Sapiens: a brief History of Humankind

Pygmalion
, Henry
Higgins doesn’t need to establish an intimate acquaintance with Eliza Doolittle in
order to understand how he should relate to her. Just hearing her talk tells him
that she is a member of the underclass with whom he can do as he wishes – for
example, using her as a pawn in his bet to pass o a ower girl as a duchess. A
modern Eliza working at a orist’s needs to know how much e ort to put into
selling roses and gladioli to the dozens of people who enter the shop each day. She
can’t make a detailed enquiry into the tastes and wallets of each individual.
Instead, she uses social cues – the way the person is dressed, his or her age, and if
she’s not politically correct his skin colour. That is how she immediately
distinguishes between the accounting- rm partner who’s likely to place a large
order for expensive roses, and a messenger boy who can only a ord a bunch of
daisies.
Of course, di erences in natural abilities also play a role in the formation of
social distinctions. But such diversities of aptitudes and character are usually
mediated through imagined hierarchies. This happens in two important ways. First
and foremost, most abilities have to be nurtured and developed. Even if somebody
is born with a particular talent, that talent will usually remain latent if it is not
fostered, honed and exercised. Not all people get the same chance to cultivate and
re ne their abilities. Whether or not they have such an opportunity will usually
depend on their place within their society’s imagined hierarchy. Harry Potter is a
good example. Removed from his distinguished wizard family and brought up by
ignorant muggles, he arrives at Hogwarts without any experience in magic. It
takes him seven books to gain a rm command of his powers and knowledge of
his unique abilities.
Second, even if people belonging to di erent classes develop exactly the same
abilities, they are unlikely to enjoy equal success because they will have to play
the game by di erent rules. If, in British-ruled India, an Untouchable, a Brahmin,
a Catholic Irishman and a Protestant Englishman had somehow developed exactly
the same business acumen, they still would not have had the same chance of
becoming rich. The economic game was rigged by legal restrictions and uno cial
glass ceilings.

---

The Vicious Circle
All societies are based on imagined hierarchies, but not necessarily on the same
hierarchies. What accounts for the di erences? Why did traditional Indian society
classify people according to caste, Ottoman society according to religion, and
American society according to race? In most cases the hierarchy originated as the
result of a set of accidental historical circumstances and was then perpetuated and
refined over many generations as different groups developed vested interests in it.
For instance, many scholars surmise that the Hindu caste system took shape
when Indo-Aryan people invaded the Indian subcontinent about 3,000 years ago,
subjugating the local population. The invaders established a strati ed society, in
which they – of course – occupied the leading positions (priests and warriors),
leaving the natives to live as servants and slaves. The invaders, who were few in
number, feared losing their privileged status and unique identity. To forestall this
danger, they divided the population into castes, each of which was required to
pursue a speci c occupation or perform a speci c role in society. Each had
di erent legal status, privileges and duties. Mixing of castes – social interaction,
marriage, even the sharing of meals – was prohibited. And the distinctions were
not just legal – they became an inherent part of religious mythology and practice.
The rulers argued that the caste system re ected an eternal cosmic reality rather
than a chance historical development. Concepts of purity and impurity were
essential elements in Hindu religion, and they were harnessed to buttress the
social pyramid. Pious Hindus were taught that contact with members of a di erent
caste could pollute not only them personally, but society as a whole, and should
therefore be abhorred. Such ideas are hardly unique to Hindus. Throughout
history, and in almost all societies, concepts of pollution and purity have played a
leading role in enforcing social and political divisions and have been exploited by
numerous ruling classes to maintain their privileges. The fear of pollution is not a
complete fabrication of priests and princes, however. It probably has its roots in
biological survival mechanisms that make humans feel an instinctive revulsion
towards potential disease carriers, such as sick persons and dead bodies. If you
want to keep any human group isolated – women, Jews, Roma, gays, blacks – the
best way to do it is convince everyone that these people are a source of pollution.
The Hindu caste system and its attendant laws of purity became deeply
embedded in Indian culture. Long after the Indo-Aryan invasion was forgotten,
Indians continued to believe in the caste system and to abhor the pollution caused
by caste mixing. Castes were not immune to change. In fact, as time went by,
large castes were divided into sub-castes. Eventually the original four castes
turned into 3,000 di erent groupings called 
jati
(literally ‘birth’). But this
proliferation of castes did not change the basic principle of the system, according

---

to which every person is born into a particular rank, and any infringement of its
rules pollutes the person and society as a whole. A persons 
jati
determines her
profession, the food she can eat, her place of residence and her eligible marriage