuals wanting to live unrestrained virtuous lives free from government control. So bottom-up.

[Anonymous No.14516603]

>>14514931
Read The Foundation for Exploration

[Anonymous No.14516622]

>>14516436
good bait retard that's a statue

>>14514931
>behavior of social structures as a 'wisdom-of-the-crowd' effect
Yup. For all the billions of dollars spent in US elections, I have faith the people will always make a good choice. That is to say, the answer to your question is it's both to varying degrees depending on the organization. A corporate CEO may be restrained by a charter, like the executive of the nation is restrained by the constitution. In either case, he depends on his subordinates (employees/voters) existence, their working in good faith, and sometimes their self-sacrifice for his office to not only have social meaning but also simply to continue to exist as a entity.

[Anonymous No.14516625]

>>14516538
OP here. Why does my quote presuppose individual sovereignty? I was trying to make exactly the opposite point: that individuals are much less important than we usually suppose.

Don't read too much into my use of the word 'consent' --- 'Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es' -Marx

[Anonymous No.14516714]

>>14516436
Nope.
>>14516450
Yes.
>>14516470
Likely.
>>14516480
Yes.
>>14516501
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TijszAW8XOo
>>14516507
Are you confused with Ardhanarishvara?

[Anonymous No.14516736]

>>14516714
>Are you confused with Ardhanarishvara?
right yes