Hunter gatherer violence

[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 

[Hud955]

robbo203 wrote:

  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

I'd endores that.  This is a really important book that everyone interested in this subject should read.

robbo203 wrote:

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

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.)

robbo203 wrote:

3) 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 deathsI 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

This seems to be the case in real terms among hunter gatherers in Africa, at least according to the accounts of some ethnographers like Jerome Lewis.  Other groups elsewhere, particularly in Asia, seem to operate to a different principle, maintaintaining very low levels of violence by developing ideologies which place enormous value on the life of the individual.  There are various possibilities that could be explored here.   

[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 

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

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.

Why am I not surprised that this is what my comment 'suggests to you', LB.  Your desire to manufacture controversy wherever you can is getting tedious.  Of course everyone will have a political view in some sense of the word and interpret the world through it.  But I'm sure you know as well as I do that academic papers are peer reviewed and examined within paramaters designed to reduce error, confusion and individual bias in a way that popular works aren't. There is the futher problem that many, though not all, popular works are written by non specialists dealing with secondary material which they may not fully understand or which is informed by structures they may not be aware of. Nothing is pure, LB but there are nevertheless degrees of trustworthyness. And being non-specialists ourselves without first hand work to call on or an extensive knowledge of the field a certain degree of critical trust is necessary. If you devoted yourself to applying this ideological obsession of yours to the details of arguments under consideration, showing whether and to what extent such biases influenced them, and whether as a result we should assess such influence as significant or trivial, then I would have a lot more respect for your views.  As it is, your entirely negative, carping and absolutist approach is utterly sterile and clearly of interest only to yourself.  As you have contributed next to nothing of positive value to this discussion, so far, I'm starting to regard you as a species of troll.

[Hud955]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

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

Hi YMSHunter gatherer social organisation and culture varies widely from one area to the next, but it is truly astonishing how much all groups have in common.  The structural elements of their mythology, for example, and they way these relate to their social organisation, tend to be extrarodinarily similar whether they originate in Northern Canada or the tip of South Africa.  Because hunter gatherers share the same fundamental social structures and world view there is usually nothing to stand in the way of  cooperation between different language groups.   To illustrate, the aboriginal peoples of Australia are divided by a great many mutually unintelligible languages and by many dialects, yet well over two-thirds of the country shares a common kinship and moiety system.  It is perfectly possible for an individual who had grown up on the west coast to walk right acorss to the east coast and on arrival be told who are his 'mothers', his 'fathers', his 'sisters and brothers', whom he can 'marry' and whom he cannot.  With that, he can be rapidly integrated into his new kinship group. One remarkable story was told to me a few weeks ago by an anthropologist who works among 'Pygmy' peoples in Africa. He had recorded the music of the Mbuti who live on the eastern side of the continent and played it back to some Aka who live on the west.  He was astonished, he said, when within ten seconds of his switching on the recording, the Aka were confidently proclaiming that 'these are our people.'  And, indeed, their cultures are remarkably similar.  Yet these groups previously knew nothing of each other's existence and we know from genetic evidence that the Aka and Mbuti have not been in contact for something like 20,000 years.The same anthropolgist also told the story of a hunter gatherer who could not stop bragging about his hunting skills.  This is very un-hunter gatherer like behaviour. Bragging is wholly unacceptable in almost all hunter gatherer communities, and the women in the camp where he was resident, would ceaselessly mock him for it.   Unable to stand the taunts, the poor guy had been for years temporarily attaching himself to one band after another and across many different language groups, trying to gain acceptance.  The point is, there is no real barrier to his doing this.  In a society where no-one can tell anyone else what to do, no-one can be directly rejected either, whoever they are or wherever they come from.  (Taunting is a very powerful social control, usually carried out by the older women of a hunter gatherer camp.) But yes you are right (up to a point), if an individual will not leave a band and becomes a liability, then the band may agree to dispose of him quietly.  I say 'up to a point' because while this would be acceptable in some groups, like the Ju/'hoansi for instance, it would be inconceivable among others like the Paliyan.  Much would depend on the individual group's cultural values.Haven't looked at your link yet.  Will do as soon as I have some time and headspace.

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

 

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.

