The deep roots of our egalitarian psychology
The pursuit of equality and the temptation of power
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the thinkers who had the greatest influence on the French Revolution, wrote:
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. - Rousseau (1762)
Rousseau was clearly accurate in stating that political oppression was the norm in his time. Indeed, it has been the default throughout human history. Even today, less than 50% of the world’s population live in a democracy, according to The Economist Democracy index.
He seems less realistic when he claims that men are born free. Those living under oppressive regimes are de facto not free. Perhaps, then, his statement should be understood as an aspiration: men yearn to be free; they believe they deserve to be free.
Our resentment against inequality
While we live in often highly hierarchical societies, there seems to be a deep conflict in our psychology between a desire to fit in and a resentment of status inequalities. Across many levels of society, tensions around hierarchical control emerge. Managers are often as hated as they are feared. Fraught relationships with overbearing managers are a major cause of declining personal well-being. In a Gallup survey conducted in the US, one in two people said they had left a job to escape a manager.
At the societal level, people love to hate the rich and powerful: the top 1% against whom they protest, the tall poppies who must be cut down, the politicians who are often more despised than respected. Surveys on inequality consistently show that a majority of respondents believe there is too much inequality in society and that it should be reduced. This passion for equality is reflected in the cultural appeal of narratives of oppression and the fight for liberation, such as Les Miserables, 1984, and the Handmaid’s Tale.
In the United States, approximately 35 years after the end of the Cold War, a significant proportion of young people express critical views toward capitalism and its associated inequalities. A 2018 Gallup poll found that only 45% of Americans aged 18 to 29 viewed capitalism positively, while 51% had a favourable view of socialism. The strength of resentment against the elite was strikingly evident in the (often supportive) reactions to the murder of a wealthy health insurance executive last year.
The evolutionary roots of our egalitarian psychology
Our ape ancestors
Humans share a common ancestor with other large apes that lived relatively recently on the geological timescale—around three million years ago. Because of this, studying great apes provides valuable insights into the traits we share with them and those that set us apart. In the realm of coalitional behaviour, research on chimpanzees has been particularly fascinating. Frans de Waal’s famous book Chimpanzee Politics (1982) vividly describes a striking level of social complexity and strategic behaviour in chimpanzees, which in some ways mirrors human interactions.
One of the most apparent aspects of chimpanzee society is their capacity for coalitional behaviour. Male chimpanzees can form somewhat stable alliances with other males, which can be beneficial for their reproductive success. Chimpanzee groups are structured hierarchically, typically with a dominant alpha male—often the most physically formidable and assertive. Other males can adopt one of two broad coalitional strategies: Bandwagoning – aligning with the dominant male to secure a position just below him in the hierarchy and benefit from his power; Balancing – forming alliances with other males to collectively challenge and possibly resist the alpha male’s dominance.
The choice between bandwagoning and balancing reflects a fundamental decision between supporting hierarchy or resisting it.
The egalitarian nature of many hunter-gatherer societies in the past
In his influential book Hierarchy in the Forest (1999), anthropologist Christopher Boehm described how the tension between accepting dominance and resisting it has shaped various hunter-gatherer societies, where many of our ancestors lived for significant periods of human history. Alongside many other anthropologists, Boehm stressed the very egalitarian nature of most hunter-gatherer communities. They often do not have clear leaders, or leaders show a relatively low profile with a respectful attitude toward others instead of being domineering.
This egalitarianism, however, is not necessarily the result of a shared commitment to democratic ideals. As in all human societies, some individuals aspire to dominance. What prevents stark hierarchies from forming is the strong social control exerted over upstarts. Ambitious individuals who attempt to accumulate too much power or privilege are kept in check through a range of graded social sanctions. These typically start with mockery, then escalate to social exclusion, and, in extreme cases, even murder.1
Both sexes engage in ridicule or other forms of direct social pressure—and in ostracism, for this work is done by a well-catalized group that must be in broad agreement if it is to act effectively. These are the sanctions that keep most potential upstarts in their place. - Boehm (1999)
As Boehm puts it, “the result is nothing like anarchy.” Instead, there is a pervasive system of social control exerted by peers. This control is ever-present, though often subtle. The threat of sanctions is usually sufficient to maintain order, as individuals learn to self-regulate, knowing that overstepping the invisible boundaries of acceptable behaviour can lead to severe consequences.2
This social control often induces a culture of generosity and self-modesty from successful individuals who do not want to risk being perceived as boasting a bigger status than others. Boehm cites this !Khung forager:
Say that a man has been hunting. He must not come home and announce like a braggart, “I have killed a big one in the bush!” He must first sit down in silence until I or someone else comes up to his fire and asks, “What did you see today?” He replies quietly, “Ah, I am no good for hunting. I saw nothing at all… maybe just a tiny one.” Then I smile to myself because I now know he has killed something big.
