[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lbird,Well, we can quickly define  violence as the infliction of physical harm on one person by another…

[my bold]This is the problem, YMS.Who is this 'we'?Why would this 'we' define violence in terms of 'one person by another'?Then, to reinforce this definition, 'one's will upon another'; 'one person', etc.

YMS wrote:

This second layer is the context in which we can begin to define warfare.  To get to war…

Then having accepted this 'one person' definition of 'violence', there follows a massive, unexplained and unexamined jump to 'warfare/war'.This is an ideological sequence that I don't accept, YMS.My ideology does not jump from the individual/biological/genetic to the social/historical, in one untheorised, hidden leap.Unless we, on this thread, expose our differing ideological presuppositions, we will continue to 'talk past' each other.Anthropologists, as a part of their scientific method, should expose their ideologies, prior to discussing the societies which are the object of their research.One's 'viewpoint' will determine 'what' one 'sees'. And 'one' is a social being, a product of a society.

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

Robbo says:  … It is relevant to the topic because the whole point of the topic is to discuss what gives rise to war.Hear, Hear!   …

I've left this thread alone for a few days, to see how it progresses. It hasn't.I still think that we're in need of definitions of what is being discussed, like 'violence'.Is 'violence' a spectrum, from hitting one another as kids, through adult tantrums about jealousy of partners, all the way to thermo-nuclear war and total destruction of the planet.Or is 'violence' an emergent property of some societies, which when structured in a certain way, produce war?As I've said before, both of these definitions have ideological roots.The former encourages talk of 'biological roots of violence', inherent in human nature or genes, whilst the latter encourages talk of 'social roots of violence', historically from specific social arrangements. The former sees violence as inescapable and eternal, whereas the latter sees violence as a temporary socio-historic phase of human development.The answers to these philosophical questions are not in research about hunter-gatherers, but in our own beliefs, which we've picked up from our own society.Whichever 'proof' that one wants can be found in h-g society. H-g society is both violent and non-violent, depending upon the criteria that are applied by the anthropologist.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Violence is conventionally understood in terms of the presumed death count…

For any cohort in any society, the 'death count' is always 100%!

 Of course.  But I am saying this is the formal  measure of violence which these people chose to employ and one presumes by that that they mean the intentional act to inflict harm on others resulting in their deaths (although, of course they may not necessarily have the intention to actually kill the other person even if that is the outcome)

I think my 'bolds' emphasise the problem!I'm sure I've missed a few!I'll settle for your 'Of course', robbo, as a sign that we're not really that far apart.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Violence is conventionally understood in terms of the presumed death count…

For any cohort in any society, the 'death count' is always 100%! We can't get away from discussing meaning, by pretending that there is some 'objective' measure called 'death count', which all anthropologists can agree upon.'Violence' and 'death count' are ideological constructs. That's what you, perhaps unknowingly, acknowledge when you say "conventionally understood".Whose 'conventions'? In what way are they 'understood'? Who determines the 'period' of the 'death count'? What is a 'death' that counts? Falling off a cliff?I'm sure everyone can think up some more objections to 'death count'. Ideological, social and historical.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Of course there is some one-on-one violence in contemporary  HG groups as there no doubt was among prehistoric HG groups but that is not the same thing as war.

[my bold]robbo, I agree with much of your post.One key thing is your outlining of the concept of 'violence', which I've also stressed is an ideological concept, and how one regards 'violence' will determine one's view of h-g 'violence'.If the ideology being followed by the anthropologist is 'individualist', then 'one-on-one violence' counts as 'violence'.If the ideology being followed by the anthropologist is 'socialist', then 'war' counts as 'violence'.The former is about biological contact and personal pain, the latter about social conflict and widespread destruction.If the reader employs an individualist ideology, they will find that 'violence exists in h-g societies', and agree with the anthropologists who stress this form of 'violence'.If the reader employs a socialist ideology, they will find that 'violence does not exist in h-g societies', and agree with the anthropologists who stress this form of 'violence'.My advice to comrades is to read as many anthropological accounts as possible, by anthropologists who employ differing ideologies, and to be aware of their own ideological approach (ie. definition) of 'violence'.For those seeking 'The Truth' of 'what really happened', of an 'objective account of violence in hunter gatherer societies', I'd warn that you're going to be disappointed, comrades.

[LBird]

Are these serious posts from stuart?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

You see, this is where ideology gets you – you can't even see what's right in front of your face, ie, the propensity of biological individuals to violence. Have you never been out drinking? Or read this forum?

[my bold]Yeah, on the 1st July, 1916, right in front of my face a couple of hundred thousand isolated individuals (who, coincidentally, were all wearing khaki uniforms and had done basic training and had been subject to endless war propaganda about 'Boche frightfulness') just happened, all together on a natural whim, to jump out of their trenches, and due to their natural propensity to stick bayonets in other isolated individuals who wear field grey and have pointy helmets, ran towards hundreds of machine guns and got entangled on barbed wire, and 20,000 died and 40,000 were injured.Of course, about 1% of these hundreds of thousands, liked a drink on a Saturday night, got pissed, and battered each other over the head with beer bottles. This 'natural propensity', admittedly only present in a minute number, is the source of The Great War.So, I've seen it with my own eyes – drunken fights in pubs between thugs, and hundreds of thousands infected with this 'natural propensity for violence', set off to stick knives in other, equally culpable, men, who all just like killing.Yes, indeed, THIS IS WHERE IDEOLOGY GETS YOU, stuart.As an explanation for the terrible casualties caused by the Battle of the Somme, it seems lacking to me, a Communist.I'd think it was more to do with class society and capitalism, rather than 'human nature', but, one's "own eyes" don't lie do they, to the non-ideological?Quite frankly, YMS's post was pathetic, and your inability to see that, given our recent discussions, makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time talking to fellow workers, like you, stuart.

[Author]

Posts