Customer Reviews

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

From the time I picked up this book until finishing it within 36 hours, I was captured by this excellent work on human politics from an evolutionary perspective. Boehm shows close scholarship in his summaries of hunter-gatherer and other society's ethnographic evidence bearing on politics. He also contrasts this human focus with our closest relatives, the apes, and chimps in particular. Readers may find of interest the struggle, rather than ease, with which egalitarianism appears among simple societies. The book also raises questions about the origin of human egalitarianism that will stimulate readers and research for years to come.

I like this book a lot.

Christopher Boehm has something interesting and important to say, and he says it with a mass of supporting evidence and persuasive argumentation.

It's not an easy read, because the thinking is deep, but it's full of interest, and he tells good stories.

This is the first time that anybody has made sense, for me, of aspects of human nature which have been puzzling me since I was a child.

If you're interested in human nature read this book - especially if (1) you are intrigued by patterns of human hierarchy and anti-hierarchy; (2)(like me) have realised that these patterns are intensely dynamic (neither "cultural" nor simply "instinctive behaviours); and (3) (also like me) have failed to make sense for yourself of what IS going on.

This is a highly distinguished book. It's hard to imagine how anybody could organise such a range of knowledge into such a gripping and persuasive account.

This book is easy to read, revolutionary in its interpretation of the evolution of human egalitarianism and altruism, and in addition a warning about our current state of liberal democracy -- though the author does not see the danger.

The book traces out how the development of language and the use of tools and weapons, allowed our ancestors, the hunter-gatherers to overthrow the hierarchy we find in other primates. That is, males hate to be dominated, and if they can they will form coalitions and enforce egalitarianism. So for tens of thousands of years, virtually all human bands used weapons to kill upstarts who might try to dominate the group, and gossip maintained a keen eye on everyone's contribution to the group. Free-riders were suppressed, eliminated or expelled, and after time they were kept to a minimum genetically.

In addition, altruism within the group was selected for through group evolutionary strategies. That is, with this new arrangement of group cohesion and forced adherence to the group's particular ethos or moral code, the groups who had higher levels of ethnocentrism, patriotism, or altruism towards members of the group -- including willing to die for the group when battled broke out between groups -- predicted that group evolutionary strategies selected for these very traits. That is, altruism was a product of between-group warfare and competition for resources.

When humans began to form civilizations however, and with the accumulation of wealth in the form of food through the growing of crops and the domestication of animals, dominance once again took over. Through religion, actuarial practices, and coercive leadership, humans once again yielded to the authority of a central figure.

So far so good. But Boehm believes that with our present Western democracies, that all is well again. This is surprising, because by the very mechanism he so elegantly elucidates in the book, by all reasonable measures, we are now in an ecological situation where racial strife, a return of free-riders, and an end to altruism will set in. By our very form of government there is no need to abide by rules as we know them, and the people who have the genes for selfishness or the free-riders will again multiply. That is, human behavior is never fixed but is always changing. Evolutionary stable states can only exist when the environment does not change -- but it has. From welfare to shirking military duty, the new free-rider will again out-produce the once altruistic motivated solid citizen. Free-riders can hide within modern democracies, and they are not bound by the old moral codes. We are surely entering a dysgenic trend in these traits, if not in intelligence itself. So I see little optimism that what was once a wonderful mechanism for human advancement against dominance will not now slide back towards more aggressive and a selfish human nature. Fortunately, with a better understanding of the human genome, and a renewed interest in neo-eugenics, we may be able to salvage our evolved egalitarian traits once again.

As someone interested in people, I read a lot about evolutionary psychology. Unfortunately, most of the discussions of Evolutionary Psychology that I've run into are less than well founded. However, up until now, I haven't really had much chance to read anyone who was intimately familiar with the data. Chris Boehm fixed that.

What do you get if you cross an Anthropologist, familiar with latest research on the !Kung, the Yanomamo, and all the other modern hunter-gatherer types we know of, with a primatologist, a passing-good archaeologist, and a very careful thinker? Christopher Boehm, author of this book.

