Feb 23 2010
A More Civilized Power Structure
“Egalitarianism is not based on mutual love and even less on passivity. It’s an actively maintained condition that recognizes the universal human desire to control and dominate. Instead of denying the will to power, egalitarians know it all too well. They deal with it every day….In egalitarian societies, men tying to dominate others are systematically undermined, and male pride is frowned upon.” – Franz de Wall (8)
While social groups with a power structure categorizable as egalitarian may attain and benefit from a relatively harmonious state of social relationships lacking in physical violence and resource inequity (in access or possession), it would be naive to conclude that these social groups rely on completely different psychological elements from which they the structure is built. Certainly, in more egalitarian societies non-paternalistic philanthropic feelings can florish. Goodwill towards all mankind and all that. But are the building blocks of such societies different, or is just the end result?
My guess is just the end result. For even today people endowed with the same social propensities can build and function within a full range of social structures, from brutally despotic to pervasively empathic and compassionate. What determines the social structure individuals build? A number of key things, as we will see. However, at this point it may be advantageous to identify how human psycho-social building blocks can be differently employed.
While it may appear that in egalitarian societies people care more about one another, what makes the structure it is may consist of an effective group monitoring and disapproval of individuals with hierarchical strivings. As the lead quote maintains. Despots, in effect, are nipped in the bud. Exclusively selfish, violent strivings are governed down by tacit group rule. Rather than social power not being an issue in these societies, the power is spread much thinner. And so it is more difficult to recognize.
Rather than a society of “all roses and lute music,” more egalitarian structures are those in which individual vigilance and striving remain, but are put to the task of keeping others from dominating. Rather than an attitude of “who might beat me?” and “who might I beat?” there is one of “who might cheat the system?” and perhaps, “how might I cheat?”
It is, of course, fully possible if not likely that egalitarian societies contain happier citizens, on average. Some roses and lute music. My guess is that there might even be measurably lower average cortisol levels (9) in members due to the lesser threat of violence breaking out. That said, however, no social system is stress-free.
Of course, some of the satisfaction provided by more egalitarian societies might come not from perceptions that “we are all equal” but from the comfort that “few or none are better than me, and can thus boss me around.”
Consider the contemporary relationship between status and social esteem. Sure, owning a house is nice, but how nice is it when compared to the neighbors’? To your cohorts’? 1500 square feet may have been luxuriant in some other time, but don’t think a home that small is going to win you any wows today.
We are social animals. Not only do our social groups and the structure of these change, but the thinking and values of group members can change. One thing that doesn’t appear to change, however, is the our social nature, our inborn concern about what our groupmates are doing, how much they are esteemed by others. Relationships and coalitions are instinctively valued resource, even when food and mates are plentiful and/or can’t be hoarded by others.
—
(8) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 74
(9) Cortisol is a stress hormone.
