[LBird]

Lewis Carroll wrote:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

The meaning of the term 'hunter gatherer' lies in the anthropologist, not in a simply observable thing, act or event.And so with the terms 'violence', 'individual', 'tribe', 'clan', 'band', etc., etc. Which is the 'master meaning'? It's a question of power and politics.Check out Humpty Dumpty's motives, robbo.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

But all the same it is a bit of theoretical puzzle.

This is your problem, robbo.Unless you use this insight to ask a few more questions about 'theoretical puzzles', rather than the 'details' of various groups, then you will remain 'puzzled'.The answer to your puzzle does not lie in empirical research, in the listing of 'apparent' characteristics of hundreds of groups that have been studied for a century, but in clarifying exactly what anthropologists mean by various terms.That is, the starting point for your solving of your puzzle lies in the anthropologists, not in the so-called 'empirical data', the pretended 'facts of the matter'.If one's method is to keep reading books, endless differing accounts of 'the facts', by numerous disputing anthropologists, as if 'The Truth' will emerge from detailed, academic study, without any reference to contending frameworks, then one is doomed to remain puzzled.Remember: Theory and practice.Both are required, in that order. Marx was onto something.The 'practical details' won't produce a 'theory'. Only you can provide yours, and you should be conscious of it.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I meant someone from his own field of linguistics on the basis of their research and theorising in this field or, if you prtefer, theorising, research and theorising again

I made some criticisms of Chris Knight's work, here:http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/jk1921/4410/chris-knight-marxism-and-science-part-one#comment-9494My comments are 4 & 5.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It is this biological determinism that was why I was waiting for someone to refute him.

Well, since I regard 'biological determinism' to be a subset of 'materialism', and I've been 'refuting' that for 18 months here, I regard criticism of Chomsky to be criticism of materialism.It's for the other comrades reading this thread, who can see the problems with Chomsky, 'biological individuals' as a focus for research into social issues, and where it potentially leads (comfort for the US military and the bourgeoisie), to reconcile their criticism of him with their professed acceptance of Chomsky's science.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Sorry, LB I'd like to chat to you about this and clarify, but for the reasons just stated I feel a little constrained at present.

I've only just seen this addition to your post, Hud, and we've cross-posted.No problem – the issues that I've raised are pertinent to anyone who considers themself a socialist, so perhaps others can answer my question.That is: Is Chomsky an inadvertent model for this site?

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Not only does Chomsky not connect his anarchism and his lingusitics, he has always attempted to erect an impenetrable barrier between the two, both professionally and personally.  He claims that the two parts of his personality, linguist and political activiest don't even talk to one another.

Isn't this separation between politics and science precisely what other comrades are doing on this site, every time I ask 'What ideology do you use to do science?'.When I ask what ideology does an anthropologist/psychologist/physicist use, that has been linked to by comrades, not only can no-one tell me their own ideology, but they can't tell me the academic's ideology, either.Chomsky's method of 'impenetrable barrier erection' is an unspoken element of the method of all who claim that science is not ideological, and merely deals with 'the real world'.Chomsky's ideological belief that "the one talent that I have which I know many other friends don’t seem to have’ is I’ve got some quirk in my brain which makes it work like separate buffers in a computer" is essentially that same belief of all who consider themselves 'individuals', and not ongoing products of society.This is a central ideological belief of academia, which is why they are opposed to democracy in knowledge production, because they truly believe that they have some special insight into truth that is not available to the rest of the proletariat, and thus open to a democratic vote.To be opposed to democratic knowledge production is to think oneself to be a 'separate buffer in a society'.

[LBird]

More:

Quote:

It is easy to understand why computer programmers and engineers might find it useful to treat language as a mechanical ‘device’. If, say, the aim were to construct an electronic command-and-control system for military use, then traditional linguistics would clearly be inadequate. Such engineers would need a version of language stripped free of ‘meanings’ in any human emotional or cultural sense, cleansed of politics – and stripped also of poetry, humour or anything else not accessible to a machine.

[LBird]

More:

regarding Chomskys theory, the article wrote:

Speech is the natural, autonomous output of a dedicated computational mechanism – the ‘language organ’ – located in a special region of the individual human brain.

'Individuals' and 'biology'.When will those suffering from 'ruling class ideas', realise that looking at individuals is not an answer to social questions.Not even if they have 'pointy sticks'.

