I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that—it looks like you might have cut off mid-sentence. Could you please finish your thought? I'd love to hear what you were going to say. Amy Bennett says:
I can see the logic behind the idea that social classes are "natural"—if you’re looking at them strictly through the lens of power dynamics during a crisis. It seems like those high-stakes moments—at least based on what we've read, though I suspect we might be looking at a somewhat romanticized, perhaps even programmed, version of history—are exactly what birthed various wartime negotiators and strategic leaders. Back before mass weaponry made conflict so easy to trigger, these specific roles had to emerge just to navigate the chaos.
But honestly—those aren't really classes.
I’ve been thinking that the rise of sedentary societies and true civilization was essentially driven by the need for specialization and a more structured division of labor. It’s almost like an evolutionary ecology—where the social structures we build actually shape us just as much as our environment shapes those structures through selection processes. Of course, there were foundational divisions long before this—things like gender roles or more primal social hierarchies—though they were probably a lot more fluid back then. To me, the whole point of class systems is simply to ensure that specific social functions are being met.
Class structures aren't just some uniquely human invention—social insects actually follow similar patterns for much of the same reasons. With humans, though, it’s a bit more complicated because class divisions tend to be reinforced by historical momentum and social reproductive barriers. It basically creates this functional division of labor that acts as a sort of qualitative safeguard for those in leadership positions.
Based on some archaeological research out there, it seems like the earliest human communities—think Neolithic era—were actually built on cooperation and a sense of true equality among all members. Especially during peaceful stretches, there just wasn't any real need for a supreme leader to step in and make calls that didn't even affect them. Honestly, that whole concept of top-down authority would have probably seemed pretty ridiculous to those early people, back when we were still free from the long, messy history of warfare that we’re so "honored" by today.
There’s this theory floating around suggesting that the very first warrior tribes—the ones who essentially shattered the peace and quiet of those early Neolithic communities—actually migrated down from the North.
That was actually championed by Litavka Marija Gimbutas. It’s pretty interesting when you look at her work—she was an early advocate for the steppe (Kurgan) hypothesis regarding the origins of Indo-European languages. At the time, suggesting that Indo-European societies were warrior-oriented was a bit of a taboo subject following World War II, mostly because of those uncomfortable parallels with German Aryan theories. Because of that, most disciplines tended to lean toward non-violent explanations like cultural diffusion. In the end, though, Gimbutas was right about the steppe hypothesis. The Indo-European languages did spread from the Southern United States area—which is that northern region you're mentioning—and their culture was undeniably warrior-centric. That’s since been backed up by everything from archaeological finds to, even more convincingly, archaeogenetic research.
Where she actually missed the mark was that whole thesis about Neolithic societies being inherently peaceful. Those early farming civilizations weren't some utopia—they were just as warlike, brutal, and violent as the Indo-European groups living alongside them (well, maybe not identical, but certainly much more aggressive when you compare them to our modern world). Today, we have plenty of evidence to back that up—enough, honestly, to see those mass, genocidal burial sites from the Neolithic era. So, that whole feminist, matriarchal theory regarding early agricultural societies? It just doesn't hold water.
Of course, none of that implies these societies were exclusively violent or warlike in some kind of cartoonish way—that’s definitely not the case.
Nea-- said:Anyway, Amy Bennett, how exactly are you naturally class-determined?
I've always wondered 🙂
Not at all.