Egalitarian Power Dynamics

by Raven

Almost all of the communes (income-sharing communities) that we feature here are associated with the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.  It’s important that these communes are seen as egalitarian, which differentiates them from hierarchical communities where there is one person or a small group in charge (and often the ones that get most of the money).  One way that they are egalitarian is that everyone mostly gets the same amount of money and they share most of what they have–and there is also no one in charge.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean there are not power dynamics in the communes

I’ve been reading about hunter-gatherer tribes, most of which were basically egalitarian.  In fact they were what has been called, “fiercely egalitarian”, which means that they worked hard to stay egalitarian.  I’ve also been reading Frans de Waal who writes about power dynamics among the chimpanzees and bonobos.  It seems from all I’ve read that humans have an almost genetic predisposition to hierarchy but it’s something that we can control.

Communes that are egalitarian are that way because they have created structures to support egalitarianism. But as hard as they try, power generally doesn’t get distributed evenly.  For one thing, it doesn’t make sense to me for someone who has just arrived and may only be at a commune briefly to have as much power as someone who has lived there for a long time and intends to be there long term and has much more investment in the place.  Also, people are not identical–they have different skills and abilities as well as interest and involvement. So some folks will always have more power in a situation than others.  The question is how they use that power (to benefit others or benefit themselves).

I’ve lived in many different communities and been a frequent visitor to several others and, as I think about all of them, I can see the power dynamics in each.  In the ones that have been most successful, the folks with more power have used it to benefit the community, first of all, and to make sure everyone was treated fairly.  Having more power didn’t mean they were in charge.  They had to follow the rules like anyone else and the group made the rules.  But they usually know how to get things done and others look to them and, as I said, they try to keep things fair.

As I think about it, also, the most successful communities that I’m familiar with have been, as I see it, matriarchies–ie, the most powerful folks were usually women, or at least not cis males.  (I say this as a cis male.) Personally, I think this is a good thing.  I will note, from an evolutionary perspective, that the most ‘egalitarian’ of the primates, the bonobos, have a matriarchal society.

The problem,as I see it, is that few communities want to actually admit to their power dynamics.  Because we believe in equality, we want to claim that everyone has an equal share of the power.  I think that there is a fear that even admitting there are inequalities will cement those inequalities and perhaps even increase them.

But I wonder if it would be better if folks talked more openly about power dynamics.  I know that egalitarian communities want to minimize power discrepancies, but I don’t think you can completely wipe them out.  Perhaps by making them visible, we can really look at them and try to make them as fair as possible.  

Really, egalitarianism is an aspiration, and it is something that we will always need to keep working toward and, like the hunter-gatherers, we will probably need to work hard to keep in place.