For generations of anthropologists and pop-science writers, hunter-gatherer societies have been only rarely referred to without some – generally favorable – mention of their putative egalitarianism. For a topic so well-established, it would be a surprise indeed to see a genuinely novel approach introduced into the literature. Nonetheless, and despite some limitations, Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden manage it. After demonstrating numerous domains of social life where inequality persists across nominally egalitarian societies, the authors attempt to salvage and modify the notion of egalitarianism as a processual phenomenon rather than an outcome-oriented one.
The authors are most effective when they dismantle the myth that hunter-gatherers are egalitarian in outcome. Section 3 and Table 1 provide over two dozen examples of areas where inequality persists within nominally egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies. However, these insights are in tension with their attempt to salvage the notion of egalitarianism and identify the processes that underpin it.
The authors raise the perceptive point that by focusing on processes of egalitarianism rather than outcomes, we need not think of egalitarianism as a phenomenon unique to hunter-gatherers. Yet the six processes they describe to define egalitarianism appear largely restricted to nomadic hunter-gatherer bands, including features such as residential mobility, small-scale collective decision-making, and demand-sharing and risk-pooling of hunted subsistence. This illustrates a real risk of cherry-picking domains in any emphasis of egalitarianism.
For example, WEIRD societies with relatively free choice in marriage and norms of monogamy might be said to be more egalitarian than most nominally egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, as indicated by measures of reproductive variance and rates of polygyny (Brown, Laland, & Borgerhoff Mulder, Reference Brown, Laland and Borgerhoff Mulder2009; Chaudhary et al., Reference Chaudhary, Salali, Thompson, Dyble, Page, Smith, Mace and Migliano2015; Henrich, Reference Henrich2020). The authors touch on this issue in their section on inequality in egalitarian societies, but if we pick and choose processes on a case-by-case basis then almost any society could plausibly be described as “egalitarian” within some particular domain. It’s unclear what utility the concept of “egalitarianism” really offers when it can be utilized so flexibly.
One recurrent theme among many nominally egalitarian hunter-gatherers is sex-based ritual groupings, where men appear to unite to monopolize especially desirable resources and locations, with the threat of beatings, rape, or death directed towards women who intrude. The authors briefly mention Hadza epeme meat, where the organs of certain large game animals are reserved exclusively for initiated men.
Woodburn (Reference Woodburn1964, p. 293) describes the epeme meat as consisting of the “most desirable portions” of these animals. Access to this meat is restricted through threats of violence: “I was told that such a woman [who breaks epeme rules] would be beaten, taken and raped by each of the men in turn and then her vagina would be filled with sand.” (Woodburn, Reference Woodburn1964, p. 301). Such patterns are not unique to the Hadza. Lewis (Reference Lewis2002, p. 147) notes among the egalitarian BaYaka that “severe beatings, death by illness and rape” are potential punishments for women who intrude on the men’s sacred path during their rituals. Gang rape is also a reported punishment for women who witness the men’s sacred objects in Central Australia (Spencer & Gillen, Reference Spencer and Gillen1899, p. 196).
While the authors touch on issues of gender inequality, we argue that this domain poses an especially strong challenge to the claim of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism. The authors write that “One of the most consistent features in accounts of nominally egalitarian small-scale societies is the active assertion of personal rights and self-sovereignty.” Yet it is difficult to reconcile an emphasis on personal rights and self-sovereignty with patterns of sex-based violence and arranged marriage in many egalitarian societies, where some individuals are, by design, not granted the autonomy so central to the egalitarian concept.
For example, Lee (Reference Lee2018) writes that nomadic hunter-gatherer societies are characterized by “balanced gender relations,” but in his own ethnographic work on the Ju/’hoansi (!Kung) of South Africa, he describes how young girls are forced into arranged marriages with little say in the matter, and that they sometimes attempt suicide to get out of these arrangements (Lee, Reference Lee2012, p. 90). Among the Mbuti, Turnbull (Reference Turnbull1962, p. 208) describes a case where a teenage girl is beaten by her brother and her mother until she accepts her place in a “sister-exchange” marriage, with the apparent approval of the community at large. As the authors note, gerontocratic polygyny and coercive arranged marriages are well-documented across Aboriginal Australia.
What does it mean to describe societies with social conditions where young girls are forced into arranged marriages with little choice, where initiated men hold special access to space and desirable foods, as “egalitarian”? The authors describe egalitarian societies as groups where “socio-ecological circumstances enable most individuals to successfully secure their own resource access, status, and autonomy,” yet patterns so at odds with this view in the domain of gender inequality are difficult to write off as an exception.
The authors note that part of why they wish to retain the egalitarian concept is inertia: the concept is already so ingrained across so many disciplines that it would be difficult to dispel. But it’s not clear to us why, if the concept is too deeply rooted to get rid of, redefining it would achieve greater success.
Ultimately, we applaud the authors’ careful account of inequality across nominally egalitarian societies but we think the egalitarian concept has little utility even under the authors’ process-based framework.
