There is no such thing as a society where everyone is equal. That is the key message of new research that challenges the romantic ideal of a perfectly egalitarian human society.
Anthropologist Duncan Stibbard-Hawkes and his colleague Chris von Rueden reviewed extensive evidence, such as ethnographic accounts and detailed field observation from contemporary groups often viewed as egalitarian, that is, where everyone is equal in power, wealth and status.
These included the Tanzanian Hadza, the Malay Batek and the Kalahari!Kung. They were prompted by general confusion over how to define “egalitarianism” and the desire to debunk the idea of the “noble savage,” which suggests that non-primitive people live moral, peaceful lives close to nature.
The researchers have presented their findings in a manuscript submitted to and accepted by the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Key findings
After reviewing the evidence, Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden found that no human society is truly equal and even so-called egalitarian societies exhibit measurable inequalities across several key areas, including size, skill and health (embodied capital), networks and kinship (social capital), gender, age, knowledge and reproductive success.
For example, they found that in societies like the !Kung where there are no formal political offices or chiefs, some individuals emerge who guide collective decisions. The data also revealed gender inequalities, with women typically bearing the greater burden of childcare, which can limit their autonomy and freedom of movement.
Another area where equality isn’t achieved is material resources. While people in these groups don’t have many personal possessions, inequalities exist in who controls the distribution of valuable assets, such as meat and access to hunting grounds.
This evidence led the researchers to challenge the traditional view of egalitarianism: “Egalitarianism is not equality, whether in outcome or motivation.”
Self-interest
According to the research, the reason some societies appear egalitarian isn’t because of individual altruism. Instead, relative equality is an emergent property resulting from individuals constantly fighting to protect their own interests. This struggle involves using specific tools, such as demanding shares of food from those who have it (demand-sharing), sharing resources among a group as a collective insurance policy against individual bad luck (risk-pooling) and bringing down anyone who tries to take charge (status-leveling).
“We redefine egalitarian societies as those where socio-ecological circumstances enable most individuals to successfully secure their own resource access, status, and autonomy,” added the researchers. According to this explanation, equality is not seen as a natural state but a hard-won achievement.
Written for you by our author Paul Arnold, edited by Lisa Lock, —this article is the result of careful human work. We rely on readers like you to keep independent science journalism alive.
If this reporting matters to you,
please consider a donation (especially monthly).
You’ll get an ad-free account as a thank-you.
More information:
Duncan Stibbard-Hawkes et al, Egalitarianism is not Equality: Moving from outcome to process in the study of human political organisation, Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2025). DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x25103932
The content is provided for information purposes only.