Paper short abstract:

Metaphor is central to linguistic creativity. Neither words nor rules could evolve until our ancestors were willing to accept patent fictions on trust. The necessary levels of public trust, being inconsistent with primate dominance, had to await the establishment of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism.

Paper long abstract:

Language evolved at a time when all humans were hunter-gatherers. Underlying this development was a novel cognitive principle - metaphor. Chimpanzees and bonobos communicate on the basis of a species-specific repertoire of gesture-calls. When reared by humans, they may go beyond this, learning to use gestural signs with their carers and on occasion resorting to metaphor in order to invent a new sign. Despite strong evidence for this cognitive capacity, primatologists have found no evidence that they do this when communicating socially in the wild.

This paper argues that apes avoid metaphor not because of a cognitive deficiency but, on the contrary, because they are too clever. Ape social intelligence is 'Machiavellian', enabling tactical deception - and for that reason compelling receivers to resist being deceived. In a Darwinian social world - one riven with conflicts over dominance and status - apes do best to resist all signals which might prove to be false. In demanding perceptible veracity, they exclude metaphorical usage as a matter of course.

A metaphor is, literally, a false statement. Evolving humans resisted expressions of this kind until they could afford to place trust in signals which were patent falsehoods. Language, therefore, did not even begin to evolve until the human social revolution came to a head, replacing primate dominance with hunter-gatherer reverse dominance, intersubjectivity and egalitarianism.

Paper short abstract:

Explanations for the rise of stratified societies propose various benefits, from management of irrigation and agricultural surplus through superior warfare. Our demographic simulations show that inequality spreads by creating instability that drives migration and conflict, and may select for selfish traits.

Paper long abstract:

Why did socioeconomic stratification—institutionalized inequality—spread and take over during the past 5,000+ years? The origins of inequality have been debated from the time of Plato, through Rousseau, Marx and Engels, and the Social Darwinists. Twentieth-century explanations for the spread of hierarchical societies posited a variety of benefits and efficiencies, from management of irrigation and agricultural surplus through superior outcomes in warfare. However, our demographic simulations show that inequality in access to resources is inherently destabilizing, driving spread of stratified populations via migration. In other words, inequality did not spread from group to group because it is a beneficial cultural trait that imparts efficiencies and motivates innovation, but instead because it creates demographic instability that drives migration and conflict, leading to the cultural—or physical—extinction of egalitarian societies. Our current research investigates the very real possibility that natural selection itself operates differently under regimes of equality versus inequality. Egalitarian societies may foster group-level selection for low fertility, cooperation, and altruism, while inequality might exacerbate individual-level selection, thus leading to high fertility, competition, aggression, social climbing, and other selfish traits.

Paper short abstract:

Malo farmers in Ethiopia identify three kinds of cooperative labour. Whereas largely non-reciprocal two are already abandoned or rarely practised, most reciprocal and egalitarian one is still commonly practised. However, the latter is now being diminished by recently introduced wage labour.

Paper long abstract:

As practised in most agricultural societies around the world, cooperative labour can be considered prosocial. It is organised primarily during peak labour seasons to complete agricultural tasks such as weeding. Although cooperative labour has often been discussed from an economic perspective, it also has sociocultural significance, in that it provides an opportunity for neighbours to develop a sense of solidarity through working together. Cooperative labour is generally classified into two categories: 'festive labour' and 'exchange labour'. The former, in which a well-off host provides participants with lavish hospitality as a reward for their labour, does not have a strong element of reciprocity. On the other hand, the latter, in which a smaller group of farmers of approximately equal status work together with obligations to reciprocate, may be more egalitarian. Malo farmers in Ethiopia among whom I have conducted fieldwork identify three kinds of cooperative labour. Whereas festive labour, allo, has been abandoned for decades and its intermediate version, dago, is rarely practised, exchange labour, zafe, is still commonly practised by neighbours. The shift in cooperative labour from non-reciprocal and reciprocal arrangements to largely reciprocal ones may suggest that the society is becoming fairer. However, wage labour, kray, was recently introduced into the farming sector following the Ethiopian state's adoption of a neoliberal economic policy. Wage labour, a feature of capitalism, did not simply replace cooperative labour; instead, it seems to have undermined it, diminishing its prevalence as well as the frequency with which it is practised.

