Human societies are inherently unequal. Inequality arises at root from biology, since individuals have different levels of social, athletic, etc. ability. Groups who lack meaningful accumulated wealth or property (such as children on the playground, or hunter-gatherer tribes) still have a social pecking order, leaders, etc. which exists whether or not designated by formal titles.
"Primordial democracy" therefore seems like hand-waving romanticism. Neolithic tribesmen lived nasty, brutish, and short lives in which 30-40% of males died by violence, per modern anthropological studies. "Equality" was a function of absolute poverty, in that everyone in your sample owns zero tangible wealth, property, or capital.
Hold on, where is this data coming from? For example, are you disagreeing with immediate return hunter-gatherers being typically egalitarian without leaders? Or do you think it is somehow irrelevant to the question? I've interviewed several hunter-gatherer experts and they all have their differences, but they all agree on that at least. Indeed, it's pretty much unheard of to have leaders or coervice structures in any nomadic hunter-gatherers. This is a striking pattern that emerges whether we look at the well-known cases of !Kung and Hadza, or lesser known ones like Batek, Aka, Agta etc. Dawn of Everything challenges the idea that this is hard-wired fact about Pleistocene living, sure. But whether such egalitarianism was universal or not, it probably existed, right?
Also, the 30-40% death rate is hugely controversial. To give some perspective, one of the most quoted studies on human violence from recent years puts this number to 3% (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19758). Even Steven Pinker applauded this study. And anyway, people like Pinker or Bowles who give higher number are typically blaming it on warfare, not inter-band battles for hierarchy. Or what do you think I'm getting wrong here?
Thank you!
I’ve had this on my mind most of the day.
Great article!
Human societies are inherently unequal. Inequality arises at root from biology, since individuals have different levels of social, athletic, etc. ability. Groups who lack meaningful accumulated wealth or property (such as children on the playground, or hunter-gatherer tribes) still have a social pecking order, leaders, etc. which exists whether or not designated by formal titles.
"Primordial democracy" therefore seems like hand-waving romanticism. Neolithic tribesmen lived nasty, brutish, and short lives in which 30-40% of males died by violence, per modern anthropological studies. "Equality" was a function of absolute poverty, in that everyone in your sample owns zero tangible wealth, property, or capital.
Hold on, where is this data coming from? For example, are you disagreeing with immediate return hunter-gatherers being typically egalitarian without leaders? Or do you think it is somehow irrelevant to the question? I've interviewed several hunter-gatherer experts and they all have their differences, but they all agree on that at least. Indeed, it's pretty much unheard of to have leaders or coervice structures in any nomadic hunter-gatherers. This is a striking pattern that emerges whether we look at the well-known cases of !Kung and Hadza, or lesser known ones like Batek, Aka, Agta etc. Dawn of Everything challenges the idea that this is hard-wired fact about Pleistocene living, sure. But whether such egalitarianism was universal or not, it probably existed, right?
Also, the 30-40% death rate is hugely controversial. To give some perspective, one of the most quoted studies on human violence from recent years puts this number to 3% (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19758). Even Steven Pinker applauded this study. And anyway, people like Pinker or Bowles who give higher number are typically blaming it on warfare, not inter-band battles for hierarchy. Or what do you think I'm getting wrong here?