[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I heard that episode too. He did strongly make the point we do that at work and in the family "communism" prevails. The trouble is he doesn't think society as a whole could operate on this basis.

 This question of  the "scalability"  of communistic relationships seems to be often enough mentioned by those skeptical of the possibility of full communism in our sense – including professional anthropologists like Graeber. How did Graeber go about justifying his skepticism in this instance , Adam? I suppose to some extent it is rooted in the anthropological approach to forms of reciprocity.  There is a useful explanation of this here http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htm I have always envisaged communism or socialism to be a system of "generalised reciprocity" – or as the article puts it  "gift giving without the expectation of an immediate return"  – as opposed to balanced reciprocity of negative reciprocity..  After all, the voluntaristic nature of work in communism means in a sense that it is a kind of "gift" that we give to society without the expectation  of a return (we dont receive any payment for our work) and in full awareness of the fact that we all depend on each other and benefit from the labour contributions of millions of anonymous others in a world in which production is a globalized and socialised phenomenon.  Voluntary work hangs togther with the idea of free access to the collective fruits of our labour. You cant have one withour the other.I suspect anthropologists, like Graeber, studying small scale face-to-face societies and observing  that the pattern of reciprocity within such societies tends to sometimes differ from that which develops between such societies – trade for instance occurs on the margins of such societies and not internally amongst the individuals constituting such societies – infer from this that when  you are interacting with outsiders or strangers from another society , such individuals cannot really be trusted and that consequently, the nature of your interactions with them must necessarily be different. In other words more impersonal and based on explicit rules of engagement – market trade.  Of course even this is slightlly misleading because trade in this sense did not occur on individual one-to-one basis but rather between groups. But even in small scale societies it doesn't necessarily have to be like this.   According to Richerson et al for instance:The !Kung and the desert people of the Australian interior had elaborate institutions to link people together beyond the bounds of normal kinship. The !Kung, according to Polly Wiessner, used a gift exchange system to cultivate friendships with people in distant bands.Women exchanged fancy beadwork and men arrows. The Central Australians had elaborate “section” systems of extended kinship that classified marriage with all but a few women as incestuous. Men might have travel hundreds of kilometers to find an eligible mate. According to Aram Yengoyan and Wiessner the effect of these institutions was to ensure that every family had friends and inlaws scattered everywhere.When subsistence or political problems occurred, people could seek aid from any of a number of kin or friends in a number of different environments (Peter J. Richerson, Monique Borgerhoff  Mulder, and Bryan J. Vila, 1996. Principles of Human Ecology. Pearson      Custom Publishing, Part II, ch 3).    Whereas a gift economy unites people and cements social relationships, a market economy atomises people and places them in position where they confront each other with antagonistic interests as buyers and sellers In any event, this is quite an important subject – this question of the "scalability" of a communist or socialist society – and it would be good to see more attention being focused on it in order to be able to answer the skepticism of people like Graeber….. 

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi Robin, this will have to be a very short answer (for me), as I am in the last stages of preparing for my holiday.  It is nearly thirty years since I read Evans Pritchard so I don't recall much about the Nuer, but here are some things to consider.  You can tell me if they fit what you know about them.  Egalitarianism seems to be  closely related to and consequent on the way in which societies obtain their means of life.  It is principally found among hunter gatherers, both immediate and delayed return, though it does extend to some pastoralists and herders and even some horticulturalists where finely balanced factors may tip them either way.  It needs to be noted, however, that delayed return hunter gatherers, although they generally retain a largely egalitarian structure including the use of demand sharing, do tend to have some status relations and sometimes chiefs.  Structurally induced warfare on the other hand seems to be related primarily to delayed return systems and so includes states, tribes and delayed return hunter gatherers.  In other words delayed return hunter gatherers do sometimes make war, though less on the whole than tribes and states.  If I recall (correct me if I am wrong)  the Nuer have a delayed return system  so the fact that they make war would not be entirely surprising.   

