Inequality Incongruences

One of the more troublesome aspects of human societies is the persistent inequality that is present in most cultures—some worse than others. Prior to our settling down into settled, agrarian enclaves, some 10-12 thousand years ago, human communities were far more egalitarian. Hunter-gatherer bands were inherently more equal, as all members contributed their labor. Hierarchies came into existence after permanent settlements were formed and people began to acquire more things. Mechanisms for division of labor and power surfaced and began to establish different degrees of control and authority.

Inequality has plagued humanity ever since. Hierarchy has created societies in which some members are perpetually held down, into classes that are considered inferior. Others have assumed superior positions, which they then come to regard as their rightful place.

The hierarchical and oppressive nature of societies has swung from extremes of outrageousness to some degree of moderation—depending on who holds power; whether it's the elites or the masses. The poor have occasionally prospered, usually following disasters or revolts against the rich. Thus the pendulum of the degree of class and inequality has often swung from one side to the other.

For example, a century ago the severe inequalities of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. After recovery and including the effects of World War II, economic disparities were significantly reduced for a few decades. Many people on the lowest socioeconomic levels enjoyed a period of moderate comfort, as many of them moved into middle class lives.

Since about the 1980s, however, the pendulum has swung the other direction, as the wealthy classes have once again dramatically increased their assets—creating another period of extremely high degree of inequality once again.

If people the world over were to be surveyed, I believe that the majority of them would likely agree that inequality has both increased and is widespread today. Even many of the powerful and rich would agree. Most people would probably also maintain that inequality is harmful. But that's where a consensus would end.

Strong disagreement would quickly appear if people were asked about specifics of inequality, such as: (1) how did it come about?, (2) how unjust is it?, (3) what could be done to create more egalitarianism?, (4) is the current (or any) level of inequality acceptable?, (5) do some people deserve to be poor, by having brought their poverty on themselves?, etc. Maybe the lack of agreement is partly responsible for the persistence of inequality: there may be wide concurrence that it's harmful, but little consensus on what to do about it. Some people feel it's inevitable, some are seemingly ignorant of its scale, and a few are even quite content with it. Does it need to get even worse, before enough people rise up and insist upon change?

From Egalitarianism to Inequality: the Rise of Religion—Part 2 of Big History

Last time I described how humans transitioned from egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands to more complex settled villages in which ownership of property brought a division of labor and a fear of invaders who might confiscate the fruits of that labor. Concurrent with these changes, communities became hierarchical for the first time.

Religion also came into being about that time, largely because it found a home in the new cultures. Specifically, religion satisfied three new needs of society: (1) hierarchy, (2) a sense of community, through solidarity and sacrifice, and (3) a sense of superiority that bolstered the courage of its adherents.

First, consider hierarchical needs. While an egalitarian perspective is mostly horizontal—all people are pretty much on an equal level—religious thought is vertical, from above to below. The gods are superior to us (above us), so we'd best submit to them and follow their orders. Accordingly, human societies became increasingly hierarchical—as leaders assumed authority and power. In fact, those leaders were often priests who claimed to be designated by the gods to rule. Especially when the gods were not available, our ancestors were expected to obey the gods' appointed representatives.

The second need religion met was a sense of community. Religion unites its followers through the worship of a common god (or shared pantheon). This was crucial, because it was necessary to create bonds beyond the kinship of the earlier small, hunter-gatherer bands. Religion literally creates an artificial, expanded family. Unity is further strengthened, as followers connect through a sense of “them” and “us.” We follow the true god(s); they follow lesser god(s).

The third need that religion brought to our settled ancestors was a sense of superiority. If our god(s) is indeed greater and stronger, we become invincible. We therefore will fight harder and longer, and prevail in conflicts that either protect our property or seize others'. Our god is on our side.

The military is a good example of hierarchy that the newly-settled life brought. Standing armies were soon required to protect property. Furthermore, there is no egalitarianism in the military; there is no democracy. Obedience to the vertical chain of command above you is absolutely necessary.

Next time: the rise of writing, states, and state religion…