Paper short abstract:

Penan hunter-gatherers in Borneo are assertively egalitarian and food is shared, while among rice-growers like the Kelabit are hierarchical and rice is clearly owned and not freely shared. However,rice is nevertheless the basis of a form of prosociality founded in dependance, which generates the possibility of status differentiation.

Paper long abstract:

Among Penan hunter-gatherers in Borneo, who depend on sago starch and hunting, all food is immediately shared equally among all. Among Kelabit rice-growers, on the other hand, rice is produced and owned separately and some families produce more rice than others. Rice is not freely shared, although traditionally hunted meat and wild vegetables were. It is, however, ultimately shared among all in a traditional context: those who have more rice make it available to those who are short of rice, through large-scale rice meals, feasts and through bringing those who have less into their families as dependants. Those who have more rice ultimately eat no more than those who have less rice and there is little difference in life-style. Such a way of life, which is widespread throughout tribal groups in SE Asia and probably throughout the world, is arguably prosocial. However, it also entails inequality in status: those who are able to provide for others have higher status, because of the very fact that they are able to provide for others. They are believed to be more powerful, closer to the spirits and to God. This shows that prosociality and egalitarianism do not necessarily go hand-in-hand and that notions of equality and inequality need to be more closely examined. Within human groups, it is possible for differentiation to be accompanied by prosociality. Certain crops - rice, and probably other grains, because of their particular characteristics - have the capacity to generate status differentiation, but this may be accompanied by a strong impetus towards care for others.

Paper short abstract:

Are egalitarianism and capitalism totally incompatible in human society? Baka Pygmies have maintained and developped their own cacao plantations for decades. This paper describe how the Baka are trying to manage their capital, with maintaining the psychosocial principles of egalitarianism.

Paper long abstract:

Hunter-Gatherers living in central African forests are well known as to be among the most egalitarian peoples in the world. At Congo/ southeastern Cameroon border area, Baka hunter-gatherers adopted cacao farming. Cash crop cultivation brought a new sort of "inequality" among the Baka. Cash crop cultivation is evidently different activities from "immediate-returrn system" and how to make a "good" sharing of cash is often difficult problem to confuse many Baka. It seems quite difficult to keep and develop "wealth", with maintaining the psychosocial principles of egalitarianism. But the fact is that many Baka of the region have maintained and developped their own cacao plantations for more than 3 decades over generations. At the same time, some of them have also continued to practice long term hunting and gathering camps in the forest periodically up to today: they are trying and struggling to adapt to market economy without losing hunting and gathering life. In this presentation, I will focus 1) on the trials and errors being made by Baka to treat cacao plantations and cash which those plantations bring in their internal society, and 2) on the negotiation process concerning land and forest among the Baka, the Bakwele farmers, and the other merchant-farmers. The both points are strongly connected by local credit and finance system. After the description and analysis of quantative and qualitative data, today's Baka's perception of value on money, land, and labor will be reconsidered in relation to egalitarianism.

Paper short abstract:

Contrary to their normal sharing practice, in artificial economic games, Hadza foragers appear as rationalists, who do not engage in costly third-party punishment. Immediate-return foragers allegedly have no need to solve collective action problems. Does this mean humans evolved with no rule of law?

Paper long abstract:

Darwinians argue that to establish a 'rule of law', punishment is required, not only of non-cooperators, but also of those who refuse to punish non-cooperators.

