LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, I've tried to explain to you about scientific method, but clearly you're going to stick with your outdated 19th century method of 'non-ideological collection of raw material'.Your loss, comrade.You'll come to consciousness, one day. I'd rather help you for that to be sooner rather than later, but you won't listen. Keep reading, and eventually I'm sure that you'll come to understand. At least you're engaging, if not very successfully.'Established facts' establish themselves, do they? Think about it, robbo.PS. Your whole post is simply one long confusion. If 'facts' are selected, then we have the right to ask 'how'. You don't do this, for all your methodological awareness. You don't apply that awareness to your work.Second warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
robbo203 wrote:You dont have a monopoly in recognising that our view of the world is always idelogically tainted although you seem to imagine you have.Apparently, I do have a monopoly.If everyone's 'view of the world is always ideologically tainted', why won't you tell us your ideology?I openly state mine.What you're doing, robbo, as I've pointed out before, that almost all academics do, is genuflect to 'ideology' in the preface of a book, or in you case, in a line of your posts, and then proceed to IGNORE in practice this reality, of which they, and you, claim that they are aware of.Why doesn't Kelly, Fry, Hud, YMS and you, do what I do: that is, follow the scientific method and expose my 'position of observation'?
robbo203 wrote:In order to engage in critical questioning you have to have something – some raw material – that you can critically question in the first place, yes?See what I mean?You want 'facts' first, and then 'critical questioning'.What's happened to your earlier declaration about 'ideologically tainted'? It's as if you don't know what you are writing.There is no 'raw material' – that's the conclusion of science and physics.'Material' is always selected, according to the scientist's ideology, and this applies to physics, too. I've given the Rovelli quote often enough for you at least to be able to remember it.You're hanging on to 'outdated imperialist dogma', robbo, to quote a rabble-rouser!It's positivism to argue for the collection of 'raw data', supposedly outside of any influence.Why you, and the rest of academia, continue to say 'ideology is important' but then ignore it it practice, completely baffles me.Or it did, until I started to recognise that academia is bourgeois academia, and has a vested interest in keeping the 'non-experts' in their place, as Hud prefers, and that we defer to 'experts' who 'know the details'. It's an ideological basis for bourgeois authority and legitimacy. They pretend to understand Einstein,but hide their real intent, which is to shore-up capitalism and its ideological struts, like 'objective science' and 'raw material'.Think it through, robbo; I'm a Democratic Communist, and I have.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
robbo203 wrote:I might be completely missing something, of course, as I havent read the whole book but have only perused parts of it here:https://books.google.es/books?id=LSm6MLV42zgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=tribes…A quote from robbo’s link:
Douglas Fry, Beyond War, p. 6, wrote:But it is an often ignored fact that scientists and scholars, as human beings, are members of a culture too. Like everyone else, they are exposed to cultural traditions and worldviews that influence their thinking and perceptions. When the learned and shared beliefs of a culture hold that humans are innately pugnacious, inevitably violent, instinctively warlike, and so on, the people socialised in such settings, whether scientists or non-scientists, tend to accept such views without much question.It therefore seems reasonable to me to ask critical questions about any scientist’s culture, worldview and beliefs, which they often hold ‘without much question’.A simple term to embrace all these types of ‘learned and shared’ social properties would be ‘ideology’.
robbo203 wrote:Sorry LBird but I think Hud was spot on.Yeah, you would, because you share his ideology.Try looking at the book that you recommended, and from which I provided an extract, and asked a germane question.
robbo203 wrote:My question is – if complex HG societies are "chiefdoms" can we usefully talk of chiefdoms that are non tribal in their social structure? If not then it would seem that Fry is adopting the same taxonomy employed by the likes of Kelly. no?It's my understand, robbo, that on a five stage scale, that 'chiefdoms' are stage 3, and so are very different from 'bands'.Perhaps this taxonomy below might be useful for your understanding?1. egalitarian band society;2. 'Big man'
. Chiefdoms;4. Class;5. State.Clearly, Marx's model of 'modes of production' would give some more detail, especially on stages 4 and 5.Hud955 wrote:Your desire to manufacture controversy wherever you can is getting tedious.Oh dear. Another 'non-ideological' positivist who thinks that anthropology is non-controversial, and so it has to be 'manufactured'. I'm not manufacturing it, Hud, it's an essential feature of all science, and especially topics as controversial as the question about 'violence in hunter gatherer societies'.
