By Sasha Alex Lessin, Ph.D., Anthropology
WHAT MAKES A SOCIETY FAIR OR UNFAIR
Every society—ancient or modern—had to answer one big question:
Will we treat each other fairly, or will a small group hold all the power?
Among the Anunnaki, Ninmah encouraged sharing, balance, cooperation, and respect for every person. Enlil and Marduk, by contrast, promoted strict control, hierarchy, and domination.
Humans copied whichever pattern they lived under. Ninmah believed: “Humans thrive when everyone gets a chance.” Marduk thought: “Power is for those bold enough to take it.” These two approaches shaped entire civilizations.
DIMENSIONS OF ASCRIPTION–ACHIEVEMENT:
The great sociologist, Talcott Parsons, didn’t just talk about “ascribed” vs. “achieved” as a single idea. He actually spread it across connected dimensions that helped explain how status works in different societies: 1) Are you valued for what you are or what you can do? 2) Are you judged by particular loyalties or universal rules?
Ascribed (what you ARE by birth): Your importance comes from things you didn’t choose: your family, race or caste, gender, lineage, and inherited position.
Achieved (what you DO): Your importance comes from your skills, work, education, and accomplishments. Particularism goes with ascription, where rules depend on who you are, who you know, and which family you belong to.
Parsons believed modern societies would lean toward achievement. He suggested you ask yourself: regarding your position in society, do people treat me based on my role or on my whole identity? In an evolved society, Parsons suggested, the society recognizes your specific roles, which you won with your achievements. People treat you according to your specific tasks or jobs. Achievement recognition would, for example, entail you being hired because you can repair engines, not because of your family name. Parsons thought that achievement would increase specificity.
Particularism goes with ascription, where rules depend on who you are, who you know, and which family you belong to. Universalism goes with achievement, where rules are the same for everyone; neutral criteria measure performance. Parsons believed modernization = universalism.
Parsons claimed that traditional societies are ascriptive, diffuse, and particularistic; modern societies, he thought, would embody achieved, specific, and universalistic roles.
In his view, moving from ascription → achievement was part of the “evolution of modernity.”
Later scholarship—especially after the 1960s—showed this wasn’t true in practice, because domination systems kept re-inserting ascription into supposedly modern institutions.
WHO REALLY RULED
No matter what era we study, we can understand a society by asking these six questions:
- Do people advance because of talent—or because of birth?
- Do laws treat everyone the same—or only some groups?
- Do leaders have limited powers—or total control over others’ lives?
- Do rulers stay calm and fair—or use fear and excitement to control people?
- Do people share responsibility—or does a small group take everything?
- Are religion, law, money, and government separate—or blended into one giant power system?
If a society answered these questions a fair way, it followed Great Goddess Ninmah. If it answered an unfair way, it followed Enlil and Marduk, both of whom claimed to be “Yahweh”.
DOMINATION HIDES INSIDE “MODERN” SYSTEMS
Many leaders throughout history said: “We are fair now. Anyone can succeed.” But beneath the surface, powerful families often passed down advantages—money, connections, special schools—while telling everyone else that “hard work” alone decides success.
The observing child thinks: “They say the world is fair, but it doesn’t feel fair.”
Domination often survives by pretending to be fairness.
IRELAND: UNFAIR RULE PRETENDED TO BE “LAW AND ORDER”
After 1690, Ireland was ruled by the Protestant Ascendancy. The Protestants said they brought “civilization,” but they passed Penal Laws that took rights from Catholics.
This was classic domination, where birth determined power, laws helped insiders, landlords controlled entire communities, and fear and punishment enforced obedience. These Anunnaki-driven tactics prompt Irish tenants to think, “The law protects them, not me.”
Domination still hides behind the mask of “modern government.”
After the American Revolution, many soldiers returned home to find themselves in debt and facing foreclosure. Courts sided with wealthy merchants. The farmers said: “We fought for freedom. We deserve fairness.”
Shays and his neighbors followed the partnership pattern: same rules for everyone, local voices matter, and help people survive hardship.
The elites followed the domination pattern: protect property over people, use courts to control the poor, and send soldiers to frighten citizens.
Shays thought, “We gave everything in war. Now the courts turn against us.”
This uprising showed partnership rising from the ground up.
MODERN AMERICA: NEW TECHNOLOGY, OLD PATTERNS
People today often say, “Our society is fair. Anyone can succeed.”
But old patterns remain:
- Wealthy families pass down huge advantages
- Some groups face harder policing and fewer opportunities
- Big companies influence politics
- Fear and excitement shape public opinion more than facts
An ordinary person thought, “Why do some people start so far ahead?”
Even today, the struggle between partnership and domination continues.
CONCLUSION: THE CHOICE HUMANITY STILL MAKES
Every time people choose fairness, listening, and cooperation, they walk with Ninmah. Every time a small group takes everything, they follow Enlil and Marduk.
History is not just something that happened—it is a guide to choosing what happens next.
Ninmah, the Anunnaki Great Goddess, spokesperson for Cooperative Consciousness, whispered: “Choose partnership. You were made for it.”
Marduk, the Principal promoter of Anunnaki domination-consciousness, growled: “Power belongs to the strong.”
Humans must decide which voice to follow.
REFERENCES
Blau, Peter & Duncan, Otis. The American Occupational Structure (1967): A landmark study showing that “parents’ class and education strongly shape achievement” in the U.S. It demonstrates how ascribed advantages survive beneath modern claims of meritocracy.
Featherman, David & Hauser, Robert. Opportunity and Change (1978): Follow-up research showed that mobility patterns remained unequal and that inherited background still determined life chances far more than achievement alone.
Bourdieu, Pierre & Passeron, Jean-Claude. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1970/1990).
Demonstrates how schools reproduce class advantage by rewarding the cultural habits of the upper class, making inherited privilege look like natural talent.
Goldthorpe, John et al. Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain (1980/1987): Shows that industrial societies still have strong class barriers; even in places claiming fairness, mobility remains limited.
McCoy, Shannon & Major, Brenda. “Priming Meritocracy…” (2007).
Experiments show that when people are told society is meritocratic, disadvantaged groups blame themselves more and challenge inequality less.
Wiederkehr, Virginie et al. “Belief in School Meritocracy…” (2015).
Shows how belief in “school meritocracy” helps students accept unfair outcomes as deserved, strengthening domination patterns inside modern institutions.
#Enki #Ninmah #Enlil #Marduk #DominationPattern #FairnessInsociety #SocialInequality #IrelandPenalLaws #ShaysRebellion #MeritocracyMyth #ClassStructure #Colonialism #AnunnakiInfluence #DominationVCooperation #ModernInequality #SocialJusticeHistory #EnkiSpeaks #Anthropology #SashaAlexLessinPhD
