Egalitarianism as a hierarchy regulation

A significant empirical contribution of the target article is the demonstration that equality is seldom observed across all domains of social life. Even among extensively studied hunter-gatherer societies such as the Hadza, !Kung, and BaYaka, individuals exhibit substantial differences in physical strength, hunting success, alliance networks, and reproductive outcomes (Apicella, Reference Apicella2014; Gurven & von Rueden, Reference Gurven and von Rueden2006; Wiessner, Reference Wiessner2002). These disparities coexist with norms of sharing and autonomy that serve to prevent the formation of lasting political hierarchies (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Three layers of egalitarian regulation in human society.

From this perspective, egalitarian societies are most accurately understood not as systems devoid of hierarchy but as systems that actively inhibit hierarchical escalation. Previous evolutionary models have anticipated this interpretation. Boehm (Reference Boehm1999) characterized egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies as “reverse dominance hierarchies,” wherein coalitions of subordinates impede dominant individuals from monopolizing authority. Mathematical models similarly demonstrate that coalitionary punishment of dominance can maintain egalitarian equilibria (Gavrilets, Reference Gavrilets2012).

The processes highlighted by Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden – namely demand-sharing, risk-pooling, reputation management, status-leveling, consensus decision-making, and residential mobility – may therefore be regarded as anti-dominance institutions. These mechanisms do not eradicate status competition; rather, they serve to limit the accumulation of benefits that could potentially transform prestige into coercive authority. Consequently, egalitarianism embodies a dynamic equilibrium between status competition and coalitionary leveling.

This interpretation further elucidates a significant paradox highlighted by the authors: members of egalitarian societies often behave driven by self-interest rather than a pursuit of equality. Should egalitarian institutions chiefly aim to prevent dominance, then individuals have strong motivations to support leveling mechanisms even while competing for prestige.

Neurocognitive foundations of egalitarian processes

Although the authors primarily conceptualize egalitarianism as a socio-ecological phenomenon, their framework implicitly incorporates evolved psychological mechanisms responsible for monitoring status hierarchies, assessing fairness, and forming coalitions (Cosmides & Tooby, Reference Cosmides, Tooby, Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby1992; Kurzban, Tooby, & Cosmides, Reference Kurzban, Tooby and Cosmides2010; Petersen, Reference Petersen2012).

Demand-sharing embodies mechanisms for fairness monitoring and entitlement detection, overseeing asymmetries in resource possession (Fehr & Gächter, Reference Fehr and Gächter2002). Risk pooling depends on reciprocal cooperation strategies that mitigate uncertainty through repeated social exchanges (Jaeggi & Gurven, Reference Jaeggi and Gurven2013; Kaplan & Gurven, Reference Kaplan, Gurven, Winking, Bengtson, Gans, Putney and Silverstein2007). Reputation-based generosity leverages prestige-seeking motivations, transforming cooperative behavior into social status (Henrich & Gil-White, Reference Henrich and Gil-White2001; Smith & Bird, Reference Smith and Bird2000).

Status-leveling reflects coalitionary aggression directed against potential dominants (Boehm, Reference Boehm1999; Krasnow et al., Reference Krasnow, Delton, Cosmides and Tooby2016). Consensus decision-making relies on cognitive mechanisms for group deliberation and information integration (Mercier & Sperber, Reference Mercier and Sperber2017). Residential mobility functions as an exit strategy that allows individuals to escape exploitative social relationships (Kelly, Reference Kelly2013; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Vinicius, Strods, Mace and Migliano2014).

Collectively, these mechanisms indicate that egalitarianism arises from the interplay of multiple evolved motivational systems rather than from a singular egalitarian ethos.

Predictive processing and the anticipation of domination

Recent advancements in neuroscience provide further understanding of the effectiveness of egalitarian mechanisms. Predictive processing theories suggest that the brain persistently constructs models of the social environment to anticipate potential threats and opportunities (Clark, Reference Clark2016; Friston, Reference Friston2010). Consequently, social cognition encompasses forecasting the behaviors of others within hierarchical and coalition frameworks.

Within this framework, egalitarian institutions operate as predictive mechanisms for managing hierarchical risk. Individuals observe cues indicative of emerging dominance – such as resource accumulation, coalition formation, or reputational asymmetries – and intervene proactively before these processes solidify into formal authority structures.

Gossip and ridicule, prevalent mechanisms for social regulation in numerous hunter-gatherer communities, serve as distributed information networks that update collective expectations regarding individual conduct (Wiessner, Reference Wiessner2005). These communication systems enable communities to coordinate responses to potential hierarchy development without reliance on centralized enforcement.

Mobility functions in a similar manner at the ecological level. When individuals foresee exploitation or the deprivation of autonomy, relocation serves to reset social relationships and hinder the establishment of hierarchical power (Kelly, Reference Kelly2013; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Vinicius, Strods, Mace and Migliano2014).

In predictive terms, egalitarian societies uphold a low tolerance for hierarchical prediction errors – situations in which emerging power asymmetries contravene expectations of autonomy and reciprocity.

Implications for political evolution

Extending the authors’ framework further elucidates the ecological conditions conducive to the emergence of hierarchy. Archaeological and cross-cultural research indicates that hierarchy attains stability when leveling mechanisms diminish – specifically, when resources become monopolizable, population density rises, and residential mobility decreases (Mattison et al., Reference Mattison, Smith, Shenk and Cochrane2016; Smith & Codding, Reference Smith and Codding2021).

Under such circumstances, individuals find it challenging to extricate themselves from exploitative relationships, and coordinating coalitionary resistance becomes increasingly difficult. Consequently, hierarchical institutions may emerge when ecological constraints interfere with the distributed regulatory mechanisms that formerly upheld an egalitarian equilibrium.

Interestingly, numerous aspects of contemporary democratic institutions mirror enlarged representations of egalitarian procedures. Electoral processes, redistribution frameworks, and mechanisms of public accountability may be regarded as institutional equivalents of status equalization, reputation oversight, and consensus-driven governance.