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.
Your perspective fits within an equity/efficiency debate. It's a big debate that would deserve many posts! In the case of the rise of hierarchy/power, I actually think this is not the key pressure. The kind of prestige reward you describe existed in hunter‐gatherer societies and does not need to lead to hierarchical organisation. As I'll discuss in the next post, higher levels of hierarchy are needed to coordinate collective work: building a fence around the village, waging a war campaign, organising irrigation, and so on. In line with your comment, communities that were able to organise hierarchically were bound to be collectively more effective and, therefore, their institutions were likely to spread to other communities either by war, economic domination, or through imitation.
I shared this post on one of my WhatsApp groups. One of the responses I received was this: “Well, there is the implicit assumption in this string that women do not possess power and are subordinate to men - which counters the thesis of our inbuilt egalitarianism.”
I would love to hear your take on this observation. Thanks!
There is no implicit assumption in the post that women do not possess power or are subordinate to men. The post simply does not discuss gender differences. It is true that most societies have been patriarchal and that leaders, as well as those aspiring to leadership, are typically male. That being said, in egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, there is often a significant degree of gender equality. The only part of the post where I mention gender is a quote stating that both men and women enjoy mocking would-be upstarts. So I don't think there is a basis to assume a substantial difference in preference for equality between men and women, at least based on the evolutionary past I described in the post.
Your posts have greatly helped me broaden my perspective! A few days ago, I wrote a piece titled Politics vs. Economics (https://0utcast.substack.com/p/politics-vs-economics), which shares some common elements with this post. In it, I attempt to explore the connection between economic structures and egalitarianism throughout human history.
These “last few hundred years, a mere blip in geological time”, perhaps have not been enough time for our brains to adequately evolve, and given the vast increase in the size of the population within these few hundred years, perhaps we are unable to manage our ourselves. When a particularly clever bully manages to entrench himself at the top, it seems that much more difficult for us to leave or overthrow him. So where do we go from here?
While "Egalitarian societies are vulnerable to takeovers" (as per Boehm) there is a caveat: takeovers and hierarchies require two conditions to be fulfilled: a) control of resources, and b) sedentary societies. Where resources can't be controlled these takeovers are blunted, and true hunter-gatherer societies live nomadic life in the nature. Control and authority are only possible if/when resources can be controlled by those exerting authority. In contrast, if everyone has equal access to resources there is nothing that can be used as means of coercion. So if egalitarian group lives sedentary life then they are vulnerable for takeovers. But if the group is nomadic and control of resources can't be enforced, then the group isn't vulnerable for takeovers.
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
Indeed
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.
Thanks for the comment, Ax.
Your perspective fits within an equity/efficiency debate. It's a big debate that would deserve many posts! In the case of the rise of hierarchy/power, I actually think this is not the key pressure. The kind of prestige reward you describe existed in hunter‐gatherer societies and does not need to lead to hierarchical organisation. As I'll discuss in the next post, higher levels of hierarchy are needed to coordinate collective work: building a fence around the village, waging a war campaign, organising irrigation, and so on. In line with your comment, communities that were able to organise hierarchically were bound to be collectively more effective and, therefore, their institutions were likely to spread to other communities either by war, economic domination, or through imitation.
I shared this post on one of my WhatsApp groups. One of the responses I received was this: “Well, there is the implicit assumption in this string that women do not possess power and are subordinate to men - which counters the thesis of our inbuilt egalitarianism.”
I would love to hear your take on this observation. Thanks!
Hi Emad, thanks for the question.
There is no implicit assumption in the post that women do not possess power or are subordinate to men. The post simply does not discuss gender differences. It is true that most societies have been patriarchal and that leaders, as well as those aspiring to leadership, are typically male. That being said, in egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, there is often a significant degree of gender equality. The only part of the post where I mention gender is a quote stating that both men and women enjoy mocking would-be upstarts. So I don't think there is a basis to assume a substantial difference in preference for equality between men and women, at least based on the evolutionary past I described in the post.
Thanks, and appreciate the response!
Your posts have greatly helped me broaden my perspective! A few days ago, I wrote a piece titled Politics vs. Economics (https://0utcast.substack.com/p/politics-vs-economics), which shares some common elements with this post. In it, I attempt to explore the connection between economic structures and egalitarianism throughout human history.
Thanks Alekos, glad you liked it. I'll check your post.
These “last few hundred years, a mere blip in geological time”, perhaps have not been enough time for our brains to adequately evolve, and given the vast increase in the size of the population within these few hundred years, perhaps we are unable to manage our ourselves. When a particularly clever bully manages to entrench himself at the top, it seems that much more difficult for us to leave or overthrow him. So where do we go from here?
While "Egalitarian societies are vulnerable to takeovers" (as per Boehm) there is a caveat: takeovers and hierarchies require two conditions to be fulfilled: a) control of resources, and b) sedentary societies. Where resources can't be controlled these takeovers are blunted, and true hunter-gatherer societies live nomadic life in the nature. Control and authority are only possible if/when resources can be controlled by those exerting authority. In contrast, if everyone has equal access to resources there is nothing that can be used as means of coercion. So if egalitarian group lives sedentary life then they are vulnerable for takeovers. But if the group is nomadic and control of resources can't be enforced, then the group isn't vulnerable for takeovers.