Modern reappraisal
Modern research on Pleistocene societies (1 million years ago to 10,000 BC) suggests that habitual life was more diverse than assumed at the time of Boehm’s writing, with some hierarchical societies forming—particularly in environments where resources were plentiful (e.g., coastal fishing) and population density was high. The emerging picture is one where egalitarian hunter-gatherers coexisted with less egalitarian groups (Singh and Glowacki, 2022).
This diversity of social structures potentially explains a key puzzle of egalitarian hunter-gatherer life: if all our ancestors lived in such societies, why would some individuals still strive for dominance? Given the constraints of hunter-gatherer groups, the benefits of dominance are not obvious. However, if our ancestors lived in varied environments—some highly egalitarian and others more hierarchical—there would have been advantages for individuals willing and able to dominate in certain societies. These psychological traits would have persisted and would need to be kept in check in egalitarian settings.
Why equality was widespread then and not now
Humans were able to live in much more egalitarian societies than our large ape ancestors. A likely reason is that our advanced cognitive abilities and capacity for language allowed us to coordinate more effectively—by sharing information, perspectives, and strategies. If you want to unseat a bully in the group, you need to agree on why it is the right decision and how to proceed. The ability to communicate and take others’ perspectives—traits that distinguish us from other great apes—makes this coordination possible.
Boehm cites another possible factor: the emergence of weapons, particularly throwing weapons. These would have reduced the advantage of physical formidability by allowing a group to injure or threaten a larger, stronger male from a distance—eliminating the need for risky hand-to-hand combat.
Eventually, egalitarian social structures disappeared, giving way to increasingly hierarchical societies: tribes (starting circa 10,000 BC), chiefdoms (starting circa 7,000 BC) and states (starting circa 5,000 BC). Among the likely factors was the advent of agriculture, which enabled resource accumulation and led to growing economic inequality. Another factor was the gradual disappearance of exit options. At some point, leaving was no longer viable—either because no alternative territories were available or because agricultural subsistence required strong social integration, making defection equivalent to condemning oneself to bare subsistence (Carneiro, 2018).
The rise of hierarchy and the social limits on power
While hierarchical social institutions emerged with established leadership positions, social constraints, enforced by the community, limited leaders' prerogatives.
The wariness of upstarts willing to dominate others generates a preference for modest leaders: “Preferred qualities in leaders often are expressed negatively: an absence of arrogance, overbearingness, boastfulness, and personal aloofness.”
This aligns with a preference for men who are reluctant to step into leadership roles, as their hesitation signals that they are not power-hungry.3 Talking about a New Guinea tribe,
Men are actually reluctant to step into a leadership role. The same is widely reported for other culture areas. As inferred from the ethos, such reluctance is itself a desirable trait: egalitarians are innately suspicious of power-hungry individuals. - Boehm (1999)
And if, by unfortunate circumstances, a bully manages to become a leader, the community could turn on them. Even when they did not have the numbers to remove him, another option was often simply to leave—either by splitting off to form a new group or by joining another. Since defections weaken the strength of a group, the possibility of defection serves as another check on leaders.
Modern implications: democratic institutions are always in need of protection
We clearly possess strong egalitarian motives, underpinned by powerful emotions. “It’s not fair” is one of the first abstract statements children learn to say, and perceptions of unfairness frequently drive social unrest. At the same time, humans also exhibit a more dominance-oriented psychology—some individuals are eager to seize control, while others are willing to accept their rule (bandwagoning).
The modern era—the last few hundred years—is merely a blip in geological time. We have entered contemporary societies with a psychology that blends a drive for equality with impulses toward dominance. This duality is evident everywhere. On the one hand people often try to avoid having a boss,4 and they are willing to go out of their way to oppose their leaders (e.g. strikes, political demonstrations). On the other hand, there are the ever-present figures who seek to dominate—whether as the schoolyard bully, the micromanaging supervisor, or the autocratic politician—and those willing to follow them to benefit from their favours.
A crucial lesson from our past is that while humans have a strong preference for equality, maintaining it in a social setting is never guaranteed. As Boehm puts it, “Egalitarian societies are vulnerable to takeovers.” The preservation of political institutions that ensure equality and autonomy requires constant vigilance against leaders who seek to expand their power beyond their original mandate.