  Observation and classification may be interlinked, LB but there are not identical  They are separate variables even if they are not independent ones, and they can be meaningfully discussed as such.  A moment's though should show you that you would not be able to identify them as linked if you could not first identify them as separate. The effect of your claim, repeated so indiscriminately, would, in this instance, be to render all research impossible.    It does not seem to occur to you that the principle to which you are so deeply attached is well understood and used by anthropologists.  (In fact, they spill gallons of ink discussing such methodological matters – check out the titles on the anthropology shelves of any university library.)  In this instance James Woodburn first established a definition of 'immediate return hunter gatherer' precisely because he recognised a link between just such a defined entity and a statistical tendency to non-violence.  In other words, he established the definition because his observation led him to believe that it could be a useful one.  Having once established it as part of his conceptual apparatus, the link with non-violent encounters then follows, not by definition, but by observation – which is my point.  He could have constructed his model the other way round but he chose not to for practical reasons.   Recognising the potential use of his definition, other researchers have made further empirical observations to verify or contest his claims.  If at some point it is concluded that no clear link is observable, then the definition might well be discarded as not useful – unless some other useful connection is discovered.  The issue you raise is already embedded in the concept and the practice of anthropology here and elsewhere.The most useful definition of 'violence' is another matter, one which is currently being energetically contested by anthropologists like Douglas Fry and ethologists like Richard Wrangham.  These two (and others)  are having a useful scientifically conducted argument over specific issues including conceptual ones of the kind you raise.  What they are not doing is sitting at a distance making  abstract and unproductive judgments on matters of well-understood principle.. 

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Your desire to manufacture controversy wherever you can is getting tedious.

Oh dear. Another 'non-ideological' positivist who thinks that anthropology is non-controversial, and so it has to be 'manufactured'. I'm not manufacturing it, Hud, it's an essential feature of all science, and especially topics as controversial as the question about 'violence in hunter gatherer societies'.

Hud955 wrote:

Of course everyone will have a political view in some sense of the word and interpret the world through it.

Ahhh… the usual caveat to show that the academic has done the requisite course on method, and is usually put in the preface to a book, but which is then completely ignored in the work itself.You, like the others, seem to think that saying 'facts are theory-laden' is enough to innoculate you against ideology. And then you continue to 'do science' in the old, 'non-ideological' way.

Hud955 wrote:

But I'm sure you know as well as I do that academic papers are peer reviewed and examined within paramaters designed to reduce error, confusion and individual bias in a way that popular works aren't.

You have more faith in 'academic papers' than I have, Hud. In reality, 'academic papers' are as ideological as 'popular works', but the ideology is hidden in 'special language', to baffle the punters. As socialists, we should be seeking to reveal the ideological basis of academia, not pandering to bourgeois prejudices.

Hud955 wrote:

And being non-specialists ourselves without first hand work to call on or an extensive knowledge of the field a certain degree of critical trust is necessary.

I don't know about you Hud, but I've met professors who haven't got a clue about their own ideology, and I've had to point it out to them. I wasn't thanked by them, though, which is strange, because academics claim to have an open mind, and be prepared to listen to those who know better. But they don't, they are just like the person-in-the-street, and take a strop. How dare a 'non-specialist' tell them 'what's what'!You stick to 'trust', I'll stick to questioning.

Hud955 wrote:

If you devoted yourself to applying this ideological obsession of yours to the details of arguments under consideration, showing whether and to what extent such biases influenced them, and whether as a result we should assess such influence as significant or trivial, then I would have a lot more respect for your views.  As it is, your entirely negative, carping and absolutist approach is utterly sterile and clearly of interest only to yourself.  As you have contributed next to nothing of positive value to this discussion, so far, I'm starting to regard you as a species of troll.

Oh dear, the usual response by an academic who wishes to stick to 'the details' and ignore the perspective.I've actually followed up a link given by robbo, and found that Kelly openly says  he employs concepts drawn from neo-classical economics. But you're not interested in 'critical questioning' of Kelly's ideological framework within which he selects his 'details', but prefer to 'critically trust' his academic credentials.'Obsession', 'negative and carping', 'utterly sterile', 'nothing of positive value', and finally 'troll'.It's pathetic, Hud, and I can smell the fear…The fear of conservative ideology when confronted with the question: 'What perspective/framework/ideology do you employ, to select your details?'.You wish to ignore both the anthropologists' ideologies, and your own, in the 'belief' that just sticking to details will give us an answer.On a thread entitled 'Hunter gatherer violence', you won't discuss what is meant by either 'hunter gatherers' or 'violence', and which perspectives are behind the various possible answers.And I'm the 'troll'?…I'm the only one who seems to have any scientific approach to these issues – 21st century science, of course. Not the outdated 19th century postivism that you embrace, Hud, with its concern with 'details', the notorious 'facts of the matter'.Simple  question, Hud. What ideology do you use to understand anthropology, and 'hunter gatherer society'? Or are you just going to continue to try to 'impress' us with your learning, with the 'details' of endless bands, tribes, cultures, customs, academics' names, none of which have any meaning for socialists, outside of a framework of understanding.Frankly, I don't know why I bother anymore – your response is almost word-for-word the same as from others, and on other threads.It's based upon an ignorance and avoidance of science, and a fear of critical questioning. Back to your unvarnished 'details', eh, Hud?