The question is:
What is the human being's natural relationship to authority and egalitarianism.

The answer that the author proposes is:
As with most social pack animals, Homo Sapiens' ancestors appear to have been quite hierarchical multiple millions of years ago. In a wrestling/boxing match, the strongest guy almost always wins. When humans developed weaponry (Simple clubs, spears, arrows), Egalitarianism quickly became the norm, and was the stable norm for hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million years. This is probably due to the game theory of combat with weapons (the stronger guy only wins 60% of the time). About 10K years ago, agriculture developed, followed almost immediately by food storage. Food storage again changed the game theory, and hierarchy was again established.
Human beings thus have an evolutionary history of hierarchy, followed by a rabid egalitarianism, and an evolutionarily recent re-creation of hierarchy.

More impressive though than the hypothesis is how the author writes the book. Careful, measured, and both cognizant and respectful of alternate opinions. I can't say enough nice things about the book...if you like reading academic, careful work.

This is a book about human "political nature." Clearly the mature fruit of a long life of anthropological research, the book considers a question that goes back to Hobbes and Rousseau: the origins of inequality (or rather, of equality, in this case) and its relationship to "human nature." To answer this question, Boehm draws on a wealth of ethnographical and archeological evidence, as well as studies of primate societies (primarily chimpanzees and bonobos, but also baboons and gorillas).

The starting point of the book is the observation that, though human societies range from the extremely egalitarian to the abjectly despotic, and our closest primate relatives create basically despotic groups, human forager bands are always extremely egalitarian (Boehm knows. He obviously read almost all significant ethnographies of forager bands as of the late 1990s). This egalitarianism is of course partly due to basic material causes: in a forager society with little division of labor it is difficult to stockpile durable resources or acquire scarce skills in ways that can be exploited for political advantage, as Rousseau saw, especially when dissatisfied individuals have a relatively cheap (though not costless) exit option (people can move between bands easily band). But the material causes are not the whole story, as the despotic forager social groups created by our close primate relatives, who also have little "property," show. In particular, human forager bands are politically egalitarian (and not just economically egalitarian), recognizing no real, permanent authorities (there are typically no chiefs or "alpha males," and decisions are made by consensus) and displaying a "democratic" ethos of autonomy where each individual thinks himself the equal of the rest (Whether women are considered equals within the band varies from forager band to forager band, partly depending on environmental factors and patterns of exogamy, but for the most part women in forager bands tend to have higher status than women in other forms of society).

This observation about forager societies is important because it seems reasonably well established that foraging societies were our "ancestral societies," i.e., the environments where any natural dispositions that human beings possess even today evolved. We probably lived for at least 100,000 years in such societies before we came up with different forms of social organization, and so the (controversial, but at least plausible) assumption is that insofar as human beings have a political nature, it would be manifested most clearly in such societies, or at least it would have been shaped in such societies (though it is not clear that the forager societies of today are good proxies for the forager societies of 100,000 years ago): there should be a sense in which we were ecologically adapted to life in such societies (rather than in contemporary complex societies). The question is, then, what explains the egalitarianism of forager bands, both current and historical? And is the explanation for forager egalitarianism something that we can attribute to "human nature"?

Boehm's main thesis is that forager egalitarianism is sustained by moral communities that enable the rank and file to build coalitions to put down would-be "alphas." Forager bands, in his view, have "reversed" dominance hierarchies that prevent bullies and aggressors from creating a dominance hierarchy of their own: egalitarianism is sustained by the coordinated dominance of the strong by the weak. Without the ability of the rank and file to form large coalitions to put down would-be dominators, the primate tendency is to establish dominance hierarchies, as we see in chimpanzees and bonobos; but the ability to form large and stable coalitions in turn depends on the development of the capacity for symbolic communication, and, to a lesser degree, of projectile weapons. (Low-ranking chimpanzees can sometimes band together and put down alpha males, as the chimpanzees at Yerkes Primate Research Center are reported to have done, but they do not seem to be able to create stable coalitions that get rid of the entire dominance hierarchy, unlike human beings). This seems right to me: in order for status equality to be resilient against attempts to subvert it, it requires a vigilant community to sanction upstarts and bullies; and the vigilance of the community is primarily made possible by a set of norms that strongly promote values such as generosity, sharing, and the like and proscribe certain forms of arrogance, etc., as Boehm notes.

