Abstract

The book Just Hierarchies: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World by Daniel A. Bell and Pei Wang aims to answer the following question: 'Should morally justifiable social hierarchies structure our social lives on an everyday basis, including our relations with loved ones?' Bell and Wang respond positively. In this article, I mainly focus on the relations between intimates, examining the arguments from the perspective of social egalitarianism and feminism. Bell and Wang argue that hierarchies involving shifting roles are justified, but I shall argue that the defence of hierarchy in intimate relations is not completely convincing. First, the authors mistake hierarchical societies for hierarchical organisations. I will explain why this conflation is detrimental to the defence of hierarchies. Second, the authors neglect to mention some of the significant moral wrongs perpetuated by hierarchical systems. A hierarchy such as a caste system not only fixes inferior and superior positions but also conveys demeaning messages to those who are lower in rank. In addition, we also need to consider the macro-background of specific interpersonal hierarchies to be able to make sense of the wrongs of intimate hierarchies. Third, the practical implications of the defence of intimate hierarchies are ambiguous. I argue that, ultimately, the authors are not able to defend what they set out to defend at the very beginning of the book.