The richly detailed ethnographic writings of Derek Freeman (1970, 1981) present the most sustained argument in favour of Iban “egalitarianism”. Thus Freeman maintains that Iban social organization, with its pervasive emphasis on “choice rather than prescription”, approximates in practice what John Locke (1690) portrayed in the ideal, “a state of perfect freedom and equality” in which all are free:

to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, …; without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man … (quoted in Freeman 1981:51).

Freeman’s arguments are complex. However, three points stand out as central:

First, under the terms of Iban adat, all persons are viewed as “equal” or “alike” (sama or sebaka) (1981:50). Secondly, while marked differences of wealth, power, and prestige exist, there are no ascribed strata. Thus, in principle, any individual of ability may, by his or her own effort, gain prestige and become a respected leader. In place of ascribed ranking there exists an “elaborate prestige system” in which all are free to compete on a more or less equal footing (1981:38). Unencumbered by hereditary privilege, Iban social organization encourages, Freeman (1981:50) argues, “the emergence of individual talent and creativity”, including the rise of “natural leaders” to positions of power.

Thirdly, Iban society was historically acephalous. Until the establishment of the Brooke Raj, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, there were no permanently constituted positions of formal authority above the longhouse level (cf. Pringle 1970:157). This is not to say that regional leadership was lacking, but that it took a distinctively “egalitarian” character (see Sather 1994:9-17). Thus both regional and longhouse leaders had, and, in the latter case, continue to have, only limited power, exerting authority mainly by persuasion and consensus. In all social undertakings allegiance to leaders is voluntary and the absence of coercive authority — the right of a leader to use force against recalcitrant followers — is pervasive, its absence permeating Iban social life, down even to the level of the bilik-family (Freeman 1981:47).