The idea that hierarchy is bad or evil is a holdover from monogamy that simply doesn't apply in polyamory. Its mono thinking applied to poly relationships. It's illogical.

In mono culture, it's widely accepted and expected that your romantic partner is the most committed and most important relationship in your life. I'm not saying all people feel or behave this way, but arrangements that are different from this are instantly recognized as outside the norm. People are expected to put the partner/spouse first in all things and prioritize them over friends, even family and adult children (the only exception is raising minor children should be more important). I'm not saying that's right or wrong (with the exception of prioritizing young children - that's correct). I'm just saying it's common.

Outside of romantic relationships, monogamous culture takes no issue with hierarchy. No one takes issue with anyone making different commitments to friends, acquaintances, and coworkers.

No one thinks its evil to spend more time with one friend than the other. Or to agree to babysit at the drop of the hat for one friend, but not all friends. Or agree to care for one friends children if they die, but not agree to do that for all friends. No one takes issue with someone who is willing to let one friend live with them for a bit while between housing, but not being willing to do this for all friends.

Examples:

• No one would judge me for being willing to let my mom move into my house in her old age and to care for her, but not offer that others I know, including other family and friends.
• No one would judge me for going on a yearly girl's trip with my best friend, but declining offers to vacation with other friends who I don't think I'd enjoy going on vacation with or who I don't have the time/money to vacation with.
• No one would judge me for being willing and happy to live with one of my friends as a roommate, but not be willing to share a home with some other friends with whom I wouldn't be compatible for cohabitation with.

So it's well understood that non-romantic relationships are all different in their commitment level. They all get a different amount of time and energy. They all take a different shape. That's so accepted, it is never even described as hierarchy. It's just life. No one thinks they are being treated as lesser than. Just different. It's not a reflection of anyone's worth as a person or anything other than different flavors of relationships.

But in mono thinking, romantic relationships always have to come first. And if that's how people want to organize their lives, that's fine......

Until you have more than one romantic partner.

It beomes functionally impossible and is often unappealing to make the exact same commitments to all romantic partners. You may agree to go on a long and expensive vacation with one partner and not the other because they aren't a compatible vacation companion for you or your finances preclude it. You may buy a house with one partner and not others because functionally it's difficult and often unappealing to maintain two homes. Or it may be financially impossible. You may decide to have kids with one partner and then not have kids with any future partners because most people want a limited number of children to care for. This is all fine. Replace partner with friend, and no one bats an eye. Romantic and sexual relationships can come with widely varying commitments of time, finances, energy, and agreements. Just like all your other relationships.

You can't always put ALL partners first. Or have cookie cutter replica relationships with the exact same amount of commitment. It's monogamous thinking that not putting a romantic partner above everyone else is wrong or harmful. It doesn't work in non-monogamy.

All relationships are different and unique. That's not evil. It just is.