 Hi Richard,Like you, its a long time since I read Evans Pritchard's book on the Nuer but I still possess a copy which has been well thumbed and scribbled through (as is my habit).  EP describes the Nuer as essentially pastoralists but also "fishermen and gardeners".  So, yes, a mix of immediate and delayed return, I guess.  They are also to some extent nomadic, living in temporary villages and their social structure in EPs view, is heavily influenced by their physical environment,  They are divided into tribes which are in turn divided into territorial or tribal segments and they have no "centralised administration" . The only functional figures that stand out but have little power are the leopard skin chief and the prophet. Some points about Nuer violence.  According to EP intertribal fighting among the Nuer is generally fiercer than fighting with the neighbouring Dinka but is however governed by certain conventions – woman and children  were not molested, huts and byres were not destroyed and captives were not taken. Within the  tribe itself,  fighting among sections such as within a village itself tended to be carried using clubs rather than spears to minimise the risk of death and hence  blood feuds erupting  – quite an interesting point I thought. A brief quote from EP to give a flavour of the Nuer The ordered anarchy in which they live accords well with their character for it is impossible to live among the Nuer and conceive of rulers ruling over them. The Nuer is a product of hard and egalitarian upbringing, is deeply democratic and is easily roused to violence.  His turbulent spirit finds any restraint irksome and no man recognises a superior. Wealth makes no difference. A man with many cattle is envied but not treated differentl;y from a man with few cattle. You say also  that "There is another big factor to consider, and that is the relationships of a group to other societies" In the case of the Nuer it is (or was) mainly the Dinka who I think (I'm just giving the book a very quick skim!) are to all intents and purposes more of less identical to the Nuer. Indeed it is possible for individual Nuer tribesmen to have descended from the Dinka though they wont thank you for pointing that out and will probably club you according to EP!That very crudely is a basic summary of the Nuer and I'm wondering how these brief facts fit in with the model of violence you have put forward.  There are some things that accord with that model like the link between delayed return economies and violence chiefly because of the association of violence  with territoriality and border defence.  Other aspects of the Nuer Society I'm not quite sure of .  EPs claim that they are highly egalitarian and deeply democratic are a bit difficult to square with their apparent proneness to violence.Anyway have a great holiday and maybe take EP's book as part of your holiday reading material to ponder upon. I'm sure we will renew the discussion when you return

[robbo203]

Hi Richard, Just a quick point of clarification – on the distinction between complex HG societies and tribal societies… I take your point about hunter gatherer specialists tending to keep these terms separate and apart.  Tribes as you say are "generally clan-based, patrilineal, status societies, of relatively recent origin, and they are almost invariably horticulturalists, drovers or pastoralists"  They also tend to be chiefdoms and although chiefs are also to be found among complex HG societies, they tend not to be formalised status-based positions.  There is a degree of social hierarchy and inequality in complex HG societies but it tends to be muted. Here's the problem though.  I recall reading Evan Pritchards, "The Nuer" quite a few years ago.  The Nuer are clearly a tribe in the above sense but they don't have chiefs. In fact if I remember correctly there is only somebody called the "leopard skin man" who arbitrates between individuals but has no special power  vested in him. The Nuer are highly egalitarian – what you call "extreme individualists" (which I personally think is a misleading term because "individualism" is not the same as "individuality" or "individuation" but never mind). However the Nuer are also clearly warlike and engage in wars with the neighbouring Dinka. This is not just the case back in the days when Evans Pritchard was doing his fieldwork but can be seen also today in the new state of Southern Sudan which I believe is still in the throes of civil war.  It is this combination of a highly egalitarian society and a proneness intergroup conflict that I find somewhat disturbing.  It kind of clashes with the thesis that in a society characterised by – to use your term – extreme " individualism", it is much more difficult  to organise and motivate intergroup conflict.  Of course , against that there is the fact that among the Nuer the principle of territoriality would prevail which would not be the case with a simple hunter gather band society. But all the same it is a bit of theoretical puzzle. By the way I'm curious about this distinction between complex hunter gatherers  and simple hunter gatherers. How and why did the former come about  and, also, when and where?  As I understand it complex HG groups are a peculiarity of particular resource=rich regions  which means that they tend to be more sedentary and large scale.  They don't need to move around to the extent that simple HG groups do becuase of the loicalised abundance of resoruces and this has implications for their social structure. Thoughts?….

[robbo203]

For anyone who is interested in this subject of early human "warfare" (and its alleged implications for "human nature") there is a whole bunch of fascinating articles I came across on Brian Ferguson's "profile page" at the Rutgers University web site.  Just scroll down to his list of publications near the bottom of the pagehttp://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/r-brian-ferguson

[robbo203]

I'm quite rusty on all this but what is the relation between Chomsky's ideas and those of Claude Levi-Strauss, the structural anthropologist?  Levi Strauss as I recall,  argued that there were certain  mental structures that underlie human behaviour which we may not be aware of – in the same way that  we all participate in society without necessarily being aware of its underlying "grammer" or social structure  or when we speak. we dont consciously apply the rules of grammerI know Levi-Strauss was influenced by people like Saussure and  Roman Jakobson in his project of bringing linguistic theory into social anthropology and that these figures also exerted an influence on Chomsky

[robbo203]

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 You really need to reconsider , redefine and relax  what you mean by "off topic". As things stand you are applying a far too strict and literal interpretation of the term in my opinion and, I think, in the opinion of other contributors on this forum. It discourages people from contributing and more importantly impedes the whole process of lateral thinking and applying any conclusions reached beyond the immediate subject area you deem to be relevant Thats not good.  Please rethink your approach and abandon this habit of issuing warnings on the  pretext that the contributor may have gone slightly off topic

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

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.