But Boehm goes further: he argues that the emergence and maintenance of egalitarianism in forager societies supports a view of human "political nature" that he calls "ambivalent:" human beings (especially males) display tendencies towards dominance, just like chimpanzees and bonobos (though within a group the strength of these tendencies will be variable, of course), but they also resent being dominated, and in humans that resentment of domination is able to generate strongly egalitarian societies in the right material circumstances. (Boehm suggests that the same resentment of domination can be observed in chimpanzees and bonobos, though without the ability to form stable coalitions for egalitarian purposes they can't do much about it, especially since male chimps and bonobos do not have an "exit" option: solitary males who leave the group are liable to be killed on sight by other groups). Hobbes and Rousseau, in other words, are both right: in the "state of nature" it is the case both that "every man looketh that his companion should value him, at the same rate that he sets upon himselfe" (Leviathan XIII) which leads to attempts to dominate others (to "extort a greater value from his contemners, by dommage,; and from the others, by the example," what Hobbes also calls "glory"), and that this very same tendency, when combined with the ability to form large coalitions, informed by an ethos of equality (and with a general lack of "property," understood as durable and potentially scarce resources that can be exploited to create personal forms of dependence, as Rousseau noted), results in the sort of fierce independence that Rousseau praised in the Second Discourse, at least under the right material conditions (little division of labor or durable property). By contrast, similar tendencies among chimpanzees or bonobos evolved into more or less stereotyped dominance and submission behaviors (which make sense from an evolutionary perspective, since they seem to obviate the need for actual conflict over resources, with its attendant risk of death) and the development of clear status hierarchies.

The most interesting and controversial part of Boehm's book is in the last couple of chapters, where he tells a story about how the emergence of egalitarian moral communities in our distant forager past changed the selection pressures operating on human beings to produce some altruistic tendencies. The story is too complicated (and necessarily speculative) to summarize here, but basically it has to do with how egalitarian moral communities neutralize the reproductive advantages of bullies and aggressive individuals and increase the force of "between group" selection pressures (favoring "altruistic" dispositions) against "within group" selection pressures (favoring "selfish" dispositions). For example, Boehm has some fascinating remarks about the "meat sharing" systems that almost all foragers develop. Hunting is an important source of protein in forager societies, but it is also irregular. Since some people are better hunters than others, these people could perhaps exploit their hunting skills to extract various advantages (including political domination and reproductive advantages), and indeed they sometimes try. But in all forager societies the group basically "randomizes" credit for kills (by giving credit to the owner of the arrow, for example, but swapping arrows incessantly!), so that the actual hunter cannot exploit the fact that he made a kill to dominate the group in any way. Such meat-sharing systems thus seem to reduce the "reproductive" advantage of selfish dispositions.

In general, this is an excellent book, despite some occasional repetition and somewhat pedestrian prose. But it is worth wondering whether it implies much of anything for politics in complex societies. Boehm is too good of an anthropologist to suggest that we simply have a "natural" tendency to create egalitarian societies (there are many human societies where the ethos of equality of forager bands does not exist, as he notes) but he does seem to think that democratic societies (including larger, more complex societies with formal checks and balances, from the Iroquois confederacy to modern representative democracies) are in far better accord with "human nature" than other forms of society. It is not entirely clear to me what this means. Partly, I suspect that he means that we are happier in more equal societies, or at least that we have a tendency to view justice through the lens of equality; if indeed in the vast sweep of human history over the past hundred millennia we have mostly lived in egalitarian societies, it should not be surprising that we have some deep preference for such societies (I was thinking of this when reading this interesting proposal for "income and wealth ceilings" through taxation - deciding collectively that no one should have more than, say, $100,000). But we would need a more robust moral psychology to think properly about this question; and it seems to me at any rate that Boehm underplays the ways in which our moral ethos interacts with material factors. It seems like a rather important fact that truly egalitarian societies only exist in circumstances where the division of labor is minimal and the possibilities for exit from the group relatively large, and that complex societies are all over the place in terms of the despotic/egalitarian continuum; much of what Boehm says suggests to me that egalitarianism is actually quite fragile once material conditions change. And if the story of forager societies for 100,000 years is basically a story of egalitarianism, the story of complex agricultural societies has been one of inegalitarianism for a good 5,000 years, which, though not as impressive a span of time, is still a pretty long time and has involved more people than the previous 100,000 years. Whether truly egalitarian complex societies are possible seems like an open question, and one that cannot be answered by simply pointing to modern democracies (which have many inegalitarian spaces and some egalitarian spaces).

