Hierarchy replaces power measurement with transitive ordering of roles.

Evidence

The code responds to the first problem by accepting a hierarchically transitive ordering of the conditions of power. This permits any number of power-holders each to find out for certain who is the superordinate and who the subordinate and thus who has more power. Hierarchy avoids the need to measure power, and, especially, efforts to clarify unclear conditions. A power-code can react to the second problem of the fluctuation of power relationships with the premise of zero-sum conditions. This assumes that a given amount of power is available, so that every alteration involves a redistribution. Power accruing to one person must be taken from someone else. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 680

Categorization

• XREF: Stevens’s entire ethical world rests on knowing exactly who is superordinate and who subordinate in Darlington Hall — hierarchy as a complexity-reduction device that displaces moral judgment.
• QUESTION: Zero-sum premise — does the fluctuation problem here parallel Giddens’s account of how trust in abstract systems displaces facework commitments? Worth chasing.