Origins of Social Inequality: From Hunter-Gatherers to Modern Society

Introduction: The Universality of Social Inequality

Human beings are not created equal — or so might run an observation about most human societies. Since earliest times, cultures all over the world have categorized men and women according to social status. Different people are considered more important, or higher ranking, than others. The way in which these "social classes" are arranged varies according to the people involved. Among hunters and gatherers, there rarely exists any formal social class, but one individual — or even one type of individual — may be more esteemed than another. In some societies, class is determined by birth and is rigid and virtually unchangeable. In others, social status is relatively fluid, determined by the personal achievements of a lifetime, though even in these kinds of societies status is more fixed than many would like to believe.

More than two centuries ago, the great French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau attempted to explain these pervasive phenomena in his Origin of Inequality. In the years since, whole disciplines have endeavored to explain much the same thing. Today, most anthropologists would probably trace the origins of inequality back to earliest times and to the most technologically primitive of human societies. Similar societies still exist, and quite likely they furnish a model of how our ancestors may have lived long ago — how they thought and what they considered important. It was these patterns of behavior that caused prehistoric men and women to value certain people more than others, as their activities were more crucial to the community's survival. Eventually, these essential activities were seen as prestigious in and of themselves, and so status began to become more automatic.

Extant hunter-gatherer societies are typically marked by a division of labor based upon the sex of the individual. Men perform certain tasks while women perform others. In most cases it is the men who hunt or fish and the women who gather plant foods. There is no real difference in the kind of work performed by any given man, or any given woman. Implements are made as needed and housing is essentially identical. There are few possessions beyond what is absolutely needed in connection with the tasks of daily life. On the surface, such a lifestyle appears wholly egalitarian. Yet, even here one can see the emergence of "alpha males" — men who appear to dominate others in an otherwise equal environment. Though there are no officially designated leaders and no apparent hereditary classes, anthropologists have observed that:

Egalitarianism and Its Limits Among Hunter-Gatherers

"The absence of a transitive rank-order headed by a dominant individual, whether male or female, does not preclude neglect or ill-treatment of the weak or vulnerable. A band member consistently disadvantaged in access to resources, or enjoying significantly lower esteem, or singled out for physical punishment in a decision 'reached casually round the camp fire' is being no less unequally treated than a member of a subordinate class, or stigmatized status group, or dissident faction in a society with formal economic, ideological, and political institutions and roles." [1]

In other words, hunters and gatherers display a kind of embryonic social ranking system. Social status is determined by an individual's proficiency at the tasks esteemed by the community — or, more specifically, by the individual's contribution to the community. The successful hunter becomes a leader among his people because he either personally provides the most game or helps others to procure more game. Those who are unsuccessful hunters, or who are lazy and contribute little, are stigmatized and lose status.

Food, the primary good valued by hunter-gatherers, is under primitive conditions a perishable commodity and cannot be stored to any real extent. Thus, one cannot accumulate huge reserves of it. In more technologically advanced societies, however, it is possible to accumulate wealth, even if that wealth is not measured in the same fashion as in modern post-industrial societies. Among pastoralists, for example, cattle, goats, camels, or some other animal constitute a genuine source of wealth, because it is possible to possess large herds or flocks at any given time. Normally, pastoral peoples must move camp fairly frequently in order to find pasture for their animals. As a result of these circumstances, pastoral groups that are remote from more technologically advanced societies generally also own few movable goods. Their clothing, tools, housing, and so forth are usually simple.

Pastoral Societies and the Accumulation of Wealth

Nevertheless, herds or flocks can be a source of great power and influence to those who possess them. Among the Maasai of East Africa, possession of cattle gives an individual the power to control other individuals within the community:

"A herd that was too small could not feed those dependent on it, while one that was too large could not be managed with available family labour. Thus, as herds grew, one had to be able either to acquire additional labour outside the family to take care of them or to place excess cattle in the care of others, while, if they shrunk, either excess consumers had to be able to find work with others or one had to borrow cows from others to feed them." [2]

Controlling the labor of others is equivalent to dominating others, or to maintaining a superior status. The Maasai, and other pastoralists, used their wealth in livestock to build up personal "empires" that enabled them to command others within the community. In possession of these large retinues, their voices would be more easily heard in community affairs. In addition, as wealth such as cattle could be passed down to one's children, it became possible, for the first time, to truly transfer wealth from one generation to another.