A finnish geneticist wrote a book about the relationship between humans and dog: the wonderfull relationship, as far I know has its basic rules in the forest were we learned how to handle another individuals and also other animals near by us. Understanding the basics is very important; this book is most valuble.

This book makes a good argument that a major change from strongly hierarchical societies to fairly egalitarian societies happened to the human race sometime after it diverged from Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Not due to any changes in attitudes toward status, but because language enabled low-status individuals to cooperate more effectively to restrain high-status individuals, and because of he equalizing effects of weapons. Hunter-gatherer societies seem rather consistently egalitarian, and the partial reversion to hierarchy in modern times may be due to the ability to accumulate wealth or the larger size of our societies.

He provides a plausible hypothesis that this change enabled group selection to become more powerful than in a typical species, but that doesn't imply that group selection became as important as within-group selection, and he doesn't have a good way of figuring out how important the effect was.

He demonstrates that humans became more altruistic, using a narrow biological definition of altruism, but it's important to note that this only means agreeing to follow altruistic rules. He isn't able to say much about how well people follow those rules when nobody notices what they're doing.

Much of the middle of the book recounting anthropological evidence can be skipped without much loss - the most important parts are chapters 8 and 9.

This book is not without significant merit in its discusion of egalitarian politics. Unfortunately, Boehm goes way out on a limb in his central argument.

Boehm is an intelligent and thoughtful observer of political and social realities, but he is a cultural anthropologist, not a political scientist, not a game theorist, not a primatologist, not even a biological anthropologist. The main argument he is making is a slippery departure from his own field.

Boehm would do well to stick to what he knows. He is an excellent ethnographer. His published writings on the Serbian tribes of Montenegro represent a significant and solid contribution to cultural anthropology scholarship.

In "Hierarchy of the Forest," Boehm's argument relies on disciplines about which he lacks sufficient expertise to come down as strongly as he does. His argument may be attractive to those of us who have an interest in building egalitarianism in political, social, and cultural practices, but it is best to avoid the trap that Boehm has fallen into, being seduced by an attractive hypothesis and sacrificing rigor.

I must say, at the outset, I am very much in the DeWaal camp (author of many books on this subject) and the "Sex At Dawn" camp (a book of revolutionary research about human evolution) that stress the importance of studying bonobo apes before making grand theories about human nature. Bonobos are far more egalitarian in their behavior than chimps. In additon, Sex at Dawn makes an extremely powerful argument that they more closely reflect the human genome. On page 13, this author quickly dismisses bonobos for both superficial reasons and his own admitted ignorance of their behavior. As such, I "quickly dismissed" his thesis as premature and incomplete (I wisely took out a library copy first). To say that egalitarianism came from hierarchy sounds like an semantic approach to appease everyone and offend no one (neither conservatives nor liberals). There's no reverse hierarchies in bonobo behavior ---rather, egalitarianism is natural to them. To say that hierarchy begets egalitarianism seems unnecessary. If we practiced egalitarianism for a couple hundred thousand years, egalitarianism becomes part of the genome (with hierarchical behavior flourishing unnaturally ONLY in this brief experiment of time after agriculture took hold). The challenge then becomes(with a nod to The Beatles) to "get back to where we once belonged" and shared everything ---including power.