Before Man’s Domination Over Man: Humanity as an Egalitarian Society

Some narratives weigh heavily on our collective imagination. Among them is the idea that domination, violence, and hierarchy are inevitable. According to this view, human history is a long succession of power struggles, marked from the very beginning by the subjugation of man by man. But this narrative, which has shaped our representations for centuries, deserves to be revisited. Recent work—particularly that of David Graeber and David Wengrow in The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021)—invites us to radically rethink the long arc of human societies and to deconstruct the notion that social inequality is inevitable or “natural.”

A More Egalitarian Humanity Than We Think

For most of its history, humanity lived in egalitarian societies. Considering that Homo sapiens have existed for around 300,000 years, and agriculture only emerged about 10,000 years ago, the timeline reminds us of a simple truth: the forms of organization we now consider “normal”—centralized states, social stratification, vertical power—are recent inventions. They are not the rule, but the exception.

Hunter-gatherers, who represent the vast majority of human experience, were not the “primitive” beings driven solely by survival instincts as described by outdated evolutionary anthropology. On the contrary, archaeological and ethnographic research shows they practiced a wide variety of social organizations: sometimes egalitarian, sometimes more hierarchical, but often with remarkable flexibility. For example, the Plains peoples of North America, such as the Lakota and Cheyenne, alternated between egalitarian governance in winter and more centralized structures during bison hunts. The Wendat (Huron) of the Great Lakes region in the 17th century practiced confederations where authority was largely deliberative and based on consensus. In Europe, Mesolithic societies in Scandinavia (circa 8000–5000 BCE), as seen in sites like Vedbæk (Denmark) and Skateholm (Sweden), show seasonal gatherings where hierarchy remained temporary and contextual. Even in southern Africa, the San (Bushmen) long embodied an egalitarian social structure, where authority was reversible and individual freedom protected by collective mechanisms.

Archaeological evidence reinforces these findings: the site of Çatalhöyük in Anatolia (7th millennium BCE), with its uniform dwellings and absence of political or religious monuments, shows that large settlements could exist without enduring hierarchy. In the Loire Valley, the megalithic alignments of Carnac (5th millennium BCE) reflect large-scale collective organization without signs of centralized elites. The burials at Sungir (Russia, around 34,000 years ago) reveal occasional ritual inequality (children buried with rich ornaments), but this did not translate into generalized social domination.

In this light, the enduring domination of one group over another—and especially the consolidation of coercive state structures—appears to be a relatively late development.

Why Did Hierarchies Emerge So Late?

Many explanations have been proposed for the emergence of social and political hierarchies, but they tend to converge around a few major theories:

The agriculture hypothesis: For a long time, it was believed that the invention of agriculture inevitably led to inequality—sedentarization, surplus, storage, accumulation, division of labor, and the rise of elites. However, Graeber and Wengrow show that this linear sequence is misleading. Many agricultural societies maintained egalitarian structures for centuries, and some hunter-gatherer communities already exhibited marked inequalities. Thus, it’s not agriculture itself that produces hierarchy, but its interaction with specific political and cultural choices.

Surplus management: What seems decisive is not surplus production per se, but control over it. When individuals or groups managed to monopolize storage sites, exchange networks, or symbolic resources (rituals, knowledge, trade contacts), they could convert their position into lasting power. Sumerian temples and monumental tombs of certain Neolithic elites testify to the appropriation of surplus to legitimize domination.

Demographic concentration: In areas where population density increased—fertile deltas, trade crossroads, emerging cities—horizontal mechanisms of social regulation became harder to maintain. To resolve conflicts, organize production, and coordinate exchanges, hierarchical structures were sometimes introduced. But it’s crucial to note that urbanization does not always mean inequality: Çatalhöyük, a city in 7th millennium BCE Anatolia, shows urban organization without dominant palaces or temples, with surprisingly uniform housing.

Logics of war and prestige: In some contexts, military or symbolic competition helped crystallize hierarchies. The “big men” of the Pacific, studied by anthropologists, gained prestige not by hoarding wealth but by redistributing it during lavish feasts. War, however, often provided military leaders with a durable power base, especially when societies accepted their monopoly over violence.

Graeber and Wengrow’s Thesis: Freedom as a Foundation

What makes Graeber and Wengrow’s thesis particularly innovative is their refusal to see inequality as a fatality or a mechanical consequence of technical innovations. Past societies experimented with an incredible variety of political forms, oscillating between equality and hierarchy, centralization and autonomy, temporary authority and lasting structures. Human history resembles less a march toward the state than a succession of collective choices.

Graeber and Wengrow identify three fundamental freedoms that characterized egalitarian societies:

• The freedom to move: to change communities if one was dissatisfied with its organization.
• The freedom to disobey: to reject authority or choose not to submit to it.
• The freedom to reinvent social order: to experiment with other forms of collective life.

These freedoms—largely lost or diminished today—were central to ensuring that hierarchies did not become entrenched.

What If History Were a Lesson for the Future?

If we accept that human societies lived for millennia without enduring hierarchies and were capable of inventing sophisticated egalitarian organizations, then the argument that contemporary inequalities are “natural” collapses. On the contrary, history shows that equality is possible, that it was the norm for thousands of years, and that it can become a viable option again.

This doesn’t mean we should return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, nor idealize past societies. But it does mean recognizing that our current institutions are not the result of inevitable evolution—they are the product of contingent historical choices. Therefore, we have the power to make different choices.

Toward a Refoundation of Modern Societies

In light of these insights, how can we rethink our contemporary societies, marked by growing inequalities and multiple crises? A few avenues emerge:

• Reviving collective participation: Past societies often operated through assemblies, councils, or collective deliberation. Our representative democracies could be enriched by mechanisms of direct, participatory, and deliberative democracy.
• Limiting surplus appropriation: In many egalitarian societies, redistribution mechanisms prevented the indefinite accumulation of wealth by a few individuals. Our societies could draw inspiration from this logic to design new modes of taxation, redistribution, and resource sharing.
• Valuing diverse ways of life: Far from imposing a single norm, human societies have always experimented with varied ways of inhabiting the world. This diversity should inspire policies that respect and protect cultural, ecological, and social pluralism.
• Rehabilitating the fundamental freedoms identified by Graeber and Wengrow: the ability to move, to refuse, and to reinvent. In a globalized and interconnected world, these freedoms could translate into the effective right to mobility, the guarantee of real counterpowers, and the possibility to create political and economic alternatives.

Rethinking the Inevitable

In contrast to the narrative of inevitable domination, the long history of humanity shows that equality is not a utopia but a lived reality for countless generations. Inequality is not inscribed in our “nature”; it is the result of historical choices, circumstances, and power strategies. This means we can choose differently. The work of Graeber and Wengrow opens a valuable breach: the possibility of imagining a society where cooperation, equality, and inclusion are not exceptions but foundations.

It is up to us, today, to reopen this field of possibilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Graeber, David & Wengrow, David. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. 

Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. 

Scott, James C. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. 

Testart, Alain. Avant l’histoire: L’évolution des sociétés de Lascaux à Carnac. 

Wengrow, David. What Makes Civilization? The Ancient Near East and the Future of the West. 

Sahlins, Marshall. Stone Age Economics.