 You never stop with your misrepresentation, do you LBird?  "Non-ideological collection of raw material"???Read what I actually wrote for once, for chrissakes! I said the collection of raw material involves selection and therefore is necessarily ideological.  What part of that do you not understand?But enough of your nonsense.  For those who want to more constructively engage with this thread check out this link which I have just come acrosshttps://unsafeharbour.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/comments-on-pinkers-history-of-violence/A very useful article on the data Pinker (selectively) uses to support his thesis of pre-state violenceSecond 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]

LBird wrote:

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.

This is rubbish and you can't see it because you have an utterly simplistic black-or-white view of the world, frankly. Saying that you set have to set out to establish what are the facts in the first place – in this case about hunter gatherer societies –  does NOT signify the abandonment of an  ideological perspective or the adoption of a positivistic approach.  You know damn well, LBird,  that that is not what I am saying but  you like to pretend otherwise to maintain your ridiculous and vain posture as the monopoliser of the insight "that our view of the world is always ideologically tainted" .  The (self) critical examination, or questioning, of the established facts does NOT define the limits of the input of ideology as you seem to imagine,  which also embraces the very establishment of the facts themselves, as the anthropologist sees these. insofar as they involve a necessary process of selection.  You are just trying to teach grandmother how to suck eggs and its getting terribly boring now.  Change the record LBirdYou wilfully ignore the main point of my remark-  that we have nevertheless to set out to establish the facts in the first place in order to critically examine them even though of course  the establishment of these facts is ideologically driven. That is what i was getting at..  You have a lopsided or one sided view of the scientific method  which you pretend to talk so authoritatively about which neglects to talk about the other side of this process – the business of collecting data through observation and whatnot – notwithstanding that this involves "ideology". The anthropologists who provide us with the "facts" pertaining to hunter gatherer societies are of course all ideologically driven but just because they don't keep tediously  banging on about the fact of being ideologically driven, as you do, does not mean they consider themselves to have abandoned ideology and embraced positivism.  You are being presumptuous in thinking otherwise

LBird wrote:

 Think it through, robbo; I'm a Democratic Communist, and I have.

I don't think you are . I think, as I sad a long time ago, you are a "mystic holist" – not a "democratic communist" –  who will deny to minority the right to minorities to express an opinion contrary to what the majority has voted on and determined to be the "truth" of a scientific  theory.  Otherwise what would be the point of a such a vote? That is an antidemocratic position  and, no, I don't think you have thought through your ideology at all…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]

LBird wrote:

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?

 Sorry LBird but I think Hud was spot on.  No one here is questioning that the "truth" about "hunter gatherer violence" – or anything else – is provisional, partial and ideologically based – but you are constantly barking up the wrong tree in your attribution of "positivism" to others with whom you disagree.  This gross caricature of yours is getting very tedious indeed.  You dont have a monopoly in recognising that our view of the world is always idelogically tainted although you seem to imagine you have 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?   This is the other half of the creative scientific process that you have also to attend to but which you constantly overlook. You have to construct as well as deconstruct. Hence the details of hunter gatherer groups are important to establish and to constantly reassess. It is almost as if – if you had you way – no empirical research would or  could ever possibly be undertaken because, well,  that would commit the cardinal sin of engaging in "positivistic science".  Thats just plan daft – like your silly idea  that the "proletariat" – all 7 billion of us! – would be engaged in voting on thousands upon thousands of scientific theories in order to determined their "truth" and to supposedly underscore the ideological basis of this "truth"

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi Robbo, yes, you will see these terms used in all sorts of ways, by all sorts of anthropologists.  As I said, there is no commonly agreed terminology.  The schema I have given is that used by most hunter-gatherer ethnographers in the UK.  They find it useful to make the distinction between complex hunter gatherers and tribal societies,  because while complex hunter gatherers are still hunter gatherers (even though very unusual ones) tribal peoples are generally not, though again there are exceptions.  Complex hunter gatherers seem to achieve their unusual structures through control of exceptionally rich resources.  Some even have incipient or undeveloped class relationships.  The Indians of the Pacific North-West – the classic example – were slave raiders. Complex hunter gatherers are rare, though perhaps not as rare as was once thought.  Evidence of several ancient ones has turned up in recent years.  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.  I'll try and find you some references for this. 

