And just as states were only able to form after the agricultural revolution, they believe the nomadic nature of hunter gatherers makes states forming nearly impossible and thus lets them live in small decentralised egalitarian groups.
Which, itself, ignores the nature of hunter-gatherer societies, which are far from egalitarian, and are only decentralized in the sense that they’re small, not in the sense that power is distributed equally amongst its members.
This has been a debate for the past century. The anthropological consensus seems to be something along the lines of “it really depends, but they are far more egalitarian on average than state based socities”. There had been a consensus that they were chiefly egalitarian in the 60-2000s, but since then our notion of egalitarianism has become stricter.
It’s a fascinating topic. I took two entire classes on this debate at the masters level. But there is no denying that state based societies are far more hierarchical than hunter gatherer ones.
And a lot of the hunter gatherer socities we are able to study in person, have had conflict or atleast interaction with state based socities, which may have influenced them too. Anyways it’s a fascinating topic with no strong conclusion, but the weak conclusion that they tend to be more egalitarian.
This has been a debate for the past century. The anthropological consensus seems to be something along the lines of “it really depends, but they are far more egalitarian on average than state based socities”
Insofar as there is less wealth that can be hoarded, yes, but insofar as division of power is concerned, which is what wealth inequality is a consequence of, hunter-gatherer societies remain extremely unequal.
There had been a consensus that they were chiefly egalitarian in the 60-2000s, but since then our notion of egalitarianism has become stricter.
And our studies of non-state societies more rigorous.
It’s a fascinating topic. I took two entire classes on this debate at the masters level.
… well, you’re probably more informed on the topic than I am, then. I only took a few anthro courses when studying for my Bach, lol.
Which, itself, ignores the nature of hunter-gatherer societies, which are far from egalitarian, and are only decentralized in the sense that they’re small, not in the sense that power is distributed equally amongst its members.
This has been a debate for the past century. The anthropological consensus seems to be something along the lines of “it really depends, but they are far more egalitarian on average than state based socities”. There had been a consensus that they were chiefly egalitarian in the 60-2000s, but since then our notion of egalitarianism has become stricter.
It’s a fascinating topic. I took two entire classes on this debate at the masters level. But there is no denying that state based societies are far more hierarchical than hunter gatherer ones.
And a lot of the hunter gatherer socities we are able to study in person, have had conflict or atleast interaction with state based socities, which may have influenced them too. Anyways it’s a fascinating topic with no strong conclusion, but the weak conclusion that they tend to be more egalitarian.
Insofar as there is less wealth that can be hoarded, yes, but insofar as division of power is concerned, which is what wealth inequality is a consequence of, hunter-gatherer societies remain extremely unequal.
And our studies of non-state societies more rigorous.
… well, you’re probably more informed on the topic than I am, then. I only took a few anthro courses when studying for my Bach, lol.