Hud955 wrote:Of course everyone will have a political view in some sense of the word and interpret the world through it.Ahhh… the usual caveat to show that the academic has done the requisite course on method, and is usually put in the preface to a book, but which is then completely ignored in the work itself.You, like the others, seem to think that saying 'facts are theory-laden' is enough to innoculate you against ideology. And then you continue to 'do science' in the old, 'non-ideological' way.
Hud955 wrote:But I'm sure you know as well as I do that academic papers are peer reviewed and examined within paramaters designed to reduce error, confusion and individual bias in a way that popular works aren't.You have more faith in 'academic papers' than I have, Hud. In reality, 'academic papers' are as ideological as 'popular works', but the ideology is hidden in 'special language', to baffle the punters. As socialists, we should be seeking to reveal the ideological basis of academia, not pandering to bourgeois prejudices.
Hud955 wrote:And being non-specialists ourselves without first hand work to call on or an extensive knowledge of the field a certain degree of critical trust is necessary.I don't know about you Hud, but I've met professors who haven't got a clue about their own ideology, and I've had to point it out to them. I wasn't thanked by them, though, which is strange, because academics claim to have an open mind, and be prepared to listen to those who know better. But they don't, they are just like the person-in-the-street, and take a strop. How dare a 'non-specialist' tell them 'what's what'!You stick to 'trust', I'll stick to questioning.
Hud955 wrote:If you devoted yourself to applying this ideological obsession of yours to the details of arguments under consideration, showing whether and to what extent such biases influenced them, and whether as a result we should assess such influence as significant or trivial, then I would have a lot more respect for your views. As it is, your entirely negative, carping and absolutist approach is utterly sterile and clearly of interest only to yourself. As you have contributed next to nothing of positive value to this discussion, so far, I'm starting to regard you as a species of troll.Oh dear, the usual response by an academic who wishes to stick to 'the details' and ignore the perspective.I've actually followed up a link given by robbo, and found that Kelly openly says he employs concepts drawn from neo-classical economics. But you're not interested in 'critical questioning' of Kelly's ideological framework within which he selects his 'details', but prefer to 'critically trust' his academic credentials.'Obsession', 'negative and carping', 'utterly sterile', 'nothing of positive value', and finally 'troll'.It's pathetic, Hud, and I can smell the fear…The fear of conservative ideology when confronted with the question: 'What perspective/framework/ideology do you employ, to select your details?'.You wish to ignore both the anthropologists' ideologies, and your own, in the 'belief' that just sticking to details will give us an answer.On a thread entitled 'Hunter gatherer violence', you won't discuss what is meant by either 'hunter gatherers' or 'violence', and which perspectives are behind the various possible answers.And I'm the 'troll'?…I'm the only one who seems to have any scientific approach to these issues – 21st century science, of course. Not the outdated 19th century postivism that you embrace, Hud, with its concern with 'details', the notorious 'facts of the matter'.Simple question, Hud. What ideology do you use to understand anthropology, and 'hunter gatherer society'? Or are you just going to continue to try to 'impress' us with your learning, with the 'details' of endless bands, tribes, cultures, customs, academics' names, none of which have any meaning for socialists, outside of a framework of understanding.Frankly, I don't know why I bother anymore – your response is almost word-for-word the same as from others, and on other threads.It's based upon an ignorance and avoidance of science, and a fear of critical questioning. Back to your unvarnished 'details', eh, Hud?
Hud955 wrote:Most on-line stuff about hunter gatherers is very dodgy. It's highly politicised and therefore a contested area, so you need to go back to academic texts for security.You seem to be suggesting that there are 'non-political' academics out there, merely conducting a non-ideological 'search for The Truth' of hunter gatherers.Anyone thinking that 'academic texts' offer any non-political 'security' is fooling themselves.And to suggest so, is completely ideological, Hud. If you're not suggesting this, and I've misread your intentions, surely the way forward is to expose ideology, both in us reading and in academics writing?To echo your view about 'hunter gatherers', anthropology itself is 'highly politicised and contested'.Academics are not providing us with the view from nowhere, the pre-Einsteinian 'objective truth'. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.