Following David Hume’s advice, we should always assume that leaders might be inclined to abuse their position. It is this attitude that ensures they do not.5
In constraining any system of government and fixing the several checks and controls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave and to have no other end in all his actions than private interests. - Hume (1741)
This is not because people are inherently evil, but because human psychology has a dual nature: a deep-seated desire for equality and autonomy, alongside a temptation to dominate.6 Political movements that have entrusted personal leaders and abandoned institutions circumscribing their prerogatives have repeatedly slid into autocracy. The popular champion became a tyrant, manipulating rules to remain in power and eliminate political opposition.
We often feel strongly about our freedom and autonomy and resent those who threaten it. Many of our ancestors lived in fairly egalitarian societies where their ability to form large coalitions helped them contain the domineering tendencies of potential bullies. At the same time, the appeal of power and domination is always present in human minds. The reasonably peaceful experience of life in liberal democracies easily masks this feature of human psychology. Domineering tendencies do not prevail only because they are restrained by the structure of incentives and the monitoring of aspiring bullies. Democracy is not a given; society is always at risk of falling into the hands of autocrats when they are not carefully kept in check.
This post is part of a series on coalition psychology and game theory.
References
Åstebro, T., Herz, H., Nanda, R. and Weber, R.A. (2014) ‘Seeking the roots of entrepreneurship: Insights from behavioral economics’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), pp. 49–70.
Binmore, K. (2005) Natural Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boehm, C. (1999) Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carneiro, R. L. (2018). The Checkered History of the Circumscription Theory. AuthorHouse.
De Waal, F. (1982) Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. New York: Harper & Row.
Hume, D. (1741) ‘Of the independence of Parliament’. In: Hume, D. (1985) Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 42–46.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762/2008) The Social Contract. Translated by G.D.H. Cole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singh, M. and Glowacki, L. (2022) ‘Human social organization during the Late Pleistocene: Beyond the nomadic-egalitarian model’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 43(5), pp. 418–431.
These sanctions exist in our social settings today, from the schoolyard of our youth to the workplaces of our adulthood. Reflecting on these sanctions, game theorist Binmore emphasised the prevalence of mockery in modern social settings and its significance.
These three steps are equally familiar in our own society. The mockery stage is particularly interesting. There is nothing overtly damaging about being laughed at, so why do we dislike it so much? Presumably because our genes interpret mockery as a signal that genuinely damaging punishment will follow if we don't mend our ways. - Binmore (2005)
Settings with heavy social control beneath the surface of polite and friendly interactions are common. These settings are easier to recognise in the past because we now see their social rules as too rigid.
In modern organisations, office colleagues often view with suspicion those who seem too eager to be promoted to managerial positions. Steve Jobs once said in an interview:
You know who the best managers are? They are the great individual contributors who never ever want to be a manager.
While most politicians are likely very ambitious, they typically downplay or deny their aspirations for higher office until the last minute—when they claim they “have to step in to help” or “are called by many people” to be a candidate.
Research shows that the desire for self-determination plays a crucial role in entrepreneurial decisions, often leading individuals to accept lower earnings in exchange for greater control over their work (Åstebro et al. 2014).
In game-theoretic terms, this makes abuse of power off the equilibrium path. In other words, it is because leaders are scrutinised and face potential costs for overstepping their prerogatives that they refrain from doing so.
Boehm cites anthropologist Harold Schneider’s words: “All men seek to rule, but if they cannot rule they prefer to be equal.”
Man is torn between egalitarian impulses and the drive to dominate?
Alas. No matter how much you run, no matter how much you cry... End the end, Fukuyama always wins
Very interesting read as always! I would guess that the dual nature of Human inclination to domination and equality is an evolutionary adaptation :
1- A purely egalitarian society is very fragile since skilled individuals/risk takers/pioneers are not rewarded specifically. Everything is shared, so there’s no recognition nor incentive. This keeps progress and innovation low and that’s a death blow to a society that should adapt to its environment. Progress has to be unfair (think discovery of fire and the control of it-people who took that risk were disproportionally rewarded).
2- Conversely, the goal of elevating certain individuals is that, eventually, their knowledge/resources are shared with the population. Otherwise, the population would have no incentive to put someone in a special position of leadership. They wouldn’t benefit from it. Indeed, the power of the pioneer/risk taker is that his discovery is useful to all (Fire is more beneficial to a society if everybody learns to handle it).
Which means that redistribution has to occur on some level for the whole of Society to be lifted up. What level of equilibrium between these two drives is optimal is hard to gauge and is the reason for the eternal debate between the Left and Right.