The article by Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden makes a useful shift in how egalitarianism is understood. By reframing the focus away from equal outcomes and towards the processes that regulate inequality, they offer a workable way of understanding how human societies function. I broadly agree, but their account remains somewhat incomplete. In particular, giving more weight to intergroup dynamics, cultural orientation, and structural inequalities would help clarify why egalitarian processes rarely translate into equal outcomes.

One of the strengths of the article is its rejection of outcome-based definitions of egalitarianism. As the authors show, societies often described as egalitarian are not characterised by the absence of differences in wealth or status. What matters is the presence of mechanisms that keep those differences in check. Practices such as ridicule, ostracism, and expectations around sharing act to limit the accumulation of power. Seen in this way, egalitarianism is less a state that is achieved, and more something continually maintained. This feels empirically grounded and conceptually clearer than treating equality as an endpoint.

The argument is less developed in its focus on group relations. The processes the authors describe are largely intragroup, but the limits of egalitarianism often become most visible at the boundaries between groups. In line with the Social Identity Theory (SIT), people relate to others as group members, and part of their self-concept is linked to those memberships (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Austin and Worchel1979; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell1987). Maintaining a positive sense of group identity can involve favouring the ingroup and distancing or discriminating against outgroups. The result is that egalitarian norms are rarely universal, applying within a defined social boundary, rather than across it.

This helps explain why egalitarian processes do not scale easily. As social settings become larger and more differentiated, interactions between groups introduce new tensions – competition over resources, status hierarchies, and sharper identity divisions. Under these conditions, there is little reason to expect those in more advantaged positions to support redistribution that would reduce their relative standing. Equally, those in less powerful positions often lack the capacity to enforce egalitarian norms beyond their own group (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). What works in smaller contexts does not translate easily into more complex hierarchical ones.

Cultural orientation should also be considered. In contexts typically described as collectivist, where interdependence and shared obligations are emphasised, stronger norms around redistribution and support might be expected. But rather than removing hierarchy, collectivism may help stabilise it through values such as respect for authority or the importance of social order. In more individualistic contexts, inequalities are often justified differently, for example, through ideas about merit or personal responsibility (Henrich, Reference Henrich2020). Therefore, cultural frameworks shape not just how egalitarian practices operate, but how inequalities are interpreted in the first place.

Alongside this, structural inequalities set relatively fixed limits on what egalitarian processes can achieve. Differences linked to class, ethnicity, or gender are not just interpersonal – they are embedded in institutions and patterns of resource distribution. Even where norms of fairness exist, they are operating within systems that advantage some groups over others. Those who benefit from these arrangements have little incentive to dismantle them. So, while egalitarian practices may regulate inequality at certain levels, they rarely undo the wider structures that produce it.

These constraints become more obvious when placed in a broader political context. The medium- to long-term trajectory of the current global order – often described as a late or shifting form of Pax Americana – is likely to involve increasing instability and contested power relations. These shifts are not confined to international politics; they filter into everyday social life. One likely consequence is a rise in inter-community tension, particularly in already diverse societies.

What is striking here is how quickly complex geopolitical realities are simplified. Differences within regions or groups – political, ideological, sectarian – are often flattened in public discourse. In the case of rising Islamophobia across parts of the West, Muslim populations are frequently treated as a single, undifferentiated outgroup, with little sensitivity to internal diversity. This is consistent with well-established social psychological processes, including outgroup homogeneity and threat perception (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Austin and Worchel1979), demonstrating that intergroup dynamics can cut directly against egalitarian norms.

As these tensions increase, the conditions that support egalitarian processes will weaken. Trust becomes more fragile, reciprocity less likely, and the willingness to redistribute more conditional. If resources are perceived as scarce – or if outgroups are seen as less deserving – then even societies that usually endorse fairness may struggle to sustain it in practice. In that sense, egalitarianism is not just about internal group regulation; rather, it is shaped by how groups relate to one another under broader political pressures.

Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden contribute a valuable shift, arguing that egalitarianism is better understood as a process rather than an outcome. But the limits of those processes must also be recognised. Mechanisms such as levelling and redistribution do not operate in isolation. They are embedded within wider systems of identity, culture, and power that shape what they can realistically achieve. A process-based account of egalitarianism is therefore most convincing when it is extended beyond the intragroup level to include these broader dynamics.