The Myth of Egalitarian Human Societies: Why They Never Existed, Even Among Hunter-Gatherers

As modern societies grapple with rising inequality, one idea persists in collective imaginations. That of a bygone golden age, where the first humans would have lived in perfect equality, far from hierarchies and dominations. This scenario seduces as much as it reassures, but the in-depth study of egalitarian societies reveals a much more nuanced reality, where social stability is often based on fragile balances and invisible collective strategies.

The persistent myth of a past where everyone lived equally

The idea of ​​a fundamentally egalitarian humanity before the invention of agriculture continues to fuel the imagination, including within certain scientific currents. Thinkers like Jared Diamond or Francis Fukuyama popularized this vision of “primitive communism” where cooperation predominated over competition. For more than 90% of our history, human beings lived in groups with balanced social relationships, shared resources and decisions taken together.

This representation finds a powerful echo in the ethnographic descriptions of peoples such as the Hadza of Tanzania, the Batek of Malaysia or the !Kung of the Kalahari. These groups indeed display a relatively homogeneous distribution of material goods and an explicit rejection of forms of individual domination. However, as soon as we broaden the analysis, numerous inequalities emerge. Size, health, hunting skills, charisma or family network: all these factors influence the place occupied by an individual within the group.

A study published in 2025 in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences found that these societies had disparities in at least seven fundamental areas, ranging from reproduction to access to resources to the distribution of responsibilities by gender. The so-called perfect equality is therefore neither universal nor automatic. It is more a projected image than a real social state.

What egalitarian societies owe to competition and social control

Contrary to what their name suggests, egalitarian societies are not based on a disinterested collective spirit. They operate thanks to particularly active social regulation mechanisms. Anthropologists describe them as systems where egalitarianism is a precarious balance, maintained by constant vigilance.

In these groups, those who take up too much space are quickly cropped. When a member imposes his will, he is put in his place. This regulatory mechanism curbs ambitions deemed excessive. We then speak of statutory leveling. It is based on collective reactions such as mockery or criticism. Sometimes, social exclusion reinforces this pressure. However, the objective is not to eliminate all hierarchy. It's more about preventing it from becoming rigid or heavy.

Competition, paradoxically, also plays a central role. Access to status often involves demonstrating skills useful to the group. A good hunter, a good storyteller or an excellent mediator, anyone who wants to be listened to must prove themselves. This prestige, however, guarantees neither material wealth nor lasting authority. Everything is done to prevent a one-off advantage from becoming established power.

Altruistic behaviors themselves can be strategic. Generously offering your hunt or sharing rare resources helps strengthen your reputation, attract allies and establish widespread influence. Egalitarianism therefore does not necessarily arise from a collective morality, but can result from a complex interplay of personal interests adjusted to the constraints of the group.

When equality becomes a fight more than a legacy

Egalitarian societies are not refuges of natural harmony. They are the scene of permanent negotiations between individual autonomy and collective cohesion. This social model is based less on the absence of inequality than on the impossibility of one of them becoming overwhelming. Egalitarianism is an active process, not a given state.

Each individual fiercely defends their rights to autonomy, access to resources and social recognition. The relative stability of the group emerges from these individual struggles, framed by implicit rules. It is this dynamic that the study relayed by Phys.org describes as an “emerging property”. A relative equality born from the interaction between individuals jealous of their freedom.

Rather than pitting egalitarian societies against others, researchers now propose considering them as social environments where certain ecological constraints (mobility, low storage, dispersion of resources) favor this type of organization. Nothing indicates that they embody an original stage of humanity. Above all, they illustrate the capacity of human groups to invent flexible and adaptive mechanisms to preserve balance in the face of natural tendencies towards accumulation and domination.