[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Good review of Diamond here:http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/422223.article

Some illuminating quotes from the review linked by stuart:

Quote:

No book can cover everything, and Diamond apologises for leaving gender relations and sexual inequalities unexplored. Unfortunately, this leaves the reader to infer that territorialism, warfare and male dominance are inevitable features of the human condition.

Quote:

Excellent when he sticks to science, Diamond is less convincing when he turns to politics. Here is an example: “Large populations can’t function without leaders who make the decisions, executives who carry out the decisions, and bureaucrats who administer the decisions and laws. Alas for all of you readers who are anarchists and dream of living without any state government, those are the reasons why your dream is unrealistic… ” As I read these lines, I had the funny feeling they were directly aimed at me! It would be interesting to research the extent to which anthropologists’ political beliefs correlate with those of the people they study.

The last line also reflects the tenor of what I said to stuart, earlier.If one is to show interest in hunter-gatherers, one has to first show interest in both academics' and one's own 'political beliefs'.The philosophical and ideological approach one espouses to 'science' will be included. Science is political.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB, in reply to post No. 50. Thanks, I follow your argument, and I see the (at least apparent) contradiction in mine.

This is all about us all learning, stuart. Realising what you have, can only strengthen your understanding of your own position, allow you to critically assess it, and come back with a better argument.

stuartw2112 wrote:

How, then, in your view, are we to discriminate between different ideologies or rival scientific theories? Are you saying that there's no way to apart from personal preference?

This is a massive, indeed revolutionary, issue!I've tried to discuss it on other threads, but we haven't got very far!My simple answer is 'a vote'. This is nothing to to with 'personal preference'.In context, if human understanding is socially-produced, then the only arbiter of 'truth' is social theory and practice. Humans can get it wrong, and so 'truth' being a human product, can turn out to be 'not true'. We can follow the twists and turns of 'truth' if we use a historical account of science, where we constantly find "today's truth" is "tomorrow's error".If, in a Communist society, where there is no other social authority than the direct producers, organised democratically, then the answer to 'what is true at any given moment' is a matter of a democratic vote.Of course, those enamoured of 19th century positivist science, and hatred of 'mob rule', want to retain 'truth' for 'objective reality'.Problem is, we now know that humans don't have unmediated access to 'reality', and our understanding of 'reality' is always a social and historical understanding. An added complication is that Engels fell hook, line and sinker for the massive advances made by 'science' in the 19th century, and so we now have a misleading heritage of 'Materialism' to overcome, a materialism that says 'matter' tells us 'what it is'. A bit like you earlier wanting to know the simple truth of hunter-gatherer society, of 'what it was' without the intervention of all the ideologies and anthropologists' conflicting opinions.So, the Communist scientific method would involve democratic 'discrimination' between rival ideologies and theories.Of course, the 'objective scientists' (egged on by the bourgeoisie, who can see a challenge to their authority to determine 'truth' coming on), are outraged by the mere suggestion of 'democracy in knowledge production'!By Christ, it's revolutionary twaddle! They want 'truth' left to the elite experts, university-trained cadre, reporting to their research professors, like that nice Dr. Mengele…And they'd have us 'respect' the academic anthropologists, rather than laugh at their bourgeois pretensions and ideologies, as they try to convince that 'society now' is natural.I'd start by asking the anthropologist if they believe in 'private property' or 'the democratic control of the means of production', and take their 'scientific answers' in that light.And then look at your own views on current and future society, and your beliefs about its possibilities and restraints, and I think that you'll find your contemporary beliefs to be reflected in the 'research' that you prefer to agree with.We're all looking at 'hunter-gatherer' society through today's lenses, and this is inescapable. Einstein's physics, and all that….