YMS wrote:And I believe it is undisputed that personal homicide may occur within those bands (from time to time), and that occasionally (especially to dispose of a bully and a wanna be leader) maybe even the odd conspiracy and group slaying?What's this got to do with 'warfare', YMS?Your ideology seems to see a continuum between personal harming of individuals, and the emergence of warfare.That is, one ideology (Marxism?) sees discontinuities in societies, while another ideology (Liberalism?) sees continuities in individual behaviour. The former is likely to stress difference between societies and development in history, whereas the latter is likely put emphasis on human similarity and universal traits.Different anthropologists adopt differing ideologies, and the issue of violence/warfare is an important ideological concept.Does 'bully removal' end with 'invading Poland'? Are they on a continuum of 'human behaviour'? Can we see the seeds of the expansionary Third Reich in 'personal homicide'? If not, why mention it?
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:Some info on Kelly's ideology:My intention in mentioning Kelly was not really to get into a discussion about his ideology which is all to apparent as you say but merely to point out that the expression "complex hunter gatherer society" has been used by people like him and others to signify also a tribal form of society as opposed to band society.
Are those two things related, robbo?That is, his ideology, and his characterisation of (a type of) 'hunter gatherer society' as being also 'tribal'.Also, what would be the ideology of those who argue that 'hunter gatherers' are 'band societies'?I know you don't want to 'get into a discussion about ideology', but what's the alternative?The method of 'heads-in-the-sand'? Pretend that mere observation of 'social facts' will somehow tell us what those 'facts' are? Why seemingly hide Kelly's ideology, when he seems prepared to give us some clues to it, at least?Isn't ignoring ideology also ignoring the lessons of science?I'm afraid that 'discussion of ideology' is inescapable in science, and thus in anthropology, whether this is to your personal taste or not. Sorry, your ideological taste.
robbo203 wrote:Kelly who carried out a major survey of HG groups also seems to go along with this distinction. See here: https://books.google.es/books?id=CDAWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=comp… Some info on Kelly's ideology:
Robert L. Kelly, The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers, p. xvii, wrote:It has been some forty years since I first looked in wonder at those pictures of the Tasaday. I no longer see in them the faces of ancient relatives. For the most part, I now see costs and benefits of resources, and differences in time allocation, caloric returns, opportunity costs, and utility curves.[my bold]If any comrades here can’t identify the ideology that Kelly admits to having adopted (due to his life, now, in modern society), and how it is different to his earlier view in 1972, and thus has changed over time and according to his socio-economic influences, then I’ll be very surprised.Once one is conscious of Kelly’s ideology, then reading his book, and critically assessing his arguments, becomes much easier.Simply put, comrades, if one wants to employ ‘costs and benefits of resources, and differences in time allocation, caloric returns, opportunity costs, and utility curves’ to understand hunter gatherer societies, then one is intellectually bound to employ the same concepts and framework to understand modern capitalism.But we don’t do this, do we? We employ concepts from Marx, like ‘value’ and ‘exploitation’. Why would we then simply accept Kelly as a reliable source for our understanding? Perhaps some of his work is valuable, but being aware of his 'blinkers' is very useful. Kelly's "selection of facts" will be determined by his ideology.
Hud955 wrote:A lot of different questions have been asked here, and it seems to me that until people agree on what they want to know..[my bold]I would add to this, Hud.It's not only 'what they want to know', but also 'why they want to know'.These 'whats and whys' (and 'hows and whens') are a function of ideology. It would be far clearer to everybody if we started to uncover both our differing ideologies on this thread, and the various ideologies of the anthropologists, of whom both you and other posters have mentioned.For example, are concerns about 'human nature' at the heart of these discussions? That is, if 'hunter gatherers' employ 'pointy' sticks to kill each other, is this evidence for the 'natural human condition' of warfare?It seems clear to me that discussions about hunter gatherers are about much more than hunter gatherers, no matter what the 'let's just observe the evidence from hunter gatherer society' ideologists maintain. Modern concerns are at the heart of our observation of them.This is a relationship (between 'us' and 'them') which needs much further exploration. We can't escape it.
Hud955 wrote:I've been trawling back through this debate and keep finding some very contentious statements and strange pieces of reasoning.I'm not sure if this comment is aimed at me, Hud, not least because my 'reasoning' is sound. I'm asking for 'definitions', rather than providing them.
Hud955 wrote:Social anthropology has never established a technical vocabulary for itself and so miscommunication is always a potential problem within the discipline.This is precisely what I've pointed out. Lack of definitions has lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings.