 Sorry to harp on about this, Richard, but it would be quite useful to point me in the direction of those references  you mention. Ive been doing a little research on the internet and everytthing Ive turned up thus far seems to equate "complex HG societies" with not just stratified societies but tribal societies or chiefdoms.  Even Douglas Fry who I know you regard highly as a commentator on this subject points out in his book "Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace" that complex sedentary HG societies are "chiefdoms"  (p.71) although confusingly on p.72 he remarks that power in bands and tribes , power and leadership is weak and dispersed whereas, in chiefdoms (and states), it is centralised 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+versus+complex+hunter+gatherer&source=bl&ots=EWKaH8bS0p&sig=_lCRaigXw_pqKhFLGQCwlgeDrs4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zc3yVLvELcS8UZeGguAH&ved=0CCIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=falseAn additional puzzle to me is that whereas the economes of chiefdoms, according to Fry, are often based on "farming or fishing", the economy of complex HG societies is obviously based on…er… hunting and gathering (although I guess fishing would count as a form of hunting) Also of course there is the fact that some pastoralists societies which we have talked about,  such as the Nuer, are highly egalitarian in structure 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? 

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Really glad you made this point, Robin. I think it needs to be made strongly and often.  Although we cannot 'go back' to a hunter gatherer lifestyle there are several principles underlying  hunter gatherer egalitarianism which on the face of it would translate rather neatly into the mass social production of socialist society.  One of them is the freedom of movement provided by common ownership and free access.  (On a small point – while few hunter gatherers are now free to relocate collectively, the ability of individuals to move from band to band still exists in many areas and remains an essential factor in their ability to maintain some sort of egalitarian relationships despite the incursion of commodities into their societies.)

Agreed.  I was particularly thinking of the case of the Ik of Northern Uganda , documented by  Colin Turnball in his book The Mountain People (1972).  Turnball describes the Ik as hunter gatherers who were forced to become farmers as a result of their relocation following the establishment  of the Kidepo National Park  and, although this claim has been questioned, it does seem that Ik society was subjected to considerable strain and social fragmentation in the wake of a serious drought that hit the area which it could no longer escape from by simply moving elsewhere (as it would have done in the past). This kinda illustrates the complexities of the relationship between environmental and social factors. Restraints on the freedom of movement traditionally enjoyed by nomadic HGs  not  only undermines an important conflict avoidance mechanism built into HG society  but also makes them much more vulnerable to adverse environmental conditions which negatively impacts on their ability to procure their means  of subsistence which, in turn, feeds back and alters their culture and society.  In the case of the Ik, starvation brought about a marked shift towards anti-social egoistic behaviour such as the abandonment of children and the elderly  (although Turnball has been accused of somewhat exaggerating this). My earlier reference to the emergence of warlike tendencies among the Maoris , precipitated by the hunting out of large fauna in New Zealand, is another example of this. Thanks for your explanation of complex HG societies, Richard, which is very useful.  It does indeed go to show how anthropology is an arena of competing ideologies.  This is particularly true of economic anthropology with the debate between the "formalists" and the "substantivists" which, as I hinted earlier, has important implications for a historical materialist approach,  Check this out :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_formalist_vs_substantivist_debate 

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet 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?  As you say, hunting accidents with poisons do happen…

