Doug Pugh

Times are changing, pecking orders evolving, but the chickens aren’t pleased. After all, they take pride in being the inspiration for this universally applicable ranking measure.

Ranked positions in all species have existed since their evolution, but it was chickens who gave it its name, recognizing that it provided stability and sustainability to the flock.

But times are changing. No longer are pecking orders limited to the old measures of rank progressions: the fairest of them all, the tallest, the fastest, the smartest, the most nimble in the tight squeeze.

Pecking orders are no longer limited to who is strongest, who can jump the highest, or who has the latest weave in what is being woven.

Stan Kroenke recently picked up another 937,000 acres of land, bringing his total ownership to 2.7 million acres. This puts Stan at the top of the list of private landowners in the United States. The top 100 members of this exclusive club are found in The Land Report’s latest listing.

Somewhere is the biggest farm, somewhere, the largest forest, the deepest mine, the most spacious mansion, the largest quarry – if it’s a limestone one, I know where that is!

But these listings aren’t pecking orders; they’re rankings of relative size unrelated to flock security or sustainability. To be a pecking order, the top of a order has to have a measure of responsibility for and control over those on lower levels.

The essence of that control is respect, not comparison.

Here’s an example of an emerging pecking order form:

Picture this: you are walking along a pleasant path on a bright, sunny day; the birds are singing; the flowers are in bloom. A man is approaching from the opposite direction. As you come within hearing distance and eye contact, you extend a simple greeting: “Good Morning, sir! What a fine day it is.”

But the man makes no reply. The gap narrows; only silence there as you pass. Was that a smirk you saw?

Setting aside the possibility that the person is deaf, ill, or depressed, is there a form of pecking order at work here? Does the muted passer believe he is exercising a form of control with his rudeness?

If so, does it emanate from a pecking order of his own formation, one where his position at the top is based entirely on his limited sense of value and morality?

Now consider this:

A mother of three, a smiling example of naivety and Good, moved along a path of peaceful resistance, innocently engaged, she believed, in protecting others’ freedoms.

But some would say she was an distracting silliness. After all, if this really was a serious matter, wouldn’t the CEOs of major corporations, the heads of national law firms, and the Deans of colleges be there with her or send representatives?

None is there.

Clothed only in the indications of common citizenship, she extended a greeting to an approaching masked officer dressed like a cross between a Salvadoran prison guard and a French resistance fighter.

“That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you,” this citizen simple said.

Poor dear, she had no idea how much danger she was in or that those words would be her last.

Nor did we.

The approaching officer was accompanied by other similarly costumed, some of whom were swearing and issuing conflicting orders; actions that supported the approaching officer’s conception that he occupied a position not only allowing him to ignore her greeting but to destroy her.

What pecking order would allow such a reaction other than one based on a self-centered morality that placed him beyond the accountability of his own humanity?

He was a bad bird.

If you think I’m being disrespectful in my description of the shooter’s attire, consider this: the uniformed officers of our top law enforcement agency–the Michigan State Police–wear neckties. Detectives there wear suits.

Both honor their accountability by not hiding their identity.

Pecking orders are designed to promote flock stability and sustainability based on respect.

James Madison, a father of our constitution cautioned us to do the same, “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and then oblige it to control itself.”

We have work to do. The chickens are not impressed.