The Gearbox to a Revolutionary Rank and File

As nice as it would be to think egalitarian social structures represent human nature with the badness of hierarchical strivings stripped away. An innate goodness remains. However, human nature is likely quite plastic, and though we may wish that the more ideal state represents the more real, it is probably not the case. In his book on the subject, Christopher Boehm argues that the egalitarian social structure could be considered an inverse hierarchy.

“The argument here is that egalitarian societies constitute a very special type of hierarchy, one in which the rank and file avoid being subordinated by vigilantly keeping alpha-type group members under their collective thumbs.” (10)

Not only are there environments (social/economical) that tend to promote one type of social organization versus another, there are mechanisms that maintain each type. Consider the mechanisms to be tools. The interesting thing is that the tool kits used to build and maintain very different social structures can share quite a few elements. How they are used, of course, differs. For example, in a hierarchical social group, an alpha will keep his eye on who is treating whom in a favorable fashion. Alliances can pose a threat to his position as most dominant. In an egalitarian social group, allied members will keep on eye on how one individual is treating others, for domineering behavior poses a threat to their own non-subordinate positions. In more egalitarian human societies, there are tacit rules, in the least, that guide behaviors and the responses to them, so they do not threaten the group stability and harmony. There may also be more overt rules deliberately enacted to restrict the upward movement (accumulation of power) by individuals — usually males. (11) In a sense, equality is enforced. Which is a type of force, but a force wielded by many than by one or a scant few. While Christopher Boehm has done a lot of great work on the topic of egalitarian vs. hierarchical (more egalitarian vs. more hierarchical, in my book), I do disagree with the picture he paints in this quote:

“By my definition, egalitarian society is the product of a large, well-united coalition of subordinates who assertively deny political power to the would-be alphas in their group.” (12)

A “product of a large, well-united coalition”, sounds much too organized and intentional for my tastes. Sure, if we are talking politics and very large social groups, maybe. But most of the groups people function within — family, friends, work — have different types of structures. Their family may be more hierarchical, while the circle of friends egalitarian, and work a mix. Yet to learn what is expected and to function that way doesn’t necessitate overt signs and intentionally orchestrated behavior. Rather, we pick up clues from our social environment. Is it okay for one person to kick another person out of a seat? Dad, maybe. A boss, maybe. A friend, no. These “rules” do not have to be taught and consciously agreed upon. We just learn them. Somehow we learn them.

Human social behavior if very complex and plastic. Margeret Power somewhat accurately pegs “control” as the all-important variable in human social organizations, writing, “there are means other than aggressive competition through which control of a group my be gained.” (13) So the question becomes, how do individuals control one another? Threat of violence? Threat of ostracism? The promise of resources and/or access to resources? Verbal and emotional persuasion? The carrot of increased popularity, the stick of decreased? Perhaps the ability to control — or more benignly put, influence — others is a form of power. But power connotes energetic exchange, a flexing of visible muscles. And there is so much more to social organizations than that. Take, for example, the range of “influences Paul Erhrlich mentions in his book, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect – “ridicule to assassination.” The bottom line: “people cooperate to dispose of those who possess what is judged to be too much power.” (14)

While most people could recognize the physical ability to assassinate someone as a manifestation of power, what about ridicule? Is that power? For sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. The power, the influence, of words and of emotional gestures, beyond the physical, that’s another issue. A complicating issue. An issue that deserves further consideration. Although the types of power and influence individuals wield when functioning in more egalitarian societies seems more distilled and indirect, it is power nonetheless. Whether or not we call it “control” or “influence” or something else.

—

(10) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 11
(11) Boehm, C., 1999, p. 60
(12) Boehm, C., 1999, p. 157
(13) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, p. 245 (14) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2000, p. 209

Tags: almighty alpha, evolution, psychology