Hud955 wrote:With that all in mind, band (immediate return) hunter gatherers are not defined as 'non-violent small groups'…I didn't say they were – I said 'if', and it was related to the issue of violence, in an attempt to explain the relationship of assumptions and evidence, ie. 'theory and empirical proof'.
Hud955 wrote:Assuming we agree on what violence means, then whether immediate return hunter gatherers are violent or not is a matter for empirical investigation.Ahhh… more unspoken 'assumptions'…… and the plea for simple, untheorised, 'empirical investigation'.I'm sure that you're aware that this is far more problematic than your statement appears to show.
Hud955 wrote:Once again, whether or not tribes are violent is a question to be settled by observation and has nothing to do with the way they are classified.Now I'm not so sure that you are aware.The separation of 'observation' from 'classification' is not possible. The only theorists who maintain this are positivists.
Hud955 wrote:As far as defining the term 'violence' is concerned, no definition is ever final. The way you define something will depend on the work you want your definition to do, and that in turn will depend on the questions you are asking.Here, once more, you show awareness of this very problem, and contradict your earlier methodological position of the separation of 'observation' and 'classification', and recognise that 'definition' (ie. 'classification') actually determines what one is going to see (ie. 'observation').
Hud955 wrote:A lot of different questions have been asked here, and it seems to me that until people agree on what they want to know there will be no agreement on definitions, even though they debate until the cows come home.This is precisely why I've made a plea for definitions, but other posters seem to want to continue in the old, 'non-ideological' way of 'simply dealing with the evidence'. Anyone who has studied science method knows that this is impossible.Finally, Hud, thanks for your attempts to start a discussion about what we mean by various terms. It only a start, though. 'Violence' is one which certainly requires much more thought.
YMS wrote:I think the key is the definition of war not lying in violence, but in power, specifically the question of imposing ones will upon another.[my bold]Here, we're back to 'one', and 'another' one.This is an ideological belief, YMS, that discussion of various 'ones' is related to discussions about 'social power'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:This linking together by you of 'observation' and 'logical sequence' is itself an ideological belief.You appear to regard 'observation' to be non-ideological (ie., that the 'thing observed' is self-evident), and that linking a series of 'things observed' is entirely non-ideological (ie., that the 'link' is self-evident).One person stabbing another is an event that has happened, irrespective of any ideology on earth, a sharp pointy thing has ended a life, the trick is putting that in context.Lets try another way: what do you think constitutes:1) Violence2) Warfare
[my bold]As I thought, YMS, 'one person' and 'events' are entirely unproblematic for you, when it comes to discussions about 'warfare'. You assume a link between the two; otherwise, why mention them in the same context?As to definitions of 'violence' and 'warfare', that's what I've been asking you to give. Why avoid answering, and then ask me to tell us what you avoid answering?'Violence' is not 'warfare', and the two are not necessarily related.That is, we can have 'violence' without 'warfare', and we can have 'warfare' without 'violence'.The automatic linking of the two is an ideological act, and it's done by anthropologists who wish to link hunter-gatherer society with modern society, through some universal human 'behaviour'.Y'know, 'persons', 'pointy things', 'an ended life', and 'thermo-nuclear destruction of humanity'.
YMS wrote:Lbird,like it or not, the one person on one person infliction of harm occurs, and we need to call this something. We then need to distinguish it fromcollective infliction of harm.Yes, but as well as 'distinguishing' two definitions, we also have to determine whether there is any connection whatsoever between these two 'somethings'.
YMS wrote:We can observe the different behaviour of inflicting harm as an end in itslf, and inflicting harm as a means to an end, and we can then observe inflicting harm as a means to an end involving a third party, this is a logical sequence of different classifications of observable behaviours.This linking together by you of 'observation' and 'logical sequence' is itself an ideological belief.You appear to regard 'observation' to be non-ideological (ie., that the 'thing observed' is self-evident), and that linking a series of 'things observed' is entirely non-ideological (ie., that the 'link' is self-evident).
YMS wrote:But before we begin theorising we need to distinguish between different behaviours.But one's theory determines what one sees as 'behaviour', and how one 'distinguishes between' them. It is an ideological stance to regard 'behaviour' as self-evident to an 'observer'.I've got no problem with you having a different ideology to me, YMS, but we need to clarify exactly what our ideologies are, because yours seems to assume a lot of 'common ground' ('common sense'?) between us, which I clearly can see that we don't share.I think this concealment of ideology is at the root of problems with understanding anthropology, and thus with understanding hunter-gatherer societies.