[LBird]

One of the key concepts to be addressed is the concept of 'violence' in anthropology.Does it mean 'personal physical violence'? That is, say, a biological human hitting another human?Or does it mean 'social structured violence'? That is, say, war between groups of humans?If an anthropologist tends to see society as a collection of individuals (free or not) and look to personal emotions (jealousy, envy, hate, love, etc.), and mostly ignores questions of structural power and the ideologies that flow from power, then this anthropologist will tend to see manifestations of 'violence' in hunter-gatherer society, simply because one can find human emotions and their effects in h-g society.On the other hand, if an anthropologist tends to see society as a specific historical structure, which has qualities outside of the biological and emotional qualities of the humans who make up that society, and regards 'violence' as a social, structural 'fact', then this anthropologist will tend not to find 'violence' in h-g society, because the structures that produce 'violence' don't exist.Of course, these different ideological positions taken by various anthropologists will tend to reflect their ideological position regarding the society that they themselves live in now.If they regard themselves as a 'free individual', they'll tend to stress 'individuality' in explanations about h-g societies.If they regard themselves as a 'socially structured being', they'll tend to stress 'structures' in explanantions about h-g societies.So, my advice to comrades is, when reading anthropological accounts, is to try to uncover the underlying (and most often unacknowledged) ideology of the anthropologist writing the account.If one defines 'violence as hitting', one will find 'violence' in h-g societies.If one defines 'violence as war', one will not find 'violence' in h-g-societies.As stuart said earlier, ones 'definitions' and 'evidence' flows from one's ideology, and as long as one is aware of (and preferably exposes to others) one's ideology, one can come to understand conflicting accounts by anthropologists, often about the same h-g communities.As an aside, any socialist that has had to explain the difference between 'private property' (defined by the bourgeoisie as 'anything one owns', from underpants to multi-national banks, which implies we all support the right to 'private property – who doesn't want to 'own' their own private underpants?) and 'private property' (defined by socialists as 'socially-productive property', not including one's own personal possessions, for own use, which implies we don't support the right to 'private property' because productive property belongs to us all), has had to deal with this debate between common-sense definitions and politically-aware definitions. The 'evidence' lies in the 'definition', and we 'discover' what we want to, to support our theories.We socialists must employ politically-aware definitions within anthropology. As such, we'd start from a definition of 'violence equals war', and reject any anthropologists who 'discover evidence' of two individuals fighting and killing in a h-g society, and thus draw the conclusion that 'h-g society is violent' (and thus, 'violence is natural' in all societies, because we can always find 'violent' individuals).What do we mean by 'violence', comrades?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

There is nothing contradictory about the above statement. I'm talking about what  people capable of doing; I'm not necessarily trying to explain what causes them to do what they do.

This is meaningless, robbo.Humans are capable of flying. Would you claim humans 'naturally' fly?When people talk of 'naturally capable', they mean 'natural', with all the baggage that implies. Otherwise, why not just say 'capable', with no mention of 'nature'?

robbo203 wrote:

Yes , we know all this LBird.  Why do you feel the need to endlessly repeat this same old argument as if know one else apart from your good self is privy to the insight that there is no such thing as a value free anthropology  or science?  Can  we kinda move on with the argument a bit, eh? ..  Its getting quite boring hearing the same old thing being constantly regurgitated

So, why not openly state your 'values'? And we can move the argument on a bit. You're the blockage.For example, tell us why you feel the need to say 'naturally capable' when it turns out you mean 'socially capable'? Simply, it's because if you move away from 'natural' claims, I'll demand the basis of your 'social' claims.So, you hide your 'social' ideology behind the 'value-loaded' claim of 'naturally'?You're right, there is no such thing as value-free anthropology. But yet you hide, and squirm, and avoid, and blame me…

[LBird]

stuart, you argue for:

stuartw2112 wrote:

What I'm saying is that a non-ideological approach would be to think of a way forward…

but then admit:

stuartw2112 wrote:

Defining who hunter-gathers are, for example, may be tricky and ideologically loaded. Equally so the evidence…

If 'definitions' and 'evidence' are 'ideologically loaded', how can there be a 'non-ideological approach'?

stuartw2112 wrote:

… part of the overall scientific method – and the result, surely, is to edge beyond ideology and into objective reality…

That this myth, of 'scientific method' being about 'edging into objective reality', is a myth, is shown by what you seem to realise earlier.

stuartw2112 wrote:

Never mind the "savage", noble or otherwise, what is the truth of the matter?

