Skip to main content

For nearly 200,000 years our human species (homo sapiens) lived on this bountiful planet in what most anthropologists now believe were mostly small egalitarian bands or tribes of hunter-gatherers, less than a million people scattered about Earth’s various habitable environs living for the most part peacefully with each other and within the larger web of nature.  Each autonomous group might be as few as 10 to as many as 100 people generally woven together by a web of kinship with a basic equality among members including between men and women.  It is generally believed today that all told, these people lived good lives in harmony with nature and were anything but the conventional pejorative notion of “savages”.

Unlike the tribal “chiefs” we are familiar with in contemporary indigenous societies, most bands of hunter-gatherers are believed to have operated without permanent leaders, with various community members taking initiative based on their expertise in the particular task being performed.  Think more the informal organization of a contemporary large extended family or a group of people on a field or camping trip rather than a highly stratified hierarchy of decision making.  The fact that this organization of our species evolved naturally and continued for nearly 200,000 years mostly unchanged speaks to its efficacy and compatibility with innate human nature.

What I’m really wrestling with these days is the most recent 5000 to 10,000 years of our history, specifically our experiment with “civilization”, which seems to have been quite a mixed bag.  In an effort to see what lies beyond and maybe even evolve beyond our nature, we created complex human societies where we all participate (some willingly but many coerced) as a sort of super-organism that has been able to explore and take control of virtually all of our planet’s territory and natural resources, compile an edifice of knowledge now almost universally available through the Internet, and take at least the first baby steps to explore beyond the friendly confines of our planet.  A super-organism mimicking a purely biological organism which has a certain small portion of that organism dedicated to its control and executive function.

At its best this experiment with civilization has created a world that currently allows seven billion unique souls to inhabit it at the same time, share an incarnation on a beautiful planet, and share ever more connectedness with (through diminishing degrees of separation from) each other.  

But the downside is that we have created complex societies and institutions within those societies which as designed require a controlling elite executing that executive function in a way that generally favors that subset of people at the expense of the rest of us participating in the super-organism.  This privilege of a controlling elite may or may not have been an aspect of previous human hunter-gatherer societies, but it continues to be a foundational cog of our “civilization” approach to human society.

What’s a species to do?

One approach that has been tried occasionally in our human history is for the majority to overwhelm the elite minority by force of superior numbers and force them to relinquish their wealth and power.   But from my reading of history, the rare successful rebellion of this sort has generally led to the elevation of a different elite jealously protecting its new position at the top of a newly stratified heap.  Perhaps more often, the threat of this sort of a revolt has led to some important changes for the better.

Civilization Beyond Privilege

Is civilization as we know it for the past 5000 years of written history even possible without creating a controlling privileged minority?  Has our species evolved enough in our sophistication to transform our institutions and our entire societies into a “Civilization 2.0: The Egalitarian Edition”?  Can we have the best of both worlds; the benefits of the coordinated effort of many thoughtful and capable people while still operating within our natural egalitarian rules of engagement with each other?

I’m convinced that we can... and moving in that direction is what gets me out of bed in the morning and makes life interesting and meaningful for me.  It is a huge evolutionary challenge, and ironically so many of us with the time, freedom and speaking position to call out the challenge are enmeshed in various circles of privilege that benefit us every day, and that most of us naively take for granted.

From the wisdom of radical historian Howard Zinn and his book You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train, it is more important who is sitting at the decision-making table than the letter of the laws that are guiding those decisions...

I was acutely conscious of the gap between law and justice. I knew that the letter of the law was not as important as who held the power in any real-life situation.
Which would lead him to the observation that...
While our society may be liberal and democratic in some large and vague sense, its moving parts, its smaller chambers--its classrooms, its workplaces, its corporate boardrooms, its jails, its military barracks--are flagrantly undemocratic, dominated by one commanding person or a tiny elite of power.
As a starting point, the best advice (such as it is) I’ve heard to date to begin to address the issues of privilege is that we constantly acknowledge it, starting with any that we ourselves possess, keeping the reality at least on the table and ripe for further discussion and the possibility of some sort of remediation or other action.  

The Corrosive Effects of Failing to Acknowledge Privilege

Failure to acknowledge one’s own privilege is a corrosive naivete that can lead to the worst of the worst, people “drinking the koolaid” and taking comfort thinking inequity is being confronted when in reality it is being reinforced.  

The example that comes to my mind (though you may disagree with my take here) are the efforts by a progressive Obama administration and a bipartisan majority in Congress and most state legislatures to push for the increasing standardization of education and the high-stakes testing that enforces it as a path toward better educational opportunities for communities outside the circle of racial and economic privilege.  Obama himself and likely the overwhelming majority of legislators supporting this effort send their own kids to private schools.  Yet they sign off on educational policy that affects mostly other people’s children.  Policy that critics now argue basically punishes schools in poor communities for failure while rewarding the success of public schools in more economically advantaged communities.  The privilege of the decision-makers insulates them from the real impact of their policy decisions.  The people most impacted by the policy are not at the table.

