There are many types and degrees of hierarchies. As there are types and degrees of egalitarian social structures. Consider marriage. Monogamous marriage. Does this qualify as egalitarian? In a sense, yes, but in another sense, maybe not. As Robin Wright has pointed out,
“The idea, rather, is that polygyny has tended to disappear in response to egalitarian values–not values of equality between the sexes, but of equality among men.” (26)
If women are possessions, property of men, then monogamy only serves to keep some men from collecting more women than others. A far cry from what we think of as egalitarian.
Yet even when males and females appear to have equal standing in a social organization, it certainly doesn’t guarantee the equality of all members. And, as mentioned, where we find the most egalitarian of social groups, it can be argued that rather than eliminating any hierarchical strivings in the members, these instead have been harnessed to assure that none rise above all others. And individual members, the all, are the one’s that behave in relative concert to assure that their own status is not diminished. In a sense the “rank and file” dominate these groups to assure their status is not diminished. (27)
Many human innovations, be they technical, philosophical, or even social, are the step-children of necessity. A necessity to do better in a new environment. Yet we look at many novel features as if they were somehow meant to be. But change the environment and . . . ? Primatologist Franz de Waal makes a point about primate evolution in general that pertains quite well to human social evolution.
“The irony is that we probably never would have reached this point, never would have evolved the necessary solidarity at the base, had we not been such a hierarchical animal to begin with.” (28)
What were the environmental pressures that led to more egalitarian social structures? Good question. In his earlier book, Peacemaking Among Primates, de Waal makes these salient points.
1. “Equity and unity are hard to combine within one social system.”
2. “Unification through subordination has shaped the world.” (29)
So it seems in egalitarian societies individual dominance has not been eliminated so much as collective subordination has been promoted. It seems.
Yet social organizations do not show a clear “ascent” in one direction or another. Why? The environments that social organizations function within continue to be quite diverse. Christopher Boehm argues that human societies started as more egalitarian, then, for millennia, moved noticeable toward the hierarchical, and, over the past few hundred years have, in a manner “sporadic but highly successful” reversed the trend. (30) He notes that often the scale of the social group plays a crucial role. With large numbers, how else to organize but to put some one, an individual, in charge (above the others)?
It should be noted that even within seemingly egalitarian societies, some amount of inequality may exist.
“The absence from small hunter-gatherer communities of stratification by class or of formal institutions of kingship is no obstacle to relations in which adults dominate children, men dominate women, or assertive people dominate passive people, individually or collectively.” (31)
And today, what, I ask, are there informal stratifications that we are blind to, or turn a blind eye to? Yes, better looking individuals tend to “stand above” others. But are there other ways one person might wield more social power than another (a social inequity, to be sure)? Is it possible that traits such as being the “nicest” actually translate into a social resource, an ability to influence others, a type of power?
Okay, so in most sub-circles of modern society, biceps and what they can do are largely irrelevant when it comes to social power. So what does matter? Here’s one possibility:
“A new study in the journal Personal Relationships reveals that women prefer mates who are recognized by their peers for their skills, abilities, and achievements, while not preferring men who use coercive tactics to subordinate their rivals. Indeed, women found dominance strategies of the latter type to be attractive primarily when men used them in the context of male-male athletic competitions . . . .
Notably, when considering prospective partners for long-term relationships, women’s preferences for dominance decrease, and their preferences for prestige increase.” (32)
Skills, ability, achievements — and the signs and symbols of these, no doubt, are what constitute the bulging muscles of we sophisticated primates. Apparently our contemporary behavior has not fallen that far from the tree of primate hierarchical orientation.
I’ll end with this somewhat lengthy quote on the subject by Paul Ehrlich. It says a lot.
“Nonetheless, it is clear that like chimps (and presumably our common ancestors), human beings are talented at such things as forming coalitions against dominant individuals (or against the weak, to keep them that way), making up after disputes, and generally manipulating one another. Whatever genetic predispositions there might be for people to dominate one another or to be egalitarian, these behaviors are utterly labile in response to environmental conditions, as clearly demonstrated by the wide differences among societies in space and time and the varieties of interpersonal relationships.” (33)
In the next “Alpha” post we will explore how differing environments may foster more egalitarian forms of religion.
—
(26) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p. 98
(27) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 154
(28) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 84
(29) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, pp. 246, 247
(30) Boehm, C., 1999, p. 4
(31) Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 59
(32) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217123825.htm
(33) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2000, p. 250
Leave a Reply