The horizontality of society is a collective illusion

Since the early days of the web, and even more so with the advent of social media, there has been widespread talk of the promise of a horizontal world, free from traditional hierarchies, where speech would flow freely and whose foundations would be trust and recognition. Everyone would be able to speak out, be heard, influence and weigh in on public or internal debates, without any authority filtering or organizing the exchanges. The web, and then social networks, would have achieved what decades of sociology and democratic demands had failed to achieve: equal access to visibility and influence, even authority.

This promise, which initially resembled a technological utopia, gradually became a cultural certainty. It was seen as proof of a historic shift to a society that was finally becoming conversational, with information circulating among peers and the figure of the “center” dissolving into networks (The Cluetrain Manifesto). But this belief, as appealing as it may be, is based on a profound confusion between the opening of channels and the actual distribution of power.

For while digital technology has undeniably broken down certain barriers, it has not transformed the hierarchical nature of social relationships or changed the balance of legitimacy: some speak, others are listened to, but the ability to be heard remains unevenly distributed.

In short:

• Verticality is a human constant, spontaneously recreated in any group in the form of a hierarchy based on various criteria such as competence or personality.
• This tendency to organize a hierarchical order responds to a collective need to reduce complexity and uncertainty.
• Participatory approaches in business only exist if the authority allows them and creates the conditions for their acceptance.
• The idea of a completely horizontal society is unrealistic and could be counterproductive by removing benchmarks and responsibilities.
• The challenge is not to eliminate verticality, but to make it more flexible and reciprocal in exchanges between hierarchical levels.

The return of verticality in a supposedly flat world

The supposed horizontality of the web actually conceals a new verticality, often more insidious than the one it replaced. The hierarchies of yesterday, such as status, position, and titles, have been replaced by others: those of visibility, algorithm-based reputation, and attention. The digital society has not freed itself from power structures; it has even made them more opaque, diffuse, and difficult to challenge.

Platforms do not organize a neutral space for expression but build a new order for their own benefit. This order is vertical because it is based on asymmetrical distribution mechanisms: some content is promoted and other content is relegated, some profiles are amplified and others are made invisible. And this distribution of speech, which is nothing more than a distribution of power, is not the result of a reasoned decision that could potentially be challenged, but rather the result of a ranking and promotion system whose logic is beyond the understanding of most of those who participate in it.

Just because the space seems open does not mean that it is free of hierarchy, and the more free speech is, the more its reach depends on an infrastructure that is not. Recognition is no longer achieved through function or position, but through interaction, mastery of digital codes, and the ability to exist in the eyes of algorithms. This is a skill that is far from universal, requiring time, resources, and even a certain amount of know-how. It is becoming the preserve of a kind of digital elite that knows how to play by the rules of a game that is presented as collective but is fundamentally unequal, and where form often takes precedence over substance.

The illusion of participatory horizontality does not erase verticality, but disguises it. It creates the illusion of symmetry in exchange, when in fact everything in the design and logic of these platforms tends to recreate pyramidal power structures. The “top” and the “bottom” have simply changed faces: institutions no longer control speech, but platforms distribute and monetize it.

In business: from social network to hierarchical mirror

The corporate world has experienced the same disillusionment, barely mitigated by a few years of somewhat naive enthusiasm. The idea that an internal social network would encourage freer speech, abolish hierarchies, and facilitate the flow of information seemed almost obvious. The promoters of collaboration promised a horizontal space where everyone could contribute, exchange ideas, and innovate on an equal footing with others.

But you can’t fight nature. Hierarchies have not disappeared, but have shifted within these supposedly horizontal environments. The most visible are not those with the most relevant ideas, but those who know how to make themselves visible or whose hierarchical position ensures a captive audience from the outset. The manager remains the manager, even on a corporate social network, and the silence of the leader is perceived as an implicit instruction.

In theory, anyone can speak, but in practice, not everyone can afford to be heard. Speaking out remains a socially risky act, filtered by power relations (Why employee silence is management’s biggest failure). The tools have changed, but the structure remains, and sometimes the verticality is even reinforced: collaborative tools can become spaces for observation, measurement, and evaluation. The promise of freedom of expression becomes an instrument of control, not out of malice but simply as a result of the structure: any digital space where speech can be observed becomes a hierarchical space once again.

This is a problem that companies face on a daily basis: they want to encourage participation, but within frameworks that continue to perpetuate status-based logic. Horizontality is not a question of tools but of culture, and as long as recognition remains conditional on position rather than contribution, no network will be able to reverse this logic.

From illusion to lucidity

It would be too simplistic to see this as deliberate manipulation. The illusion of horizontality is not an organized deception but the product of our own desire for equality. We wanted to believe that technology could correct power imbalances, that it could redistribute speech in the same way that bandwidth is redistributed. But speech is not a social act that takes place in a context where authority and legitimacy matter.

What digital technology has succeeded in doing is making aspirations for equality visible, but not in realizing them. It has shown how much we value the idea of a common space where participation is free, but it has also revealed the strength of vertical logics: prestige, status, recognition, and quite simply power.

Recognizing this verticality does not mean renouncing all forms of horizontality, but simply that it can only exist if it is intentionally constructed, supported by practices, rules, and cultures of trust. Horizontality is not provided by technology, but is achieved through behavior.

Social networks, whether internal or public, are therefore neither the culprits nor the saviors. Rather, they are revelators that show the persistence of power structures in new forms. The web has led us to believe that we are speaking as equals, but it reminds us every day that speech remains a vertical exercise.

Because, ultimately, verticality is not an institutional invention: it is a human constant. As soon as a group forms, it spontaneously reinvents a hierarchy, regardless of whether it is based on competence, trust, decision-making ability, or simply the personality of those who impose themselves. This tendency is not a flaw but a collective survival reflex: a way of organizing complexity and reducing uncertainty. Crozier observed this in organizations, Elias in social interdependencies, and even social psychologists have confirmed it: left to their own devices, individuals recreate order. It is therefore not verticality that must be abolished, but its abuse, which instead of serving the collective, dominates it.

And even when I think back to the participatory or collaborative approaches that I tend to favor in business, they only exist because the authority figure has decided so. And even then, they must create the context in which others will adhere to them.

Conclusion

Perhaps we must finally admit that society has not become horizontal, that it probably never will be, and that this is not necessarily a failure. Absolute horizontality would probably be unworkable: it would negate all forms of responsibility and decision-making structures. The real challenge is therefore not to flatten the world, but to make its verticality more flexible by making those at the top more attentive to those at the bottom and those at the bottom more capable of influencing those at the top.

To answer your questions…

Related articles:

This is the world we live in How the web impoverishes its authors and readers Network or proximity ? Where’s the value for businesses ? New jobs description for Enterprise 2.0 ? Try the Enterprise 2.0 job profiler Social Networking for Business : a collaboration engineering guide in the 2.0 era Google + : an enterprise tool ?