You have
Access
For generations of anthropologists and pop-science writers, hunter-gatherer societies have been only rarely referred to without some – generally favorable – mention of their putative egalitarianism. For a topic so well-established, it would be a surprise indeed to see a genuinely novel approach introduced into the literature. Nonetheless, and despite some limitations, Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden manage it. After demonstrating numerous domains of social life where inequality persists across nominally egalitarian societies, the authors attempt to salvage and modify the notion of egalitarianism as a processual phenomenon rather than an outcome-oriented one.
The authors are most effective when they dismantle the myth that hunter-gatherers are egalitarian in outcome. Section 3 and Table 1 provide over two dozen examples of areas where inequality persists within nominally egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies. However, these insights are in tension with their attempt to salvage the notion of egalitarianism and identify the processes that underpin it.
The authors raise the perceptive point that by focusing on processes of egalitarianism rather than outcomes, we need not think of egalitarianism as a phenomenon unique to hunter-gatherers. Yet the six processes they describe to define egalitarianism appear largely restricted to nomadic hunter-gatherer bands, including features such as residential mobility, small-scale collective decision-making, and demand-sharing and risk-pooling of hunted subsistence. This illustrates a real risk of cherry-picking domains in any emphasis of egalitarianism.
For example, WEIRD societies with relatively free choice in marriage and norms of monogamy might be said to be more egalitarian than most nominally egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, as indicated by measures of reproductive variance and rates of polygyny (Brown, Laland, & Borgerhoff Mulder, Reference Brown, Laland and Borgerhoff Mulder2009; Chaudhary et al., Reference Chaudhary, Salali, Thompson, Dyble, Page, Smith, Mace and Migliano2015; Henrich, Reference Henrich2020). The authors touch on this issue in their section on inequality in egalitarian societies, but if we pick and choose processes on a case-by-case basis then almost any society could plausibly be described as “egalitarian” within some particular domain. It’s unclear what utility the concept of “egalitarianism” really offers when it can be utilized so flexibly.
One recurrent theme among many nominally egalitarian hunter-gatherers is sex-based ritual groupings, where men appear to unite to monopolize especially desirable resources and locations, with the threat of beatings, rape, or death directed towards women who intrude. The authors briefly mention Hadza epeme meat, where the organs of certain large game animals are reserved exclusively for initiated men.
Woodburn (Reference Woodburn1964, p. 293) describes the epeme meat as consisting of the “most desirable portions” of these animals. Access to this meat is restricted through threats of violence: “I was told that such a woman [who breaks epeme rules] would be beaten, taken and raped by each of the men in turn and then her vagina would be filled with sand.” (Woodburn, Reference Woodburn1964, p. 301). Such patterns are not unique to the Hadza. Lewis (Reference Lewis2002, p. 147) notes among the egalitarian BaYaka that “severe beatings, death by illness and rape” are potential punishments for women who intrude on the men’s sacred path during their rituals. Gang rape is also a reported punishment for women who witness the men’s sacred objects in Central Australia (Spencer & Gillen, Reference Spencer and Gillen1899, p. 196).
While the authors touch on issues of gender inequality, we argue that this domain poses an especially strong challenge to the claim of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism. The authors write that “One of the most consistent features in accounts of nominally egalitarian small-scale societies is the active assertion of personal rights and self-sovereignty.” Yet it is difficult to reconcile an emphasis on personal rights and self-sovereignty with patterns of sex-based violence and arranged marriage in many egalitarian societies, where some individuals are, by design, not granted the autonomy so central to the egalitarian concept.
For example, Lee (Reference Lee2018) writes that nomadic hunter-gatherer societies are characterized by “balanced gender relations,” but in his own ethnographic work on the Ju/’hoansi (!Kung) of South Africa, he describes how young girls are forced into arranged marriages with little say in the matter, and that they sometimes attempt suicide to get out of these arrangements (Lee, Reference Lee2012, p. 90). Among the Mbuti, Turnbull (Reference Turnbull1962, p. 208) describes a case where a teenage girl is beaten by her brother and her mother until she accepts her place in a “sister-exchange” marriage, with the apparent approval of the community at large. As the authors note, gerontocratic polygyny and coercive arranged marriages are well-documented across Aboriginal Australia.
What does it mean to describe societies with social conditions where young girls are forced into arranged marriages with little choice, where initiated men hold special access to space and desirable foods, as “egalitarian”? The authors describe egalitarian societies as groups where “socio-ecological circumstances enable most individuals to successfully secure their own resource access, status, and autonomy,” yet patterns so at odds with this view in the domain of gender inequality are difficult to write off as an exception.
The authors note that part of why they wish to retain the egalitarian concept is inertia: the concept is already so ingrained across so many disciplines that it would be difficult to dispel. But it’s not clear to us why, if the concept is too deeply rooted to get rid of, redefining it would achieve greater success.
Ultimately, we applaud the authors’ careful account of inequality across nominally egalitarian societies but we think the egalitarian concept has little utility even under the authors’ process-based framework.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests
None.