Pack animals being a general (not super formal) hierarchy while hive being a caste.
That's one way to view it.
There is more variance from a
within group standpoint for a hive, but there is far greater variance
between groups in the packs.
But the larger variance within the singular group is due to the population size more than anything else. But it makes the group as a whole far less susceptible to change.
While a small amount of variance within a pack coupled with a large degree of variance between packs makes for a more dynamic system that is far more susceptible to change.
I look at the times when major socio-political advancements have occurred in history. Normally, it occurs in the build-up to a hive-like society. Once the hive-like society is complete, though, it will ultimately stagnate and fall.
The "fall" is regression towards decentralization, and it is never consciously implemented. It occurs when the hive-like, centralized system can no longer sustain itself and it collapses.
Then the process renews itself, with a period of totally decentralized dynamic change followed by a period of advancement again towards the centralized society. The greatest advancements occurs during this buildup, IMO.
I would prefer to consciously alter the cycle. Removing the period of regression and replacing it with a
consciously implemented system designed to spark that dynamic change without the chaotic underpinnings.
To do this, one would require
some degree of centralized government that works for the benefit of a collective of smaller sovereign governments. Sort of like what the US was originally implemented as.
Generally, I would like to see something that fits somewhere
between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The AoC created a central government that was a little too weak, but the Constitution created one that was a little too strong (if using a Hamilton-style interpretation of the constitution, which is the prevailing interpretation these days. A Madison-style interpretation would have been closer to what I'm talking about, but the wording was left too vague to maintain that perspective over time).
I also believe this would be the most utilitarian approach to governance, since I adhere to a belief that happiness is in part dictated by a person's sense of autonomy. The more willing a system is to allow for variability of thought, the greater the potential for autonomy there is.