Hunter gatherer violence

[moderator1]

Dave B wrote:

  I appreciate that moderators job is thankless but I also think the thread had not quite got out of control enough to elicit formal warnings; just a lets not piss around too much guys would have been enough or a moved to a completely thread derailed thread option.

I posted a reminder in #78.  To continually post reminders on the same breach of a rule would be detrimental to my task to keep the flow of discussion continuing.  One reminder when a specific rule is being breached should suffice.  If after the reminder the same rule is being breached and its obviously disrupting the flow of the discussion then I automatically issue a warning.  After receiving three warnings for a breach of the rules the user is suspended usually for an indefinite period.All users are advised to read the rules before they start posting here.  It not only makes moderation easier but should also ensure all users understand that a suspension is only used when particular posts are unacceptable and inappropriate to the main body of discussion on a specific thread.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

Vin wrote:

Why has rule 14 and 15 been ignored on this thread? Other users have been suspended for breaking these rules and a lot of fuss about whether or not they should be allowed in the partyIs it now OK to question Mod decisions on thread and off topic? At the same time I am being warned for questioning  Mod decisions on a thread I specifically set up for that purpose? Is it not time for some uniformity? I have made suggestions that could solve this problem but for some reason they are ignored.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.

 This a joke right? Everyone can discuss moderation but me? I will now receive my third warning and suspension for doing what others are doing. Proof positive that I am not paranoid and that the IC and mod are openly and arrogantly using the power of censorship. No I wont. 

Final 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.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

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.?

I've been trawling back through this debate and keep finding some very contentious statements and strange pieces of reasoning.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 distinguised 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.With that all in mind, band (immediate return) hunter gatherers are not defined as 'non-violent small groups', they are defined as mobile, non-sedentary or largely non-sedentary groups which consume produce more or less immediately.  Assuming we agree on what violence means, then whether immediate return hunter gatherers are violent or not is a matter for empirical investigation. Similary, tribes are defined in terms of their internal social organisation, not as a 'violent large group'.  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.As a matter of fact, hunter gatherer specialists, whether left wing, right wing or  no wing, tend to agree closely on the essential facts of hunter gatherer life.  They argue mainly over the finer details of interpretation, and there is a general process of convergence among them.  The greater conflict within anthropology arises not among hunter gatherer ethnographers who live among these people, study them and report on them,  but between the ethnographers and the university-bound academics who tell them their findings cannot be correct because they contradict established social theory.  If the names of Pinker or Wrangham or others in their school should be raised at this point, it should be pointed out that none of them are anthropologists.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.  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.  (I'm a country boy… ) 

[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]

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.

[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….

[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.

[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.

[Young Master Smeet]

Hud955,Do those immediate return bands who share a kill wit otehr groups share a language with them, or are there examples of co-operation across language barriers?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…Your mention of Gorillas does also  bring in the question of other great apes…This article may be interesting (haven't had much time to go beyond the abstract):http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2743815?sid=21105482636741&uid=2&uid=3738032&uid=4

[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.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

Dave B wrote:

 I appreciate that moderators job is thankless but I also think the thread had not quite got out of control enough to elicit formal warnings; just a lets not piss around too much guys would have been enough or a moved to a completely thread derailed thread option.

I posted a reminder in #78.  To continually post reminders on the same breach of a rule would be detrimental to my task to keep the flow of discussion continuing.  One reminder when a specific rule is being breached should suffice.  If after the reminder the same rule is being breached and its obviously disrupting the flow of the discussion then I automatically issue a warning.  After receiving three warnings for a breach of the rules the user is suspended usually for an indefinite period.All users are advised to read the rules before they start posting here.  It not only makes moderation easier but should also ensure all users understand that a suspension is only used when particular posts are unacceptable and inappropriate to the main body of discussion on a specific thread.

I thought discussing mod decisions was an offence resulting in a warning. Mod has applied the rule to only 1 of the 4 members that raised mod decisions on this thread. What is the reason for this? I think we know.Will the IC ever move on? 

[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?

[Hud955]

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.Kelly and others lijke him use this terminology for their own rather different purposes.  Just to be clear on this though, band hunter gatherers are simply defined as those that are mobile and hunt in small groups.  Immediate return hunter gatherers are those that do not store goods.  It is a pretty clear empirical fact that these two groups very largely map onto one another.You are right when you say that complex hunter gatherers are not band organised, but neither are the vast majority of delayed-return hunter gatherers.  That means tribal forms of society and band societies are not simple and comprehensive opposites in the way that your distinction suggests. Delayed return hunter gatherers do not form bands, yet neither are they remotely tribal. Making this distinction is important for this discussion because delayed return hunter gatherers, do engage in warfare, certainly far more than immediate return hunter gatherers, but not nearly as much as tribal, agricultural or state societies.  They generally have some fixed status roles within them, and these roles carry varying degrees of ritual or actual power. Mostly, though, they only have the power to influence.  In many cases they don't even have that. The opinions of chiefs are often derided.  That's often because they remain largely egalitarian in their everyday relationships.  They are usually sedentary.  The Canela of South America are a fascinating example, since the structure of their villages gives a very clear example of their matrilocal kinship arrangements, based on coalitions of women.American anthropology is largely the creation of Franz Boas and is deeply mired in the American imperial project.  It eschews theory and restricts itself mainly to cataloguing the detailed social relationships of individual societies.  (Useful for the Pentagon but rather sterile and not very enlightening to the rest of us.)  US anthropology also reacted strongly against unilinear explanations of social development.  This was a good thing, initially.  It challenged the hierarchical and essentialist structures of British Imperialist anthropology of the nineteenth century and pointed out that societies can develop in many ways, including diffusion of culture, and do not necessarily evolve along a single line of development. We have examples of some societies for example which have returned to a hunting and gathering way of life after having been farmers.  There are intriguing examples in Indonesia where some members of farming communities did this to take advantage of a coastal trade in Aloes and other forest products.  American anthropology goes too far though in asserting that no patterns of development can be presumed or discovered.  it is clearly the case, for obvious reasons, that you are never going to discover a palaeolithic capitalist society which later develops into a hunting and gathering one. Though there is no 'Royal road' from hunter gatherer societies to capitalism, there are certainly limiting material factors in the way societies can develop.Kelly and others like him prefer the term 'forager' to 'hunter gatherer' because there was a period at which research seemed to be showing that hunter gatherers tended to gather more than hunt.  This line of argument has now been shown to be incorrect, though it is true in some instances.  Kelly is a post-modernist in the American tradition and seeks to undermine any attempt at classification.Pastoralists are sometimes egalitarian and sometimes have status relationships of varying degrees of development.  There do not appear to be any generalisations you can make about them in this regard, and many anthropologists look to their ecological relationships to explain the differences. 

[LBird]

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.

[Author]

Posts