Ahhh… the eternal plea for 'the truth of the matter'…If you think that 'The Truth' can be got to, without human intervention, then you're arguing for the 19th century method of positivist science, stuart.That's fair enough, if you want to do so, but then it is itself an entirely ideological approach to the production of human knowledge, whether anthropology or physics.My simple point stands: if you want 'the truth of the matter', that wish is an ideological wish, and you should be open about this to yourself, as well as to us, in any discussion about hunter-gatherers.If you start from the assumption that 'humans are naturally violent', you'll simply find that 'hunter-gatherers are violent'. As you yourself say, the definitions and evidence will be very clear about 'what facts are found'.It's as if you can see the strength of my argument, stuart, but won't take it to its obvious conclusion: Science is ideological.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I see what you're saying, and agree with a fair amount of it, but when you say, "Show me your ideology, I'll show you mine", it's not entirely clear how one is to respond. I don't know the answer. My ideology is that I try, strive, aim to do without one. Will that do?

Well, perhaps an illustration of an issue regarding 'hunter-gatherers', and perhaps robbo and YMS can give some more detail, too.Someone has already mentioned the issue of 'band' versus 'tribe', as the basis of h-g society.Problem is, if 'band' is defined as 'non-violent small group', and 'tribe' is defined as 'bit violent large group', and one lot of anthropologists 'discover' 'bands' and equate them with h-g, whilst another lot 'discover' 'tribes' and equate them with h-g, then the anthropologists who seek violence to justify capitalism as natural, and the anthropologists who seek non-violence to justify socialism, will find the 'objective evidence' to support their respective 'scientific' positions.This is only a simple example of the intertwining of frameworks of definition, evidence and sought-after results being 'discovered'.It's simpler to understand what one is reading, if one knows 'up-front' what the anthropologist is seeking to justify. That's usually a function of the anthropologist's ideology, which they've picked up from the society in which they live.Perhaps we could move forward simply be producing a list of problematic terms, definitions, like 'violence', etc.?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Thanks LB. If we don't share ideologies, is genuine communication possible? I'd say probably not – perhaps another cause of all the violence and craziness in the world!

stuart, I think that 'genuine communication' (and comradelyness) is entirely possible!To me, the foundation of this communication, on any topic, is to simply be open about respective ideologies. We don't have to share an ideology, but the exposing of both of the communicating ideologies (and their necessary axioms and assumptions) helps to illustrate our differences – philosophical, ideological, metaphysical, political.One can argue that a zebra crossing is white in colour (because one doesn't recognise 'black' as a colour), or vice versa.It is the exposing of what we mean by 'colour' or define by 'crossing' which allows us to recognise why we disagree.The disagreement doesn't of necessity have to be hostile – we can 'agree to disagree' and have learnt to recognise both our own axioms/assumptions and those of an opposing framework.This explanation of mine seems very reasonable, I think, until one comes across the belief that 'reality tells us what it is' (the belief that 'facts' are simply 'out there' waiting to be 'discovered').This is, in effect, a religious ideology, the belief in 'Truth', a truth which stands completely apart from human attempts to 'understand what exists'.As I've said, I can quite happily talk about my ideological views about myself, about anthropology, about anthropologists, and about 'hunter-gatherers'. If you can do this, too, we can compare and contrast our ideological views about all these issues, and get some help from other, better-read comrades.But, for those who just want to read quickly about 'The Truth' of 'hunter-gatherers' (the 'objective science', untainted by ideology), then we immediately hit problems.'They' claim to be un-ideological, and simply seek The Truth, and so reject the ideological belief (which I hold) that exposure of ideology is a necessary starting point.The bourgeoisie have been claiming for 300 hundred years that they have a method for producing The Truth (whether about anthropology or rocks), and it gives their ideological prize-fighters (the 'objective scientists') a great political legitimacy, authority and thus power.They try to employ this power in the sphere of anthropology, too, because so much is at stake in claiming the past as the basis for capitalism (and as we try to do so for communism).If any comrades are thinking "I'll just read some proper, objective, scientific anthopology, and thus quickly understand 'hunter-gatherers", they've got a nasty shock coming.This is science. 21st century science, stuart.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

So LB's remarks are relevant to the discussion.

