Human history often appears to be a story of conflict. Wars, empires, revolutions, and rigid hierarchies dominate our history books, creating the impression that human beings are fundamentally driven by dominance and “counter-dominance”. “Counter-dominance” or "Reverse Dominance Hierarchy" is a concept developed by the anthropologist Christopher Boehm which encompasses group behaviours directed at “a prominent individual who has overstepped his prerogatives”, such as Criticism, Ridicule, Disobedience, Extreme Sanctions, Violence, Desertion and Ambivalence.
Yet another interpretation is possible. Contemporary work in philosophy, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and personality neuroscience suggests that while dominance is certainly part of human behaviour, cooperation may be our species' more fundamental adaptation. Conflict is dramatic and highly visible. Cooperation is quieter—but it is also what makes families, communities, and civilizations possible.
The Dominance Perspective
Many influential philosophers have argued that competition, hierarchy, and the pursuit of power are central to human nature.
- Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) argued that without a strong governing authority, life would become a "war of all against all." Society requires coercive authority because human beings naturally compete for security, resources, and status.
- Friedrich Nietzsche (The Will to Power) viewed the drive to expand one's strength and influence as a fundamental expression of life itself. Hierarchy and self-assertion were not failures but natural expressions of vitality.
- Niccolò Machiavelli (The Prince) argued that successful political leadership often requires realism rather than idealism. Maintaining order may demand the strategic use of power and, at times, force.
- Thucydides, in the Melian Dialogue, presents one of history's earliest realist accounts of political power, suggesting that relations between states are often shaped less by morality than by differences in strength.
Together, these thinkers present dominance as an enduring feature of human affairs rather than merely a historical accident.
The Cooperation Perspective
Other philosophers and social thinkers argue that cooperation is humanity's defining strength.
- Pyotr Kropotkin (Mutual Aid) argued that cooperation, rather than competition, has been one of the primary forces driving both animal and human evolution.
- Hannah Arendt (On Violence) distinguished between power and violence, arguing that genuine political power arises when people act together voluntarily. Coercion reflects the breakdown—not the fulfillment—of power.
- Simone Weil argued that force diminishes both those who wield it and those who suffer it. Justice begins not with domination, but with truly seeing and attending to another person.
- The Buddha taught that hatred is never ended by hatred but by non-hatred alone is hatred ended, and consistently emphasized compassion, generosity, and harmonious community as the basis of human flourishing. Rather than asking whether people are inherently dominant or cooperative, Buddhism asks which human qualities we cultivate.
Together, these perspectives suggest that cooperation is not simply a moral ideal but may be a defining feature of what allows human societies to thrive.
Evidence to Consider
Several lines of modern research support the idea that humans evolved toward cooperation rather than rigid dominance hierarchies.
- Personality Neuroscience: Research by Alexander Weiss and Drew Altschul suggests that humans no longer possess dominance as a single, core personality dimension in the way many other primates do. Characteristics associated with dominance appear distributed across broader personality traits.
- Gift Economies and Mutual Aid: Anthropological evidence, including the work of David Graeber and David Wengrow, suggests that many traditional societies were built on reciprocity, generosity, and shared obligation rather than accumulation and coercion. Cooperation was often the foundation of social resilience.
Other lines of research and empirical evidence support the idea that dominance and counter-dominance are important components of human behaviour.
- Historical Record: even if the historical record has been distorted by the victorious, it is clear that cycles of dominance and counter dominance are part of the human condition.
- Evolutionary advantage: dominance can give individuals considerable reproductive advantage. For example, Genghis Khan sired so many children across the lands he conquered that around 0.5% of men today are directly related to him.
- Language and Counter-Dominance: Christopher Boehm argues that language enabled early humans to coordinate against would-be tyrants. Hunter-gatherer societies often restrained domineering individuals through ridicule, gossip, social pressure, and in extreme cases violence. These collective actions maintain remarkably egalitarian communities.
Discussion Questions
Part 1
- What do we mean by the terms: dominance, counter-dominance and co-operation?
- Which tendency do you believe is more fundamental to human nature: dominance or cooperation?
- Can both dominance and cooperation be adaptive?
- Under what circumstances does each emerge?
- Does history overemphasize dominance and counter-dominance because conflict is more visible than everyday cooperation?
Part 2
- How much do culture and institutions shape whether dominance or cooperation becomes the prevailing strategy?
- How have your own experiences influenced your beliefs about human nature?
- If cooperation is our baseline, why do systems of domination continue to arise?
- Is leadership necessarily a form of dominance, or can leadership emerge through trust, service, and shared purpose?
- What are the implications for how we should behave as individuals and organize society that arise from our responses to the other questions?
***
PiPs is part of a national movement to encourage people to think about some of the 'big ideas' in life. No expertise necessary, only the desire to do what Wittgenstein described as 'untangling the knots in the way we think about things'.
Our events use the the 4Cs of community philosophy:
- Caring for others, making space for their contributions
- Collaborating to get a better mutual understanding rather than scoring points
- Critically assessing what we say, clarifying what is meant and asking what reasons support assertions
- Creatively coming up with alternative perspectives, rather than dogmatically sticking to our initial positions
It is a collective activity, not a debating club.
Everyone attending, and there is often a wide range of people present, is encouraged to listen to and engage with the topic. We hope it is fun and provides plenty of food for thought.
The organisers are trying to find ways to collect money from attendees towards the costs of running the sessions, mostly the costs of using this Meetup site. One of the organisers has something on their phone that can take payments. Suggested amount? Just a few quid now and again for regulars. For anyone turning up for the first time, it's free.