Henrich, Marlowe and colleagues apply Ultimatum, Dictator and Third Party Punishment games to test psychological dispositions for generosity and/or punishment across cultures. In these games, Hadza hunter-gatherers don't punish as third parties; compared to other populations, they operate as rationalists, optimizing profits. In actual Hadza life, demand-sharing ensures equal distribution; individuals offer little initially, expecting to be asked for more. Among far less egalitarian societies, paradoxically, we see more 'prosocial' offers. Generous behaviour and willingness to punish correlates with degree of market integration and practice of 'world' religion, implying correlation also with greater within-group inequality. We have a contradictory outcome: the society which is in fact fairest, in terms of equality of access to resources and mates, with relatively equal health and mortality rates, appears least prosocial, while societies which exhibit greatest inequality appear most prosocial.

Under this analysis, immediate-return foragers (and by extension modern human ancestors) had no collective action problem requiring widespread cooperation with strangers. The implication is they do not need norms or rule of law. Supposedly, kin selection and reciprocity, as found in nonhuman primates, suffices. How can this misconception of hunter-gatherer morality, kinship and economics have arisen? Ironically, these Darwinian accounts ignore reproduction - the collective action problem of cooperative childcare. Pervasive gender-blindness has led to a failure to see female sexual strategies and ritual sanctions underpinning the 'rule of law'.

Paper short abstract:

Prosociality is not an abstract thing. In order to experience the world we require the full range of the body. Capitalism and market integration on the other hand are huge machines, depending on the retreat from the body and from lived intersubjectivity.

Paper long abstract:

Using the theme of women's ritual dance in certain Central African egalitarian societies, this paper will examine a different kind of politics to that common in societies in which property, corporative power and social hierarchy have become the dominant structural principles. During spirit performances known respectively as mokondi massana or molimo Mbendjele and Mbuti dancers organise into formal gender groups. These impromptu coalitions distribute social power by literally dancing it out. Crucial here is the fact that nothing settles in the hands of any one group or individual. "Play" in this context is a potent communal tool used to facilitate social motion. This paper will argue that the immediate somatic power expressed through Mbendjele or Mbuti dance collectives, and central to egalitarian sociality, is the antithesis of capitalism. Using ethnography on several Yaka and Mbuti public dances I will show that the equilibrium managed by gender groups during these performances is part of a sophisticated political dynamic: Visceral, kinetic, a live power produced by bodies acting together and upon one another. Assumptions about the political as "invariably centred on coercive power" (Gledhill) have traditionally obscured our appreciation of systems such as these, in which power is continually funnelled back and forth between coalitions. I conclude that the most collectively empowering societies are those in which the negotiation about and distribution of power remains in the hands of the people. Where power settles with one elite, becoming a fixed and abstract fact, prosociality is undermined.

Paper short abstract:

Occupy London, as part of the larger Occupy-movement, entangled materialities, discourse, people and ideas together to form a space where an alternative to capitalism was co-created and performed. Their consensus-based democracy and radical ethos of sharing was performed and practiced middle of a financial capital, calling models of humans as rational, profit-maximising actors into question.

Paper long abstract:

How can social movements open new spaces for practice-based critical reflection and questioning capitalism? Throughout 2011, the Arab spring started a wave of social movements across the world, from the Spanish Indignados to Occupy Wall Street and beyond. The Occupy movement took on a particular presence in global imagination, spreading to over 900 cities worldwide and making a significant mark on contemporary politics. While its legacy and continuation is likely to be disputed for years to come, this paper will consider how Occupy London provided a space for a radical sociality based on sharing and horizontalism. The occupation of an area between St Pauls Cathedral and the London Stock Exchange became a unique entanglement of materiality, discourse and a range of people with different ages, genders, class backgrounds and financial situations, who met in the timespace of the occupation and made up an assemblage with potential for radical change. Participating in the process of building a community in a city of steel and corporate interest, protestors simultaneously engaged with theories of mimesis, performativity and economic analysis. In a sideways motion reminiscent of feminist critiques, they imagined and performed a society they found more welcoming than the neoliberal world around them. Occupy's work towards an 'alternative' to the current system, highlights not just a willingness to cooperate with friends and strangers, but also calls for a re-examination of rational actor theories and economic models that have become dominant under neoliberalism.