Thoughts on a Path Forward

As Howard Zinn and others point out, the possible good intentions of people making the decisions is less important than the breadth of people participating in the decision-making process and the broader range of perspectives they bring to that process.  Ideally in line with the natural informal human governance model evident in earlier human societies, everyone affected by a decision should be involved in making it, but this is not always doable.  The evolutionary challenge in our complex modern society is to somehow amidst all this bigness return to a truly egalitarian governance model rather than having a decisionmaking elite.  Set policy at the highest levels that facilitates most decisions being made at the local level.  And for those policy decisions that still need to be made at the highest level, continue to find ways of wresting the political process from the control by economic and other elites so there is broader representation making those remaining high-level decisions.  

We have had successes.  

In the world of big business, the union movement brought workers to the table to negotiate with business management, but the governance model is problematic because it is often highly adversarial leading to one side trying to defeat, rather than collaborate with, the other.  More recently the business efficiency of a more egalitarian approach to “knowledge work” may be a model for more local egalitarian political, legislative, and educational decisions as well.

In the realm of small business, an American culture that encourages entrepreneurialism has facilitated the blossoming of a multitude of high-tech startups, plus being an important path forward for immigrants to launch successful businesses to move into the middle class.

And in the arena of politics and legislative bodies, Women’s Suffrage and Civil Rights have facilitated women and minorities joining the circles of national and state-level decision making.  

In my thinking, going forward, the path away from privilege and a small elite controlling the rest of us is twofold.  Hierarchies within society, from huge institutions to small families, need to be “flattened” into more horizontal (peer) relationships and/or “flipped” into facilitative rather than directive leadership.  

From my reading of history, particularly the “flattening” part emerged in the consensus governance model of the Iroquois Nation and the Quaker meeting plus the most thoughtful and high-minded vision of the philosophical anarchists; not the end of governance but evolution beyond the need for a privileged governing elite. From his book God and the State written in 1871, anarchist thinker Mikhail Bakunin wrote...

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
Bakunin wrote these words with their very defiant tenor during a dark time for European civilization, in the midst of the Franco-Prussian War and the growing use of state-sponsored industrial militarism as a calculated coercive tool of state policy.  The most inhumane “statism” that led to World War I, the calculated slaughter of millions of young men on the battlefield, and a near total abandonment of any ethical underpinning for Western society.   If the privileged governing elite ever had an ethicaL justification for their stewardship of the rest of us, it lost all legitimacy.  More than a century of continued war and genocide followed, including taking our species to the brink of nuclear holocaust, perpetrated by the ruling elites of some of the most “advanced” nations on the planet.

Today many of us, including many of my fellow progressives, see this difficult legacy as a failing of the human species.  I do not, seeing instead the playing out and eventual failure of a governance model, our species’ 5000 year evolutionary experiment with a formal governing elite exercising “executive control” over the rest of us.  When it comes to human learning, there is no greater teacher than self-initiated experiment, failure, then assessment of lessons learned.  It is an experiment that transformed our society and there is no going back.  Only going forward with a further evolution that will somehow take us beyond the super-organism and the biological metaphor of executive function by a controlling elite.

To the extent that in our complex high-technology society (the equivalent of the entire hunter-gatherer population of the Earth 12,000 years ago living within five miles of me in the northern suburbs of Los Angeles) that we cannot have purely egalitarian, informal governance, the other aspect of change is turning upside down what hierarchy there needs to be to keep all this complexity from falling apart.  It is governance that facilitates and enables and serves rather than directs.  

So much can be said, and much work still needs to be done on this topic, so I only briefly call it out here.

In the world of business this new approach was heralded in the 1990s by books like Reengineering the Corporation, with business efficiency gurus talking about team-based management and “flipping the org chart”, empowering workers who conventionally are at the bottom of the pecking order to act with full agency and authority.  Yeah it was a fad, like many others in the business world, and I initially thought it pretty much came and went.  But I certainly see it in play for real at my own workplace among “knowledge workers” as documented in my pieces “Much More and Much Less than a Boss” and “Dispatch from the Corporate Egalitarian Team Trenches”.  Ours are high-skill high-wage jobs, and we still benefit from our middle class backgrounds (that help us find our way to being hired) and a meritocratic privilege that makes us more obvious candidates for true empowerment.  When employers with low-wage, lower-skill workers like Wal-Mart and Starbucks embrace this concept, then you know the business world will be truly transformed.

Certainly the Internet is beginning to flip the paradigm in the access to the world’s knowledge, no longer requiring experts like teachers to be the gatekeepers to the world’s knowledge for the rest of us and direct our efforts at acquisition.  The old paradigm of teacher as “sage on the stage” is giving way to a new paradigm of “guide on the side”, if a teacher is needed at all to learn.

So to finally put a stop to this perhaps somewhat unfocused rambling (so I can move on and write about other stuff) I leave you with this... when it comes to moving beyond privilege and every other aspect of the transformation and continuing evolution of human society... it’s all about the governance.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    Cooper Zale Los Angeles

    by leftyparent on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 11:28:56 AM PDT

  •  Do you have a citation for the egalitarian (0+ / 0-)

    claim? About how it wasn't survival of the fittest, etc? It would be odd that somehow we evolved from alpha-male primates to all-of-a-sudden-egalitarians.

