Our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in tribes of a few dozen individuals in the late Pleistocene epoch over 100,000 years ago. They obtained their food by hunting, fishing, scavenging, and gathering wild plants, moving from place to place as supplies ran low. Each member of the tribe contributed in some way – in hunting big game, in preparing the kill for consumption, in childrearing and parenting, and defending the tribe. The culture was characterized by sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision making, and it emphasized individual autonomy and equality of individuals. There were no strong leaders. If abusive alpha males tried to dominate the group, coalitions formed to resist such attempts and ostracize the abuser. Our ancient ancestors had a truly egalitarian society.
About 12,000 years ago our ancestors began to abandon their hunter-gatherer lifestyle and learned how to farm and domesticate animals. They no longer had to venture out in search of food – they could produce all they needed at home. They built permanent dwellings and came together in communities and villages. The Agricultural Revolution led to perhaps the most profound social transformation in human history but had an unappreciated downside. A new class of wealthy merchants emerged, while the working class toiled with few rewards, and women were relegated to menial tasks. Human society had become hierarchical.
All social animals require some degree of hierarchy. Without hierarchy there would be continual conflict between individuals damaging both the individual and the group, and the group could degenerate into anarchy. As human societies grew larger and more complex, they required more hierarchy. But humans, dating back to their hunter-gatherer days, have inherited strong egalitarian instincts–a desire to be treated as equals and to have equal respect and opportunity. This has created an ongoing tug-of-war within human societies between hierarchical societies, which gravitate toward authoritarian rule, and egalitarian societies, which seek democratic governance.
Over the course of human history authoritarian regimes have been the most dominant governing systems, while democratic governments have shown great fragility. These trends have continued over the last few decades, and today 68% of the world’s population is under authoritarian rule. Political scientists Albert Somit and Steven Peterson put forth an unpopular thesis in their provocative book Dominance and Democracy: The Biological Basis of Authoritarianism. They argue that the most important reason for the rarity of democracy and the ascendency of authoritarian regimes is that evolution has endowed humans with the predisposition for hierarchically structured social and political systems.
We know that our genes shape our physical traits and our behavioral traits, but most of us believe that our political opinions and social perspectives are shaped by our culture and our environment. New research has challenged this viewpoint and suggests our social views may have a strong genetic component.
Psychologists have described several personality types defined by their social perspectives. German sociologist Theodor Adorno described the authoritarian personality, which was later refined by psychologist Bob Altemeyer under the name right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Individuals with this trait are characterized by extreme obedience to authority figures and a hierarchical view of society, believing some groups are superior to other groups and should dominate over these other groups. On the opposite end of the spectrum are individuals with egalitarian traits who believe in an egalitarian society and believe in the equality of all individuals.
Twin studies suggest there is a strong genetic component to these personality traits. When twins were given questionnaires to assess the strength of their hierarchical/authoritarian views, studies found that scores supporting hierarchical/authoritarian views correlated much better between identical twin pairs than between fraternal twin pairs, suggesting a strong genetic component to these views. Similar twin studies evaluating the strength of egalitarian views found that scores supporting egalitarian views correlated much better between identical twin pairs than between fraternal twin pairs, once again suggesting a strong genetic component.
Astonishingly, there appear to be differences in brain anatomy associated with different political opinions. Investigators have found that individuals with hierarchical/authoritarian beliefs have a larger-sized bilateral amygdala, while individuals with egalitarian beliefs have a greater volume of brain tissue in the anterior cingulate cortex. These studies further support the genetic basis of our social and political predispositions.
We all have a mixture of innate hierarchical traits and innate egalitarian traits that have been handed down to us through evolution. These traits combined with cultural and environmental influences shape our behavior. A sense of hierarchy is learned early in life. Our early years are dominated by hierarchical relationships with our parents, our teachers, our coaches, and others. As teenagers and adults, we devote a substantial portion of our lives to perceiving status, seeking dominance, and offering submission when necessary. This experience with hierarchy during our early formative years may strengthen a genetic bias in support of hierarchy and shape hierarchical behavior that persists into adulthood and is deeply ingrained.
In contrast, egalitarian behavior does not usually emerge until late childhood when there is more advanced cognitive function and the ability to appreciate and relate to the mental states of others. Once children understand the mental states of others, they begin to empathize with others and appreciate egalitarian values of equality and fair resource allocation. Some psychologists have argued that when cognitive capacity is high, people will exhibit more egalitarian behavior, but when cognitive capacity is limited, people will revert to their default hierarchical behavior.
Investigators at the Morning Consult sought to determine the prevalence of strong right wing authoritarian beliefs in the United States and seven other Western nations. They distributed questionnaires that measured the strength of right-wing authoritarian (RWA) views to 1,000 subjects in each country. In the United States, 25.6% of those surveyed had very high RWA scores and 13.4% had very low RWA scores (equivalent to strong egalitarian views). The remaining 61% of subjects had intermediate scores. The United States had a greater number of very strong RWA scores than any other country and had a fewer number of very weak RWA scores than all but one country. This survey indicates that we in the United States have a sizable minority of our population with strong right-wing authoritarian views, a smaller minority with strong egalitarian views, and a sizable majority with intermediate views. Predispositions for these views are embedded on our DNA.
Individuals with strong right-wing authoritarian views support autocracy over democracy, and individuals with strong egalitarian views support democracy over autocracy. Support for democracy among those with intermediate views is unclear. A recent survey (8/22) asked: What do you think is the most important issue facing the country? Threats to democracy was the most important issue to 21% of respondents, but 79% of respondents cited other issues–such as inflation, jobs and the economy, immigration, climate change, guns, and abortion–as most important.
Is human nature compatible with democracy? The answer is a qualified yes. Human nature is a hybrid of hierarchical/authoritarian traits, which are more compatible with autocracy, and egalitarian/democratic traits, which are more compatible with democracy. Both are present, but the hierarchical/authoritarian traits may be more dominant. This view is supported by the dominance of authoritarian governance throughout human history and by the greater prevalence of strong hierarchical/authoritarian traits over strong egalitarian traits in the U.S population. However, we know that genetic predispositions can be over-ridden by environmental and cultural factors, and we know that humans have empathetic, altruistic, and cooperative traits that favor an egalitarian society and the belief in the equality of all people. Psychologists also believe that when cognitive levels are high, individuals will exhibit more egalitarian behavior. So, it is quite possible that our potential genetic bias toward hierarchical/authoritarian traits can be overridden by changes in our culture and environment.
I believe the two most important cultural conditions that have aided the authoritarian movement in the United States are our racial inequities and the growing economic inequities in our society. Working-class Americans, who have been left behind by globalization and automation, harbor great resentment and alienation toward the politicians and business elites who sent their jobs overseas and profited at their expense. These workers are vulnerable to autocratic demagogues, who feed off their resentment and pit them against the establishment and the privileged elites. These workers are good candidates to join the right-wing populist movement. If we are to gain support from the working-class and ethnic minorities for an egalitarian society and democratic governance, we must make progress in reducing the racial and economic inequities in our society. If we can do this, we can make all our citizens feel they are contributing members of our society. We can overcome the innate bias many of us have toward a hierarchical society and autocratic governance. And we can preserve our democracy. Let’s hope we are up to the challenge.
