Last year, I read The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber & David Wengrow. This 704-page monster challenged the deeply entrenched narrative of human history as a linear progression from primitive, egalitarian societies to complex, hierarchical civilizations. The authors, drawing on a wealth of anthropological and archaeological evidence, contest the idea that the advent of agriculture and the rise of cities marked an irreversible slide into social inequality. Their arguments, which stand in stark contrast to the views of many contemporary historians - including my favorite, Yuval Noah Harari - have forced me to reconsider my understanding of inequality and its origins. It has challenged my understanding of civilization trap. I have always tended to simplify history and which I think was fine to be able to detect patterns that would otherwise be invisible. I realize and as both the Davids argue the problem comes when long after the discovery, people continue to simplify.

Graeber and Wengrow argue that agriculture did not necessarily herald the birth of private property or social stratification.

Agriculture, in turn, did not mean the inception of private property, nor did it mark an irreversible step towards inequality. In fact, many of the first farming communities were relatively free of ranks and hierarchies. And far from setting class difference in stone, a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized on robustly egalitarian lines, with no need for authoritarian rulers, ambitious warrior-politicians or even bossy administration.

This counter-narrative raises profound questions: if early societies could be egalitarian, why did inequality become so pervasive? And, more importantly, what does it truly mean to eliminate inequality in our own time?

Challenging the Conventional Narrative

The conventional view of history, as propounded by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, posits that inequality is a natural consequence of civilizations’ progress. Hobbes maintains that early humans were savages, while Rousseau maintains “everyone was equal, because they were all equally poor”. As societies grew larger and more complex, hierarchies became necessary to maintain order and distribute resources efficiently. This view suggests that inequality is a necessary trade-off for technological and cultural development.

This view is easy to maintain. It is simple and it helps you “reason” about history. This is the view that I have long held as well. I can have causal relationship between historical events and societal norms. Easy enough to take and pass tests and exams.

However, the Davids challenge this deterministic view. They present evidence that early agricultural societies did not automatically devolve into hierarchical systems. On the contrary, many of these societies operated without rigid social structures, suggesting that inequality is not an inherent feature of human civilization but rather a contingent development - a choice rather than a destiny.

This view invites us to rethink the inevitability of inequality. If early societies managed to maintain egalitarian principles even as they grew in size and complexity, then perhaps inequality is not as unavoidable as we have been led to believe. Instead, it might be a consequence of specific social, political and economic choices made at different but critical junctures in history. Graeber and Wengrow argue that the terms “equality” or “inequality” only began to enter common currency in the early 17th century under the influence of Natural Law Theory.

What does it mean to Eliminate Inequality?

Before we discuss eliminating inequality, we must first define what we mean by equality or inequality. Inequality of wealth is often the first thing that comes to mind, but it represents only one dimension of a much broader issue. There is also inequality of opportunity, inequality in access to education and healthcare, inequality in political power, and even inequality in respect and recognition. Each of these forms of inequality manifests in different ways and require different solutions.

The questions raised by Graeber and Wengrow are crucial: What kind of inequality are we trying to eliminate? Is it enough to redistribute wealth? Or must we also ensure equal access to opportunities? Should we focus on leveling the playing fields or should we aim to equalize the outcomes as well? How equal would people have to be for us to say that we have “eliminated” inequality?

These questions are not just academic. They have real-world implications for policy and governance. Governments and societies have struggled with this. We know just redistribution of wealth doesn’t work - communism and socialism have failed. We cannot probably tackle a single dimension and would likely need a comprehensive approach to eliminating inequality likely requiring us to address multiple dimensions simultaneously.

The Root Causes of Inequality

Understanding the root causes of inequality is crucial for developing effective solutions. While economic factors are certainly important, they are not the only drivers of inequality. Cultural, psychological and institutional factors also play their significant roles. For example, the belief that some people are inherently more deserving than others - whether due to birth, intelligence or effort - can perpetuate inequality even in ostensibly egalitarian societies. Similarly, institutions that reinforce social hierarchies, such as the legal system or the education system, can entrench inequality over time. The creation of norms based on gender also lead to similar inequalities.

Graeber and Wengrow’s work suggests that inequality is not a natural consequence of civilization but rather a product of specific social arrangements and ideologies. If this is the case, then it is possible to imagine alternative social arrangements that do not produce the same levels of inequality. However, achieving this will require more than just economic reforms. It will also require a fundamental shift in how we think about equality, merit and justice.

Reimagining Equality

What would it look like to genuinely eliminate inequality in modern society? This is not just a theoretical question but a practical one with profound implications on how we organize our lives - economically, politically and socially.

I have a problem with the use of civilization, the word itself. It means at certain point in history humans became civilized and before that they were mere savages as Hobbes would like us to believe.

One possibility is to rethink the relationship between work and wealth. For example, a universal basic income could ensure that everyone has access to the resources that they need to live a dignified life, regardless of their work status. Alternatively, we could explore more radical ideas, such as decentralized governance models that give communities greater control over their resources and decision-making processes. Like in India, sharpening the teeth of Panchayats.

Another approach might be to focus on eliminating the most extreme forms of inequality first. This could involve redistributive policies that target the wealthiest individuals and corporations, or it could mean prioritizing policies that ensure basic needs - like food, shelter, and healthcare - are met for all.

Whatever the approach, it is clear that eliminating inequality will require us to think creatively and to be willing to challenge deeply held assumptions about how society should be organized. We also need to agree on what inequality means before trying to get rid of it. Even if we adopt some of the measures above, there is an inherent inequality that will stay.

I do not have a solution. However, if we are serious then we must begin by questioning the inevitability of inequality and imagining new possibilities for human organization. First, we must give up on the notion that primitive societies were egalitarian while civilized societies are not; this notion is the root of all evil. Graeber and Wengrow argue that the story will be different if “we treat people from the beginning as imaginative, intelligent, playful creatures” capable of reinventing themselves and their societies. This mindset could help us rethink our place and break free from the “tight conceptual shackles” and imagine the possibility of re-inventing ourselves. Only then we can begin to truly eliminate inequality in all its forms.