It's an aberration because it's only existed for 3% of human history. Hobbes was a deluded philosopher who imagined that ancient life was no different than the world around him, which often was nasty, brutish, and short. Basing our understanding of humanity on a 17th century philosopher (rather than on modern scientific disciplines) is idiotic and I can't believe anyone is silly enough to bring him up in modern times.
Archeology shows that if ancient foragers survived childhood, they often lived into their 60s. Foragers also work a lot less than agriculturslists, and have a healthier, more diverse diet. Agriculture is one of the worst things to every happen to humanity, but we're stuck with it now.
"Patriarchy brought domination-based systems and a focus on technologies of war. It may have eventually led to palaces and great edifices as well as greater industry, but are we truly better off?
We live longer and have better medical care than in ancient times, but we also live more isolated lives, devoid of the kind of community and social connection that human beings are designed for. Loneliness in our culture is at an epidemic level that cuts lives short. We have all types of stratification and the discord and violence that arise out of a system of social hierarchy. Dominance based hierarchies produce, but they also largely benefit those at the top of the hierarchy in ways that the rest of the society doesn’t benefit from in the same ways."
"In the 1960s and 1970s anthropologists, such as Richard Lee and Yehudi Cohen, noticed the strong correlation between how societies produce their food and how they are structured socio-politically. Years of accumulated anthropological research showed that those who live by hunting and gathering show a very strong tendency to live in egalitarian, consensus-based societies.
Hunter-gatherers depend on each other for food, and so co-operation and mutualism are institutionalised by necessity. A single hunter might only have a one in four chance of making a successful kill, but four hunters who agree to share whatever they catch have a much more reliable food supply. Moving around the landscape, from areas depleted in food to areas where the land is richer, hunter-gatherers allow nature to do the hard work for them and reap the bounty when it is ready. This mode of production means the Kung and the Hadza, who live in the most marginal habitats of southern Africa, spend a mere three to five hours looking after their daily food needs.
Even in a harsh desert environment such as this, the Hobbesian conception of the life of pre-civilised humanity as being nasty and brutish could hardly be further from the truth. Hunter-gatherers live healthy lives of plenty, and have been quite rightly described as the ‘original affluent society’. Unfortunately, the myth of the ‘war of all against all’, and the savage, condemned to a life struggling with nature red in tooth and claw, is still deeply ingrained in the civilised psyche.
When a nomadic society ends up settling somewhere, the first possibilities for coercion come into being. A group of nomads, finding itself unable to agree on an issue of importance, can always split into two or more groups, each of which can go its own way and implement the decision they believe to be the best. Farmers, however, are stuck where they are, and the best kind of democracy that a settled community can produce is the tyranny of the majority.
Once a settlement produces a surplus, things get even worse; certain people stop being food producers and begin to specialise in other trades. This specialisation creates the beginnings of significant material inequality – some skills are simply more valued than others, and attract more wealth as a result. Among nomads, property becomes a burden if it accumulates. A society of equals, which places little value on what material wealth it does possess, is not fertile ground for property crime. The material inequality of agriculture-based societies, however, does result in crime, and while some might specialise in metalwork, pottery or public relations, others come to specialise in violence, under the guise of crime prevention. These specialists in violence really spend their time maintaining the differentials in wealth that are appearing, and ensuring the security of another group of specialists – the nascent elite.
Archaeological digs at Neolithic sites neatly demonstrate the architecture of early hierarchy; the largest houses are always positioned next to the buildings used for storing grain. When the elite finds itself able to control the surplus in such a way as to have a monopoly on violence, for instance by paying off and arming the strongest and best fighters in a community, the transition is complete and a minority is able to hold power. Thus, when an elite is able to exercise violence with impunity within the geographical bounds of the society, tyranny ensues. When the same is done outside these bounds, war and empire ensue, since a food surplus also allows the fielding of a dedicated army, which can then be used to seize land and assets from neighbouring populations. Without a surplus of food, sustained military campaigns are simply not possible."
We don't live in a world where the smartest and most able rise to the top - not by a long shot. We live in a world where those who have grabbed power through violence and domination maintain it for their own benefit at the expense of others - often preventing actual competition and access to excellence that would be beneficial for the society.
“A dominance hierarchy (which is what patriarchy actually is, not just a dynamic between men and women) is about maintaining traditional power through bullying, coercion, and artificial barriers to true competition. It’s the complete antithesis of a merit-based system, no matter what Jordan Peterson and his ilk might try to tell you.
In fact, a Stanford University study determined that patriarchal dominance hierarchies which spread about 6–9 thousand years ago and overtook egalitarian communities did so not because they were a more efficient system, but because they caused so much societal disruption.
“In other words, inequality did not spread from group to group because it is an inherently better system for survival, but because it creates demographic instability, which drives migration and conflict and leads to the cultural — or physical — extinction of egalitarian societies.” New Scientist