I'm happy enough that you've acknowledged this, stuart.As to the rest of your 'advice' to me, I'll leave it to the other readers to discern the ideological roots of such 'advice'.I clearly don't share them with you!

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

We all know people are naturally capable of both grotesque violence as well as incredible kindness.  The much more interesting question is what causes them to behave in one way or another.

[my bold]This is a contradictory statement, robbo.If something is 'natural', then that is the cause of the 'behavour'.But if 'behaviour' can be different ('one way or another'), then it's not 'natural'.Unless one clarifies what one means by 'naturally' and 'behave', and discusses 'causation', then this thread will remain confused.At the root of these issues, about nature, behaviour and causes, is an ideological viewpoint.Robbo, it's clear to me that stuart, for example, does not share my ideological viewpoint, and I'm still unsure of yours and YMS's, because you wrote the ideologically confused statement above, and refuse to discuss the ideological underpinnings of all the works of the anthropologists that you've quoted.As you've started to point out, though, the issues of 'what is a hunter-gatherer society?' (eg. 'bands' or 'tribes') and 'violence' (something done by a biological individual (eg. 'a person pulling a trigger') or something done by a society (eg. 'a soldier pulling a trigger'), are all relevent.There are no simple 'facts' which are 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'.Different anthropologists will choose different facts to suit their own ideological purposes and own ideological frameworks, and it would be more helpful for those comrades wanting to understand 'hunter-gatherers' to be clear from the start about the political context of any 'text' or 'research'.Stuart might think that this is all 'pointless', but that in itself is an ideological attitude, not simply stuart's 'personal opinion'. stuart has been influenced by a society that stresses 'facts' as being more reliable than 'mere opinion'. 'Money and matter' are hard, unlike 'value and relationships'.The beginning of wisdom, though, is starting to realise that all 'facts' reflect the 'opinion' of the researcher. Carr's What is History? would be relevent reading here, for those comrades who do realise that simplying looking for the 'facts of anthropology' is the really pointless activity. Stuart will remain the prisoner of the framework of the last anthropologist that they read.

[LBird]

stuart2112 wrote:

…a mostly pointless debate …

stuart2112 wrote:

…the merest introspection would reveal that human beings are naturally capable of and indeed delight in the most grotesque violence and stupidity…

[my bolds]I wonder who contributes to this site.The longer I read, the more I feel alienated from what's being written.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'm going to regret this: but isn't ideology intrinsic (inherent) in the utterence?  i.e. don't we address ideology by dealing with the expressed ideas, rather than seeking an additional text in the formal account of the utterances conditions?

I'd simply ask, YMS, why you and robbo keep using the loaded term 'individuals'.Why use an ideological term so closely connected to the bourgeoisie?Why draw parallels between 'individuals' who live in very different societies, which is also a method used as an ideological justification for 'what exists, now' by showing the alleged 'similarities' with 'what existed, then'?If neither you nor robbo share neither ideology nor method with the bourgeoisie (as you both say that you don't), why employ the ideology of 'individuals' and the comparative method of 'sameness'.Especially as the 'individuality' being expressed is one of 'biological traits' ('that we all share, after all, we're all humans, we individuals', implying bosses and workers, being 'human' should look to their similarities), rather than emphasise the contrast and vast differences between societies and their production methods.What's the fascination with 'individuals', for alleged socialists?Do you think that it's just pure coincidence that you've grown up in a bourgeois society, and you constantly talk about 'individuals'? And their 'freedom' and 'free association', etc.I don't think that it's pure coincidence, comrades.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Another misrepresentation. I have constantly pointed out that its a two way thing, not a one way thing.  If you only see me talking about individuals that is because you have probably subconsciously blocked out the other side of the equation which I have also stressed – because it suits you to do so.

Right, 'two-way'. I get it. I've 'subconsciously blocked out'.

robbo203 wrote:

…he or she has no sense of self awareness, has  no feelings of anger , rage , happiness , jealousy , sadness or love.