[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? 

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

My question is – if complex HG societies are "chiefdoms" can we usefully talk of chiefdoms that are non tribal in their social structure?  If not then it would seem that Fry is adopting the same taxonomy employed by the likes of Kelly. no?

It's my understand, robbo, that on a five stage scale, that 'chiefdoms' are stage 3, and so are very different from 'bands'.Perhaps this taxonomy below might be useful for your understanding?1. egalitarian band society;2. 'Big man'. Chiefdoms;4. Class;5. State.Clearly, Marx's model of 'modes of production' would give some more detail, especially on stages 4 and 5.

[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"

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry LBird but I think Hud was spot on.

Yeah, you would, because you share his ideology.Try looking at the book that you recommended, and from which I provided an extract, and asked a germane question.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I might be completely missing something, of course, as I havent read the whole book but have only perused parts of it here:https://books.google.es/books?id=LSm6MLV42zgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=tribes…

A quote from robbo’s link:

Douglas Fry, Beyond War, p. 6, wrote:

But it is an often ignored fact that scientists and scholars, as human beings, are members of a culture too. Like everyone else, they are exposed to cultural traditions and worldviews that influence their thinking and perceptions. When the learned and shared beliefs of a culture hold that humans are innately pugnacious, inevitably violent, instinctively warlike, and so on, the people socialised in such settings, whether scientists or non-scientists, tend to accept such views without much question.

It therefore seems reasonable to me to ask critical questions about any scientist’s culture, worldview and beliefs, which they often hold ‘without much question’.A simple term to embrace all these types of ‘learned and shared’ social properties would be ‘ideology’.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

You dont have a monopoly in recognising that our view of the world is always idelogically tainted although you seem to imagine you have.

Apparently, I do have a monopoly.If everyone's 'view of the world is always ideologically tainted', why won't you tell us your ideology?I openly state mine.What you're doing, robbo, as I've pointed out before, that almost all academics do, is genuflect to 'ideology' in the preface of a book, or in you case, in a line of your posts, and then proceed to IGNORE in practice this reality, of which they, and you, claim that they are aware of.Why doesn't Kelly, Fry, Hud, YMS and you, do what I do: that is, follow the scientific method and expose my 'position of observation'?

robbo203 wrote:

In order to engage in critical questioning you have to have something – some raw material – that you can critically question in the first place, yes?

See what I mean?You want 'facts' first, and then 'critical questioning'.What's happened to your earlier declaration about 'ideologically tainted'? It's as if you don't know what you are writing.There is no 'raw material'  – that's the conclusion of science and physics.'Material' is always selected, according to the scientist's ideology, and this applies to physics, too. I've given the Rovelli quote often enough for you at least to be able to remember it.You're hanging on to 'outdated imperialist dogma', robbo, to quote a rabble-rouser!It's positivism to argue for the collection of 'raw data', supposedly outside of any influence.Why you, and the rest of academia, continue to say 'ideology is important' but then ignore it it practice, completely baffles me.Or it did, until I started to recognise that academia is bourgeois academia, and has a vested interest in keeping the 'non-experts' in their place, as Hud prefers, and that we defer to 'experts' who 'know the details'. It's an ideological basis for bourgeois authority and legitimacy. They pretend to understand Einstein,but hide their real intent, which is to shore-up capitalism and its ideological struts, like 'objective science' and 'raw material'.Think it through, robbo; I'm a Democratic Communist, and I have.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[robbo203]

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.

[LBird]

Well, I've tried to explain to you about scientific method, but clearly you're going to stick with your outdated 19th century method of 'non-ideological collection of raw material'.Your loss, comrade.You'll come to consciousness, one day. I'd rather help you for that to be sooner rather than later, but you won't listen. Keep reading, and eventually I'm sure that you'll come to understand. At least you're engaging, if not very successfully.'Established facts' establish themselves, do they? Think about it, robbo.PS. Your whole post is simply one long confusion. If 'facts' are selected, then we have the right to ask 'how'. You don't do this, for all your methodological awareness. You don't apply that awareness to your work.Second warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Author]

Posts