Enter your mobile number below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior Kindle Edition
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Top Customer Reviews
It's impeccably well referenced and methodically argued, and it makes the most humane, realistic and ultimately inspiring conclusions about human nature I've found anywhere. It's not inspiring in an unrealistically romanticised way, but in a practical way of feeling like you understand human nature better by the end and can make wiser guesses how to intervene or influence conditions so pro-sociality and co-operation increases around you.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
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.
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).
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.
So how would *I* answer the questions he raises? I actually don't think the explanation needs to be that complex. First of all, I don't think there is a fixed thing called "human nature", I think humans are very adaptable and will behave in a manner advantageous to their circumstances. In hunter-gatherer societies, humans hunted in groups in a very co-operative way, and co-operative groups are most effective when all members of the group feel respected, i.e. like equal peers. This is as true of a group of hunters tracking an elephant as it is of a group of modern software developers building a product. So, hunter-gatherer societies evolved egalitarian behavior simply because that's what worked best. Once humans became "civilized" (i.e. resorted to agriculture instead of hunting/gathering), hierarchy re-emerged because that's what worked best in organized agricultural societies. Anyway, that's my simple answer to the questions raised here. FWIW. :-)
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Science & Nature > Biological Sciences > Biological Science
- Books > Science & Nature > Biological Sciences > Evolution
- Books > Scientific, Technical & Medical > Biology > Human Biology
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Anthropology > Physical
- Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Anthropology
- Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science & Maths > Biological Sciences > Biology > General