[LBird]

From alan's link:

Quote:

Chomsky promised simplification by reducing language to a mechanical ‘device’ whose design could be precisely specified. Linguistics was no longer to be tarnished by association with ‘unscientific’ disciplines such as anthropology or sociology. Avoiding the obscurities of sociocultural or psychosocial studies, linguistics would be redefined as the study of a ‘natural object’ – the specialised module of the brain which (according to Chomsky) was responsible for speech. Excluding social factors and thereby transcending mere politics and ideology, the reconstructed discipline would at last qualify as a natural science akin to mathematics and physics.

We've been here before, comrades.The 'physicalists' and 'materialists' who regard science, maths and physics as 'transcending mere politics and ideology'.Knowledge of a rock is ideological, comrades, and that's why the US military can't get rid of humans, and replace them with computers, which is precisely what Chomsky's line of research suggests is possible.If they can find the physical location of a piece of knowledge, we've had it.But they can't, because knowledge is reliant on language and meaning, and these are social and historical constructs, not 'material objects'.

[LBird]

https://fringefocus.com/2010/analog-is-not-the-opposite-of-digital/

Quote:

…digital simply means concrete values. Any system that utilizes solid values (or digits) is digital…

'Meaning' is not 'concrete'. 'Thinking' is not 'solid'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't understand either what military significance either theory has.

I think Hud's earlier comment was relevent:

Hud955 wrote:

The Pentagon funds him to do research into the supposed underlying universal grammar of language (a kind of human linguistic machine code) because of its potential use in developing computer systems to control American weapons programmes.

I think what Hud is getting at, is that if a 'human linguistic machine code' can be found (ie. a physical basis, language as a 'cell' or something), then it can be programmed. This would suggest that a missile could be taught to 'think', and make complex decisions in response to environmental changes, much like a human controller could (ie. abort, change target, return to base, etc.), but obviously without the human element (ie. someone brought up in a society who has the potential to 'stop the war', and has to be paid, fed, etc.).Whereas, if language is relational and social (and constantly changes in meaning), this is much more difficult (impossible?) to program.I  think this is what Hud is getting at, but I'd like Hud to clarify, in case I'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick about what he means.PS. computers are good at 'quantity', but very poor at 'quality'; this is related to on/off, binary, all-or-nothing, 0s and 1s, being and consciousness. They are not 'analogue', but 'digital', and don't like thinking about meaning, shades of grey, etc.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The part I bolded is suggestive to me, if a coalition can come about to kill a wannabe leader, then it's only a small step to a leader using a coalition to kill rivals and become an achievement based leader…

But this is an issue of 'social power', not 'individual violence'.If we define 'violence' to be about 'individuals using pointy sticks against each other', that definition about 'individuals' is completely irrelevent regarding 'social power'.That is, 'killing' is not a 'biological act', but a 'social act'.In our social terms, 'murder' is irrelevant to understanding 'war'.I'd suggest that those who look to defining 'violence' in individual, biological, physical terms are employing a different ideology to those who wish to define 'violence' in social, structurally-emergent, power terms.We should attempt to clarify what is meant by 'violence' when the term is employed on this thread.If my socialist definition is employed, a society can exhibit individuals sticking point sticks into each other for personal reasons, and still be defined as 'non-violent', because there are no structures present in that society that can produce war.This is a definition of 'violence' as a structurally-produced phenomenon, which is unrelated to 'pointy sticks' and their usage to settle personal debates between individuals.

[LBird]

Thanks, Hud, for your very interesting and enlightening post.Your explanation of the problems with Chomsky's ideas is a model for socialists to follow, when trying to explain difficult 'science' issues to 'non-scientists'.Of course, one of things that attract me is that the post is laced with concerns about ideology (theories, definitions, purposes behind research, political and economic power), but that's my particular thirst being sated. I'm sure others will gain from reading your post, whether they share my interests or not.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi LB.  You have made your logical point.  In its own abstract way it is a valid one, so thank you for that.  The discussion, though, is not about abstract logic; it's about violence among hunter gatherers, and the reiteration of your single point in post after post in ways which do not advance this discussion is not, therefore very helpful.

Yes, it is valid and logical, but not abstract at all.In fact, in your more lucid moments, as with robbo too, you both completely accept the so-called ‘abstract’ point that I’m making, that ideology is a fundamental concern for science and especially anthropology. The problem is, you both, in an invalid and illogical way, refuse to take your insight and understanding further, and help clarify for us all what the ideologies are, of Kelly and Fry, and of us, who are reading this thread.The simple point, as ever, is that one’s framework determines what one ‘sees’, through the mechanism of providing definitions of ‘what there is to be seen’. This applies to social structures (‘bands’, ‘tribes’, ‘chiefdoms’, ‘classes’ do not define themselves, they are not just waiting ‘out there’ to ‘be seen’ by the ‘observant’ anthropologist who supposedly ‘keeps ideology out of it’) and their social activities (the key for us on this thread, ‘violence’, still hasn’t been defined by us, never mind the anthropologists).

