Anthropologists have shattered the myth of the ideal egalitarian society

The anthropologists came to this conclusion after analysing data on modern groups that are usually described as maximally egalitarian - that is, formally devoid of pronounced inequalities in power, wealth and status.

Anthropologists Duncan Stibbard-Hawkes and Chris von Royden reviewed a wide range of material: ethnographic descriptions, field observations and research on groups such as the Hadza in Tanzania, the Batek in Malaysia and the Ikung in the Kalahari. The reason was, on the one hand, the blurred understanding of the term "egalitarianism" and, on the other hand, the desire to debunk the romantic image of the "noble savage" living in natural harmony, peace and full equality.

The results are presented in an article accepted for publication in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Where inequality hides

After analysing the data, the researchers concluded: no human society is truly equal. Even groups labelled as egalitarian in the scientific and popular literature show marked differences on several fronts at once:

• bodily and "invested" capital (body size, strength, skills, health);

• social capital (networks of connections, kinship, influence);

• gender and age;

• knowledge and competences;

• reproductive success.

For example, the Ikung do not have formal political positions and chiefs, but still have people whose opinions more often determine collective decisions. Gender roles are also asymmetrical: women bear a greater burden of childcare, which limits their mobility and freedom.

Even with a minimum of personal property, full equality in material resources is not achieved:
some people are better off when it comes to controlling the distribution of valuable goods such as meat, access to hunting grounds and other important resources.

All this has prompted the authors to reconsider the usual understanding of egalitarianism:
"Egalitarianism is not equality, neither in outcome nor in motive," they note.

Egalitarianism as a result of the struggle of interests

According to the paper, the reason for the relative "equality" in some societies is not innate altruism. Rather, it is a by-product of people's constant struggle to protect their interests.

This struggle is expressed in practices:

• demand-sharing - demanding that food and other resources be shared with those who have them;

• risk-pooling - collective redistribution of resources as "insurance" against the failure of an individual hunter or household;

• status-leveling - the "grounding" of those who try to elevate themselves above others, including through criticism, ridicule, and social pressure.

As a result, the researchers propose a new working definition:
an egalitarian society is not one where everyone is effectively equal, but one where socio-ecological conditions allow the majority of people to secure access to resources, status, and autonomy quite successfully.

That is, relative equality is not a natural initial state, but the result of constant social tension and struggle, "won" in the process of interactions, not given once and for all.