    I was gonna listen to that, but then, um, I just carried on living my life. - Aldous Snow

    by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 01:14:47 PM PDT

    •  Look at the Wikipedia article... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      on "Hunter-Gatherers" at

      Look at the "Social and economic structure" section which reads...

      Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos, although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule. Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men.

      The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never perfect, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. Humanity's closest primate relatives are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies which are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organisation.

      Cooper Zale Los Angeles

      by leftyparent on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 01:42:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wikipedia is a great source but, as it says about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

         the egalitarianism of hunter gatherers, it is also "never perfect."

        muddy water can best be cleared by leaving it alone

        by veritas curat on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 02:46:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Important caveat to keep in mind! (0+ / 0-)

          But I also look to work done by geographer and historian Jared Diamond who has studied current hunter-gatherer societies for decades, and from that makes inferences about what their governance model likely was before the dawn of civilization.

          Certainly there may be some wishful thinking on my part, since I was a human being raised in love who generally thinks the best of his comrades.  But beyond the scholarship it makes intuitive sense to me from my own experience that humans have no reason to fight with each other unless they feel a sense of scarcity and not enough to go around.  On this bountiful planet with less than a million people scattered about, why would any of them want for anything.

          Cooper Zale Los Angeles

          by leftyparent on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 03:03:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Also look at historian Jared Diamond's article... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sturunner, veritas curat

    "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"...

    Cooper Zale Los Angeles

    by leftyparent on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 01:45:38 PM PDT

  •  Careful with - "most anthropologists believe" (0+ / 0-)

    From "Global Problems of Population Growth" 2009 Yale course taught by professor Robert Wyman :

    During that time we lived in small tribal groups and they're multi-male groups, (again we talked about most mammal's solitary males) with strong male bonding, competition for status, lots of inter-group conflict, competition for females and violence against females. Everything that we know says that humans have lived in communities with those characteristics since as far back as we can -- know, and that is the same description you would apply to chimpanzees…

    You can draw many similarities between the chimp organization of this lethal raiding and human warfare. How does one think about this? Well there are two possibilities. Either whatever you think of the chimp warfare and the causes of it you have to think that a lot of that is still causing human warfare, or you can say as many utopians do, that they're different. That human--human warfare has nothing to do with chimp warfare.

    One of the ways to prove or disprove that would be to look in history, as far as we can tell, and if it has different causes, what you have to assume is, we know for sure that this is what chimps do, and we presume that their ancestors some millions of years ago before we split--did that, but we don't really know that, but we presume it's true that chimps did that and then sometime in human history we have to find a period where we stopped doing it. Then at a later period we started doing it again but now for a totally different set of reasons than for the chimp reasons. The strategy of trying to figure out this question is then to go back in history and gather the archaeological and the anthropological--whatever data we can gather, and try to find out: has there been a period in human history where we were not--did not have this inter-communal violence.

    The people who believe that war has different causes -- they think agriculture started it because land becomes valuable or private property of some sort, people wanted to get each other's private property, or governments, modern state governments, or very commonly you'll hear that it has something to do with modernity, that civilization has somehow corrupted the pure nature of early humans who were wonderful human beings and didn't go to war.

    What was the situation for prehistoric humans? We can go back to the Neanderthals, which are a sister subspecies, and these guys as you know--heavy musculature, robust bones--they were obviously strong characters. When you take--study their graveyards, 40% of Neanderthal skeletons have head injuries. How does one attribute that? Either they were very clumsy and accident prone and always somehow managed to fall on their head--so far as we know they didn't climb trees very much and hang upside down and fall, or there was a lot of club wielding and head bashing going on.

    Homo sapiens, not Neanderthals, the earliest human burials that haven't just decayed away are about 20,000 to 35,000 years ago and when you dig them up what do you find? Spear points embedded in the bones, cranial fractures, scalping marks, and so forth. These burial grounds are found wherever archeologists look. Some of the most prominent ones are Italy, France, Egypt, Czechoslovakia because that's where archeologists have had access to dig.

    At a 13,000 year old cemetery in Sudan, over 40% of the skeletons had spear or arrow points embedded in them. The wounds--there were children buried there--the wounds found from the children in the cemetery were all execution shots in the head or the neck. They were just bashed to death in the head or the neck. This was not like one burial from one horrific incident, it was used over several generations. It was a continuing cemetery, and many of the adults showed not only the wounds that caused their death but many prior wounds, bone cracks and skull cracks that had healed, so you can see both a wound from some prior conflict which had healed and the new wound which caused the death at this moment. Individuals had gotten into a lot of conflict: one skeleton had 20 different wounds. That means bone cracks that you could still see 13,000 years later, and soft tissue injury we just don't have any way of knowing about.

    muddy water can best be cleared by leaving it alone

    by veritas curat on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 02:42:47 PM PDT

  •  nice work (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftyparent, sturunner

    Thanks for the thought provoking read!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site