Hud955 wrote:

You have pretty much lost my interest.  (I'd add that you won't regain it by your rapidly increasing habit of flinging patronising insults at anyone who disagrees with you.)

You are simply following the same method as the others of your ideological persuasion, here. This has happened many times before, on this site. You start the ‘insults’ because you don’t like my entirely valid questioning of your ignorance of the role of ideology in science, and then pretend to be outraged when I answer you in the same tone, and you attempt to revert to a ‘hurt academic objectivity’. Have a look at the list I gave in my last reply of what you said to me, and then look at your last post: ‘leeching’, ‘flinging’. How come you aren’t ‘leeching’ and ‘flinging’ when you use the thread to insult me?Well, let’s leave that behind us, and if you and robbo wish to leave unexamined the lacuna in your own understanding about your own ideology, so be it. I’m prepared to discuss, if you keep your comments to an acceptable academic standard, and refrain from personal attacks on me.

Hud955 wrote:

Let me start the ball rolling then with a question.  How would you pursue the issue of understanding violence among hunter gatherers and in particular how would you develop a set of parameters we could use to discuss this in ways that are relevant to socialists?

[my bold]For socialists to come to some understanding of violence in hunter gatherer societies, they first have to come to a series of socialist definitions of the terms that we’ve already discussed. If socialists use conservative or liberal definitions, they will not develop a socialist understanding of anthropology, but will instead develop a ruling class understanding.Of course, as a Communist and a Marxist, I don’t subscribe to the 19th century ruling class idea that ‘if we keep ideology out of science, then the Truth will be found’. I agree with Einstein, that the position of observation determines what one sees in the universe. So, in line with my ideological science (Marx and Einstein), I don’t think that there is an ‘anthropological’ view to which ‘academics’ have access. There is only ‘socialist anthropology’, ‘conservative anthropology’, ‘liberal anthropology’, etc. I’ve tried to show this by my quotes from robbo’s links, to Fry and Kelly, to try to make clear that Fry and Kelly are not simple ‘anthropologists’, but are politically influenced. Hence, my insistence on socialist definitions, to ‘help get the ball rolling’.Perhaps it might be useful to make totally apparent our ideological concerns regarding the title of the thread, and tie together both social structures and behaviour (once they’ve been clarified further), and posit structures to replace ‘band’ and ‘tribe’?We could, as a tentative suggestion, define our basic structures as:‘peace-band’ and ‘war-band’ (or, alternatively, ‘non-violent-band’ and ‘violent-band’).Once we have defined these as our socialist view of structures, they we could search for the ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ of the ‘real existence’ of our structures. I’m sure that you, robbo and YMS could come up with some names of various groups which have been studied, and which fit into these socialist categories.Of course, we could be accused of defining into (or out of) existence the very things that we wish to find, and I think someone has already provided an academic quote that says this already, earlier in the thread. But this ‘defining’ is exactly what every anthropologist does, either consciously (the better ones, who understand the role of ideology) or unconsciously (the worse ones, who simply use ruling class ideas that they’ve grown up with).These socialist definitions, if accepted, have the merit of exposing completely our underlying ideological concern with the relationship between human social organisation and the social nature of violence: ‘peace-band’ and ‘war band’. It will also serve to make clear that, as socialists, we don’t believe that ‘violence is a part of human nature’, and do believe that ‘violence is a structural attribute’ of human society, which may or may not be present, due to social and historical differences between 'peace-bands' and 'war-bands'.But……if any comrades here do think that ‘humans are naturally violent’ or that ‘violence is an individual trait, not a social trait’, then let them openly declare their ideology, because neither of those beliefs is compatible with socialism.Well, what do you think, Hud? Definitions required of violence, social structures and socialism? And an openness of the ideology that is behind those definitions?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry  but I am coming around to thinking that the moderation on the "hunter violence" thread is getting beyond reasonable and verging on the absurd. Its stifling rather than encouraging debate

I'd like to add my support to what robbo has said about the strictness of the moderation.On the 'hunter gatherer violence' thread, although robbo and I are having a dispute about methodology, I think that it's still within the bounds of the thread, especially since we've been using links and quotes from those links from academic anthropologists, as the background to our dispute. This is, I think, entirely on-topic.Even the tone of our debate hasn't really been too rude – not by my brutal standards, anyway!

[Author]

Posts