In anthropology, there is an interesting literature on some necessary conditions for the emergence of hierarchical societies (as opposed to egalitarian societies). From what I've understood so far, it seems that one of the major determinants of dominance hierarchy (not prestige, but hierarchical and extractive relationships, and, to be efficient, rationalized / legitimides) is whether resources are monopolizable, which in turn depends on the predictability, density and defensibility of resources - which is why societies with delaued economies such as agriculture tend to be more hierarchical than societies with immediate economies such as hunter-gatherers. When resources are monopolisable, the necessary conditions for social domination are present:
1) Group A / dominus has no other source of resources better than the submission, obedience, or "forced cooperation" of group B / servus (when group A has better sources of resources than group B's extraction, group B is ignored, is a competitor for the same resources, or is eliminated/exterminated by group A);
2) Group A controls the resources that group B needs (and here comes the question of the monopoly of resources exercised by group A);
3) Group B has no other source of resources better than submitting to the hierarchy (cooperate, obey) imposed by group A (if group B has better sources of resources, such as simply leaving where group A is, it does not exist reason for group B to benefit group A through its own losses).
There is social dominance in both nomadic hunter-gatherer societies and agricultural societies, but about 10,000 years ago (domestication of plants and animals), we started to see a predominance of hierarchical societies, particularly in societies that grew grain (an extremely monopolisable resource). For most of human history, however, most societies were egalitarian through "reverse dominance hierarchy" practices (Boehm, 1999) that were enabled by resources not being monopolisable (being more likely, dispersed, not defensible) by a group.
Morality also varies greatly according to these material conditions. The same conditions that give rise and maintenance to egalitarian practices also give rise to egalitarian moralities, while the conditions that give rise and maintenance to hierarchical practices also give rise to hierarchical moralities.
I think Nietzsche had a very valuable insight about morality reflecting the conditions of life (his "physiopsychology"), but the concept of morality of masters is much closer to Foucault's care of the self (expansion, life affirmation, art of living, aesthetics of existence) than practices of social domination (which include oppression, exploitation, marginalization, symbolic domination and so on, that can be seen as forces of conservation, decay and resentment). Furthermore, Nietzsche, in his time, could not have access to the anthropological and sociological knowledge that we have today.
By the way, thank you very much for your articles. Evolutionary psychology and cultural evolution bring great knowledge to complement Nietzsche.
Thanks for this super clear synthesis. My thought is that big states emerged as a byproduct of the switch-over from hunting/gathering food to growing it. Endless food = endless people. So war as an evolutionary mechanism was downstream from the population explosion, or a necessary outcome of plants peopling the earth so rapidly.
In anthropology, there is an interesting literature on some necessary conditions for the emergence of hierarchical societies (as opposed to egalitarian societies). From what I've understood so far, it seems that one of the major determinants of dominance hierarchy (not prestige, but hierarchical and extractive relationships, and, to be efficient, rationalized / legitimides) is whether resources are monopolizable, which in turn depends on the predictability, density and defensibility of resources - which is why societies with delaued economies such as agriculture tend to be more hierarchical than societies with immediate economies such as hunter-gatherers. When resources are monopolisable, the necessary conditions for social domination are present:
1) Group A / dominus has no other source of resources better than the submission, obedience, or "forced cooperation" of group B / servus (when group A has better sources of resources than group B's extraction, group B is ignored, is a competitor for the same resources, or is eliminated/exterminated by group A);
2) Group A controls the resources that group B needs (and here comes the question of the monopoly of resources exercised by group A);
3) Group B has no other source of resources better than submitting to the hierarchy (cooperate, obey) imposed by group A (if group B has better sources of resources, such as simply leaving where group A is, it does not exist reason for group B to benefit group A through its own losses).
There is social dominance in both nomadic hunter-gatherer societies and agricultural societies, but about 10,000 years ago (domestication of plants and animals), we started to see a predominance of hierarchical societies, particularly in societies that grew grain (an extremely monopolisable resource). For most of human history, however, most societies were egalitarian through "reverse dominance hierarchy" practices (Boehm, 1999) that were enabled by resources not being monopolisable (being more likely, dispersed, not defensible) by a group.
Morality also varies greatly according to these material conditions. The same conditions that give rise and maintenance to egalitarian practices also give rise to egalitarian moralities, while the conditions that give rise and maintenance to hierarchical practices also give rise to hierarchical moralities.
I think Nietzsche had a very valuable insight about morality reflecting the conditions of life (his "physiopsychology"), but the concept of morality of masters is much closer to Foucault's care of the self (expansion, life affirmation, art of living, aesthetics of existence) than practices of social domination (which include oppression, exploitation, marginalization, symbolic domination and so on, that can be seen as forces of conservation, decay and resentment). Furthermore, Nietzsche, in his time, could not have access to the anthropological and sociological knowledge that we have today.
By the way, thank you very much for your articles. Evolutionary psychology and cultural evolution bring great knowledge to complement Nietzsche.
Thanks for this super clear synthesis. My thought is that big states emerged as a byproduct of the switch-over from hunting/gathering food to growing it. Endless food = endless people. So war as an evolutionary mechanism was downstream from the population explosion, or a necessary outcome of plants peopling the earth so rapidly.