Err… 'one-way'. No socio-economic context, or power relationships, just 'individual feelings'. The eternal, universal 'biology' of humans.

robbo203 wrote:

I repeat my position is neither an individualistic one nor a  holistic one but an intermediate one. Kindly stop misrepresenting me!

There's nothing 'intermediate' in your statements, robbo.I'm not 'misrepresenting' you, merely reading what you write, and drawing ideological conclusions based upon your words, about your ideology.You're the one who sees similarities between 'individual' hunter-gatherers and 'individual' proletarians, based upon biology. If anyone is 'subconsciously blocking out', it's you.You don't locate 'hunter-gatherers' within their society, and contrast them with 'proletarians' within their society, which is necessary because the two sets of 'individuals' [sic] live in very different societies.When I point out that this 'comparing' of asocial and ahistoric 'individuals' is an ideological approach to anthropology, and point out that both you and many 'anthropologists' share this ideology, and contrast it to, for example, Marx's notions of 'modes of production', you don't like it.I'm not misrepresenting you, robbo. Or indeed YMS.For example, I'd compare/contrast 'hunter-gatherers' with 'workers', and openly state that my basis of this act was my Communism.I want to know, for example, Pinker's ideology. Or the political ideology of the other anthropologists mentioned earlier.My method doesn't allow the simple quoting of 'authorities' and their 'facts', and their being taken at 'face value'.Any critical approach to anthropology must involve a critical view of anthropologists. Especially their ideological starting point. And ours.

[LBird]

Y'know, robbo, it'd be great to have an informed discussion on this site about any subject.

robbo203 wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else  but my own ideology as I have several times pointed is one of libertarian communism in which individuals and society are seen as interdependent terms and meaningless without the other.

If I take this statement at face value, I'm left wondering why all your contributions, to every subject we've encountered, are about 'individuals', and none of them are about the 'society' within which those individuals find themselves.If they are so 'interdependent' and 'meaningless without each other' (and I agree with you about that), why the constant, exclusive, emphasis on 'individuals'? As for example, your talk of 'self-consciousness', outside of any historical and social context, which does in fact make it 'meaningless'.I can only draw the conclusion that, for you, 'Libertarian Communism' is really 'Individual communism', and you then extract the 'communism' from it, too.This is, as I've said before, what I encountered on LibCom, when I asked similiar questions.This is the source of your dislike of my declarations of 'Democratic Communism', which insists that individuals can only have power through democratic social and political structures. This is nothing to do with 'liberty' or 'freedom', which are individualistic concerns, produced by being socialised in a bourgeois society.I want to see "workers' power" emerge, as a basis for Democratic Communism.These differences in our ideologies are reflected in our views of anthropology, and our understanding of 'hunter-gatherer' societies.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

The hunter gatherer like the modern proletarian has what we call an interior subjective reality: self consciousness. Its something that acquire through a process of socialisation.

Yeah, after a busy day 'hunting and gathering' our wages in the factories and offices, we often stop off at 'The Watering Hole', where we quench our thirst alongside our socio-economic bretheren, the Kalahari Bushmen, where we all marvel at the identity of our 'self-consciousness'.Do us a favour robbo: recognise this ahistorical woffle about 'interior subjective reality' as the nonsense that it is.It's bourgeois ideology, and you're propagating 'ruling class ideas' about anthropology.

[LBird]

Thanks for ignoring any discussion about the political ideologies of any of the authors mentioned.Thanks also for specifically choosing quotes from those unsituated authors about 'individuals', and failing to mention anything to do with the production relationships of their societies.Socialists? Marxists? Don't make me laugh. IPGB, more like.Since none of you seem to like being critically questioned ("ooh, that nasty LBird's mentioning 'ideology', again! Why can't LBird stick to the 'facts' about 'individuals', that those nice non-ideological anthropologists have so kindly provided"), I'll stop 'interfering', and let you get on with it.Why no-one else (leaving aside the, errmm, 'contributors' to this thread, so far) can see what's going on here, politically, is a mystery to me.It's all yours.

[Author]

Posts