Has there ever been a society where men and women truly had equal rights? This article discusses the only known egalitarian society: the Mbuti of Africa.

Exploitation of resources

By the time the Mbuti tribesmen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo were first encountered sometime in the mid 15th century, the concept of a true egalitarian society had virtually reached mythological proportions. Social scientists, theologians, historians, and philosophers had long hypothesized that such a society could exist in theory, but scholars by and large maintained the perspective that circumstances supporting a society that had no formalized social stratification would be extremely rare, and temporary at best. Since prevailing Eurocentric ideals supported the premise that individual survival depends on societal organization, societal survival depends on institutional progress, and that progress depends on intentional delineation of social responsibilities according to one’s abilities, this hypothesis concluded that a society could not survive if it did not exploit its resources–and that included the strengths and weaknesses of its people.

A prosperous Europe and America

With the coming of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, the power and prosperity it brought to Europe and America seemed to support the exploitation hypothesis, appearing to even add credence to the belief that if egalitarian societies outside the Mbuti had ever existed, they did in fact parish due to the inherent weakness of such a societal structure. The extreme inequity between the upper and lower social classes that existed in Europe and America was promoted as the perfect model of success and a reasonable price to pay for “progress.” Scholars concluded that the circumstances supporting the Mbuti peoples’ egalitarian social structure are one of a kind not to be replicated elsewhere.

The Mbuti

Occupying a remote section of the African rainforest where extremes in climate and resource availability are common, the Mbuti are actually a collection of several hunter-gatherer groups who live in bands of 10–50 members who are highly mobile, both for purposes of following food supplies and, in recent centuries, to avoid interference from outsiders. True to definition, the Mbuti have no rulers, no political structure, and except for a religion that essentially ties them functionally and ritually to the forest, they have no cohesive social structure. Most significantly, every man, woman, and child has equal access to resources–which is the definitive egalitarian qualifier. Men and women have equal power, decisions are made by group consensus, and minor disputes are usually dealt with by ridicule, gossip, or shunning. Serious infractions, however, can result in beating or even total banishment. But, this seemingly ideal social system does not mean that work is not delineated (woman and men do have specific, traditional jobs–although the roles are sometimes reversed), that charismatic men do not occasionally surface and vie for social control–and sometimes attain it, that social tensions do not lead to members frequently opting to leave one band for another, and that the more skilled hunters (almost always men) do not delegate responsibilities during hunting forays. And the fact that their social structure promotes gendered equality does not prevent individuals from attempting to promote hierarchy; they are simply ignored and thought insane. And one other point of particular distinction in Mbuti society is that children have what could be considered an irrational amount of power in ritual situations–believed to be most closely connected to the primal spirituals of the forest.

The forest: both father and mother

One of the more interesting aspects of the Mbuti language system is that while it does not directly apply gendered terminology (as is common to most known languages), neither is it gender-neutral. Instead, it is what can be thought of as gender inclusive. Since most of their primary vocabulary (before European intrusion) derived from forest designations, and the forest is regarded as both father and mother, gender designation is a combination of both. It is through context and application which “aspect” of the forest–male or female–is inferred. For example, most Mbuti villages (which are usually comprised of only a few essential huts), are laid out to represent a womb in shape and design. This is so that when entering and exiting the village (and each hut), you are symbolically being reborn–of your mother and of the forest. In many contexts, the village and physical use of space is thought of as male (in concept), while the exact layout, shape of the huts, and actual utilization of the space is thought of as female. Thus, it is a constant representation of sexual interaction, reflecting both human physical intercourse as well as symbolic birth by way of the forest.

Gender neutrality in America

During the 1970s there was a very vocal feminist movement in America to “neuter” or “de-gender” the English language. Activist groups sited the Mbuti as examples of people whose language did not stratify society by its very usage, and legislature was introduced to try to eliminate the “inherent sexism” of our language. “Fireman” was to be replaced with “firefighter,” “stewardess” with “flight attendant,” and all those of the thespian profession were to be known collectively as “actors.” Political speech writers were asked to use “they” in place of he or she (despite its grammatical incorrectness), and writers were to use “na.” Of course, in subsequent decades, while many individuals continued to recognize the inherent sexist of the English language, they didn’t want their “gender” categorically removed either–which was seen as another way of being stripped of individual power. Since then, a middle ground has been found in hopes of maintaining political correctness. But one could easily argue that a truly gender-neutral language has probably never existed, and that the isolation required to maintain one is no longer possible on Planet Earth.

Culture: dynamic and ever-changing

While the concept of cultural “purity” has been the ideal of many past civilizations, in reality, it has never been known to exist–and probably couldn’t beyond theory. Culture by its very nature is dynamic and ever-changing; never static. Accordingly, no aspect of culture–religion, government, social structure, language, artistic expression–ever remains unchanged-if not through external influences, then through internal ones. (And now, of course, the Internet may influence culture in ways never dreamed possible.) And in that language is arguably the greatest reflection of a society’s societal structure, a quick review of the linguistic systems known to have existed indicates that with the possible exception of the Mbuti, a true egalitarian society could only exist in extreme circumstances, and would indeed be fleeting. Today, even the Mbuti have been infected by modernity and a growing number have abandoned their egalitarian principles. Furthermore, while language may indeed embed genderization and perpetuate gender inequity, it is improbable that terminology alone can control human perception. Were that true, that would completely strip us of self-determination, agency, perseverance, and all those human traits that empower us an individuals.