– What is meant by the German term Seilschaft / “rope team” in its social Darwinist sense?
– Rope teams in democratic structures: a new dimension of exclusion
—
How people seek an advantage collectively over others, groups or individuals >
What is meant by the German term Seilschaft / “rope team” in its social Darwinist sense?
A “Seilschaft” in its negative social Darwinist-social classist sense refers to a conditionally closed network of people who support and secure each other and strategically obtain positions in order to gain or maintain social advantages. The term is originally derived from mountaineering, where a group of climbers are connected by a rope to secure each other. In a figurative, derogative sense, however, it describes an elitist, often exclusive group that constitutes itself according to its own definitions or rules, which favors its own members and systematically excludes outsiders.
Such networks are typically found in politics, business, science and administration. They function according to the principle of closed access: those who are already part of the group or have close ties to it have a better chance of career advancement, lucrative contracts or positions of power. Those on the outside find it difficult to break into these circles or be successful in the same way. As a result, social inequalities become entrenched and structural barriers to social advancement are created. It is also not in the interests of a functioning democratic society to harbor such structures.
The social Darwinist aspect arises from the fact that the principle of “survival of the fittest” within such rope teams is often not determined by a transparent meaning of individual performance, but by belonging to a certain group or depending on a certain orientation and the like. Membership is often determined by common origin, political affiliation or economic interests. In this way, rope teams can preserve old power structures, seal themselves off from reforms and engage in a form of clientelism in which posts, privileges or economic advantages are shared out among themselves or existing structures are restructured for the purpose of taking unfair collective advantage.
However, these mechanisms extend not only to institutional and economic areas, but also to the interpersonal and social sphere. Cliques can exist in social groups and determine socio-cultural dynamics. Through mutual protection and the targeted exclusion of non-members, they can reinforce discriminatory structures and undermine common definitions of racism, sexism or ableism. Those who operate within such a group enjoy protection and access to resources, while those who do not fit the established criteria are systematically disadvantaged or excluded.
In this way, rope teams act as amplifiers of social inequality and can add new layers of exclusion and privilege to established mechanisms of discrimination. In social contexts in particular, this creates closed circles that not only control careers and economic advantages, but also shape the social order in their favor.
Historical examples include the networks of former GDR state security officials after reunification, the links between politics and large companies or elite circles in academia that systematically favor their members. In authoritarian regimes or corrupt states, too, rope teams/networks can be observed that divide up influence and resources among themselves and thus undermine democratic processes.
In the public debate, the term is often used to criticize hidden power structures and elitist networks. In democracies in particular, networks are considered problematic because they undermine meritocracy, prevent it or operate it according to questionable criteria and, for example, reserve political privileges for closed circles of power.
In summary, a rope team can be understood as a non-transparent, elitist structure that secures advantages through mutual favoritism, reinforces and instrumentalizes social barriers and cements and promotes societal inequalities.
—
In democratic structures, completely new forms of mechanisms of mutual networking emerge in order to take personal advantage by excluding and disadvantaging others, since here people do not act solely from a position of power, but the community can use and contribute its majority power in constellations in the form of a rope teamish approach. The interplay of places of rope team advantage-taking creates new, completely impenetrable possibilities for mergers on a discriminatory basis.
—
Rope teams in democratic structures: a new dimension of exclusion
Democratic societies give rise to special forms of rope teams, as they not only use traditional positions of power, but also the possibility of majority power as a means for groups to function externally and internally as a mechanism for networking and mutual advantage. While rope teams in authoritarian or elitist systems are typically organized from the top down, in democratic structures they use the principle of collective decision-making to secure strategic advantages and work with the relevant criteria that play a role in decision-making.
A key feature is that these networks are formed not only through traditional hierarchies, but through social dynamics, group interests and ideological affiliations. This creates new mechanisms of exclusion in which not “solely” individuals or minorities are disadvantaged, but entire social groups can be kept away from practiced power interests, attempts to exert influence and resource management according to arbitrary criteria and, for example, effects on the communal sphere cannot be prevented.
This interaction leads to new, often non-transparent structures of favoritism in order to pursue and enforce shared interests, which can be based on discriminatory foundations. Tight-knit rope team networks within democratic systems potentially create barriers that go beyond traditional forms of discrimination by combining institutional and social power resources. Closed networks emerge that present themselves to the outside world as democratic and inclusive, but in reality exclude, systematically and arbitrarily disadvantage specific groups.
—