By the time the Mbuti of the Democratic Republic of the Congo were first encountered sometime in the mid 15th century (at least in terms of documented, historical encounters), 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 (most of whom were European) by and large maintained the perspective that circumstances supporting a society that had no formalized social stratification would be extremely rare, and fleeting 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 purposeful delineation of social responsibilities according to individual abilities, this paradigm concluded that a society could not survive if it did not utilize its resources–and that included its people. The advent of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century–the power and prosperity it afforded Europe–seemed to support this paradigm, even adding credenceto 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 fact that the seeming prosperity of Europe and the United States resulted in the perpetuation of extreme inequity between the upper and lower social classes was promoted as the “norm” and a reasonable price to pay for “progress.”)
Per scholastic speculation, the circumstances supporting the Mbuti peoples’ egalitarian social structure are indeed unique. Occupying a (once) 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 in essence ties them both functionally and ritually to the forest, 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 surface and vie for social control–and often 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 distinction in Mbuti society is that children have what could be considered an illogical amount of power in ritual situations–believed to be most closely connected to the primal spiritual powers of the forest.)
One of the more peculiar aspects of the Mbuti language system (a family of languages including Balese, Mamvu, Bira, Mangbetu) is that while it does not directly apply gendered terminology (as is common throughout the world today), 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” (depending on context), 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.
During the 1970s there was a very vocal feminist movement in the US to neuter or “de-gender” the English language. Activist groups sited groups such as the Mbuti as examples of people whose language did not stratify society by its very usage. Legislature was introduced to try to eliminate what was perceived as the inherent ”sexism” of our language. Fireman was to be replaced with fightfighter, stewardess with flight attendant, and all those of the thespian profession were to be actors. Political speech writers were asked to use “they” in place of he or she (despite it grammatical incorrectness), and writers of written text 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 personal 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. While the concept of cultural “purity” has been the ideal of many past cultures, in reality, it has never been known to exist–and probably couldn’t. 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. 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 or continue to exist, indicates that with the possible exception of the Mbuti, a true egaltarian society could only exist in extreme circumstances, and would indeed be fleeting. (Today, the vast majority of the Mbuti live in large villages and have abandoned their egalitarian ways.) Furthermore, while language may indeed embed genderization and perpetuate gender inequity, it is improbable that terminology alone can utterly control human perception (an idea once supported by the infamous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). Were that true, that would completely strip us of self-determination, agency, perseverance, and all those human traits that empower us an individuals.