 YMS Christopher Boehm is the guy you need to read in this connection with his theory of "Reverse Dominance Hierarchy".  This link here discusses Boehm's theory  in nice easy straightforward terms, showing how "egalitarian societies maintain their structures and the emergence of hierarchies and inequalities are blocked and thwarted via the use of levelling mechanisms": http://egalitarian.wikispaces.com/Reverse+Dominance+Hierarchy+-+Boehm From my general reading on the subject I arrive at two conclusions 1) There is no substantive evidence of inter-group warfare before 10,000 years ago (see Brian Ferguson's work on this).  Nor would there be any compelling reason why there should be in an "immediate return" society, lacking either the means nor the need to store food surpluses.  In short, what would groups fight over if they had unmediated free access to their means of  sustenance and in which there was little or no sense of  territoriality  (being essentially nomadic groups)?2) There was undoubtedly intra-group violence committed in the Paleolothic era by hunter gatherers based on the evidence of contemporary HG groups but this would be overwhelmingly one on one violence. Moreover,  there are serious difficulties with projecting what is the case today backwards onto a remote past because one of the key factors that would have tended to mitigate violence – the unrestricted freedom to "vote with  your feet" and simply  move on – something that might have profound significance in a future socialist society –  is no longer generally available to modern hunter gatherers.  This is to say nothing of the direct impact of hundreds of years of colonialism and genocide on contemporary HG groups Furthermore, Soderberg and Fry's recent survey of 21 contemporary HG groups suggest that levels of violence are not quite as high as they are sometimes  presented to be and that this distorted picture may be the result of cherry picking notable outliers ( like their Tiwi in their example)http://www.wired.com/2013/07/to-war-is-human-perhaps-not/ I have also pointed out that according to one researcher , Charles Tan, the figures relating to violent deaths committed by non state societies on each other may actually be distorted by the inclusion of  some deaths that were actually caused by the state.  See herehttps://www.academia.edu/5735381/Analysing_Steven_Pinkers_rates_of_violence_in_non-state_societies Incidentally, I  would  be very interested to learn if anybody has more information to offer on this last point or references they could link to In general, though, regarding intra group one-on-one violence, I think there would be several factors that would tend to mitigate this:1) the strength of public opinion within face-to-face groups in which individuals are intimately aware of their mutual dependence2) the tendencies of groups to fission or break up in response not only to environmental scarcities (where the carrying capacity of a particular locality has been exceeded) but also in response to social tensions within the group itself . If you are not happy with someone in the group there is nothing to stop you  just leaving – perhaps with you close kin in tow – and setting up another band or indeed joining another already existing  band3) the universal availability of potentially lethal weapons. The knowledge that if you killed someone it is quite likely that his or her close relative would seek revenge and would have the means to inflict revenge on you by slaying you, would surely act as an effective deterrent to committing acts of violence.  Conversely , it is  where the means of  violent coercion are monopolised by only a section of the population  – which is precisely how some would define the state –  that you are more likely to see these actually being used to cause deaths I realise this argument is one that is used by the gun lobby in America  but of course there is a world of a difference  between the availably of potential lethal weapons  in a modern capitalist society like America  in  which there is a massive asymmetry of power and a traditional hunter-gatherer which is fundamental egalitarian to its very core 

[robbo203]

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.

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Social anthropology has never established a technical vocabulary for itself and so miscommunication is always a potential problem within the discipline.  There are numerous issues: hunter gatherer specialists tend to use common terms for kinds of social organisation differently to other anthropologists, the meanings of these terms have changed over the years along with theoretical positions, and British anthropologists use them differently to American anthropologists.   That all said, most hunter gatherer specialists (a discipline within the discipline) use the classifications established fifty years ago by James Woodburn and elaborated by others.  These are principally: immediate return (band) hunter gatherers, delayed return hunter gatherers and complex hunter gatherers.  These are distinguished from chiefdoms, tribes and states.  So, no, complex hunter gatherers are not tribes.  In simple terms, tribes have formal leaders, are highly stratified and are most commonly horticulturalists, not hunter gatherers.  The term chiefdom', is vaguer.  It is an intermediate category.  It applies to a stratified (though not a class) society and can overlap with 'tribe' if the chief has significant actual or ritual power.  I assume 'state' speaks for itself.

 Just a small technicality,. Richard…. I have seen complex  HG societies – or to use their preferred term, complex forager societies  – being defined as "tribes" and being "characterized by the presence of elites, social inequality, warfare, and specialization of tasks"  (http://foragers.wikidot.com/complex-forager-societies) 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=complex+forager+societies+simple+tribes&source=bl&ots=uqgsLIN_Ja&sig=rwVhKEWYzUH08eC2KVzGNU8038o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0WnxVKefLsvzUI3PgOAC&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=complex%20forager%20societies%20simple%20tribes&f=falseI would be interested in this alternative definition you present of complex HG societies as being non tribal.  Do you have some handy references? I guess the main point is that with tribes the question of territorality comes into the equation and hence we see the beginnings of warfare in tribes whereas with nomadic bands – simple HG groups –  territorality was not an issue.  Evans-Pritchard's classic study of the  Nuer tribe in Southern Sudan (who were mainly pastoralists and whose whole way of life revolved around cattle)  notes that kinship or quasi kinship ties no longer suffice to hold together these larger groups togther which is precisely why the principle of territoriality comes into play.  Although of course the Nuer were fiercely egalitarian  and non hierarchical which does quite fit in with the definition of "tribe" offered above.  The Nuer also engaged in wars, notably with the Dinka people….

