Hunter-gatherer societies may be less egalitarian than they seem.

This metaphor has been so overused that it has turned into a cliché. Hunter-gatherers share their resources equally among tribes with an admirable generosity that seems absent in high-income societies. However, a study of the anthropological data indicates that this perception is not entirely accurate.

“No society achieves true equality,” affirm team members, including Chris von Ruden, an anthropologist at the University of Richmond, Virginia. What seems like equality is often merely practical, if not selfish behavior.

In witnessing the apparently equal wealth distribution in traditional subsistence societies, some researchers conclude that humanity’s default mode is altruism and equity. For instance, the 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Engels, a companion of Karl Marx and a staunch advocate of Marxism, formulated some of his theories based on observations of the egalitarian traits prevalent in traditional cultures.

“However, it isn’t solely about distributing everything among everyone,” states von Ruden.

Following their examination of existing evidence, von Ruden and his colleagues, including Duncan Stebbard-Hawkes, researchers from Durham University in the UK, suggest that some anthropologists mistakenly interpret the communal wealth’s equality as a sign of an inherent desire for equality. Moreover, the focus on equity in certain traditional societies may stem less from an egalitarian philosophy and more from individual concerns about limited choices. For example, the Mbenjele people of the Republic of Congo utilize a grievance process known as Mosambo, where individuals publicly express their grievances to the camp.

“People dislike intimidation, coercion, and ‘big shots,'” suggests Manvir Singh, an anthropologist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the research. He agrees with von Ruden and Stebbard-Hawkes, noting that a society focused on safeguarding individual autonomy may present as egalitarian.

Research indicates that, alongside the preference for autonomy, equality can arise from self-interested actions. Instead of sharing hunting success out of generosity, hunters might distribute meat to avoid ongoing blame. Supporting this notion, von Ruden and Stebbard-Hawkes highlight frequent and “vocal” requests for food sharing within many foraging communities. For instance, in some Kun communities, located in Angola, Botswana, and Namibia, approximately 34 percent of daytime conversations involve complaints about being stingy.

Equally, a community where members readily share resources and assist one another isn’t necessarily devoid of social hierarchies. Certain cultures valorize individuals who are more cooperative and community-oriented. For example, the Tsimane people of Bolivia cherish humility and kindness as traits of a commendable individual. Thus, von Ruden and Stebbard-Hawkes argue that the documented equality in traditional subsistence societies may stem from intense competition to appear just within the group.

The research claims to “provide a significant contribution that integrates multiple ethnographic cases to showcase the range and diversity of egalitarianism.” According to Jerome Lewis, an anthropologist at the University of London, the 19th-century portrayal of Engels’ “noble savage” living in a utopian, principled community is no longer relevant and represents a “highly biased and discriminatory perspective.” Like any human groups, hunter-gatherers compete, clash, and seek methods to resolve their disputes.

Lewis notes that traditional subsistence societies globally have developed “impressive alternatives” to how high-income nations organize culture and justice. He emphasizes that many traditional subsistence societies have existed for over 50,000 years and continue to thrive, imparting potent lessons and fresh perspectives on how we structure our communities.