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Robin agrees we don't really know anything about human nature, but insists that if there is one thing we definitely do know it's what he asserts as dogma. I'd go with the first proposition and reject the second.As for what humans would fight over if they didn't have to compete over natural resources and trade routes – is this a joke question? Religion and ideology, to ignore the more evil options, would seem to be prime candidates, if history is any guide.

 This is not quite what I said, Stuart , and it is odd, to say the least, that you should  characterise what I definitely said about  "human nature" as amounting to a "dogma" – the fact that we are highly adaptable social animals.  Is that a "dogma"? I don't think it is.  I think its an amply verifiable fact that human beings have lived under a huge variety of social arrangements and in a huge  variety of physical environments – from the Arctic to the Tropics – and so stands out as being  quite unique among animal species. What I was attacking was the sociobiological dogma that human beings are innately warlike.  Note that this is not the same as saying human beings are not prone to violence.  My argument, drawing on the evidence of people like Ferguson and Fry, is that that there were no wars – defined  here as systematic large scale and lethal intergroup violence – amongst Paleolithic hunter gatherers –  and that the first signs of war only appeared less than 10,000 years ago with the rise of agriculture , sedentism and the state.  This is far too short a time in evolutionary terms to have made a discernable impact on "human nature".  Ergo, war is a social institution not a biological phenomenon. This is why I think the question of why wars happen is highly relevant to this thread and I'm a little surprised that the Moderator has taken such a strict line on what is, or is not, off topic. It is relevant to the topic because the whole point of the topic is to discuss what gives rise to war. If human beings are not innately warlike (and the evidence of the pattern of violence in hunter gatherer societies – which is overwhelmingly one on one violence , not intergroup violence  – demonstrates this)  then I cannot see how wars are ever likely to happen in a future socialist society  where institutionalised scarcity and commercial rivalries no longer exist.  The argument the wars are fought for reasons other than conflicting economic interests, while true enough in itself, is not a sufficient reason, as has been pointed out. Of course organisations  like Isis or Boko Haram cite religious reasons for their murderous campaign of war – even if those religious beliefs they spout bear little or no relation to Islam as such (something which further reinforces the view that religion and ideology serve as a smokescreen to  opportunistically camouflage the underlying economic motives for war and to invest war with a necessary aura  of moral righteousness).  However, while clearly the ideology  and declared religious  beliefs of Isis and Boko Haram do help to explain their actions they do not really explain how or why such organisations have come to such prominence and gained such influence.  I suggest that part of the reason for that is that they appeal to a constituancy whose economic interests have been thwarted and refuffed and that the story of these organisations cannot really be fully grasped outside of  the context of conflicting capitalist interests and imperialist rivalry in places like the Middle East and Africa.  There is only so far you can push the argument that wars are fought over religious beliefs etc and no further and this stops well short of a fully rounded explanation. There is a great quote from Carolyn Merchant  which, for me, sums up rather well this whole  base -superstructure dialectic and acknowledges their reciprocal influence:An array of ideas exists available to a given age: some of these for unarticulated  or even unconscious reasons seem plausible to individuals or social groups; others do not.  Some ideas spread; others die out.  But the direction and accumulation of social changes begin to differentiate between  among the spectrum of possibilities so that some ideas assume a more central role in the array, while others move to the periphery.  Out of this differential appeal of ideas that seem most plausible under particular social conditions, cultural transformations develop (The Death of Nature: Women , Ecology and the Scientific Revolution,  Harper and Row 1980 p.xviii). One final point worth mentioning and this is something that Louis Dumont mentions in his book "From Marx to Mandeville" – that what we call the "economic realm", a kind of quasi-objectified , self sufficient or separate dimension of social reality , subject to its own inner laws, is something that really only came into own with the rise of a capitalist money-based economy.   The significance of this is that it is  only truly under capitalism that we are enabled to apprehend the apparent causal interrelationships between the economy and other aspects of society such as its superstructure.In hunter gather societies, or indeed traditional horticulturalist or pastoralist societies,  there was or is no such  "thing" as "the economy" as such.  Everything is mixed up.  The way you went about acquiring your daily subsistence was at one and the same time a cultural and religious activity.I think this point might have significant implications for the way in which this topic might be discussed 

[Author]

Posts