Hunter gatherer violence

[Hud955]

Cheers, Robin.  EP was writing before many of the terms we use today to describe hunter gatherers were very precisely fixed in the minds of many anthropologists.  It may be that we would not use the same labels today.  But who knows?  I'd need to do some reading.  I don't think the subject is going to go away for me. (Though I'm not sure we can say the same for hunter gatherers.  Many believe we might be seeing the last decades of their way of life).  One aim I have when I get back is to give some serious study and thinking time to it.  Take care.

[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.  There is another big factor to consider, and that is the relationships of a group to other societies.  Warlike behaviour may not arise from the internal structures of a group; it may arise from the need to respond to external conditions.  Even immediate return hunter gatherers are known to have developed a warlike culture in circumstances where they are subject to attack or have been predated, often by slave traders and colonial and post colonial states.  And that is especially the case where they are hemmed in by the territorial claims of neighbouring peoples and cannot therefore flee.  I think much of this is the situation with the Nuer.Either of these conditions my therefore apply. 

 Just an  afterthought…. With the Nuer being a tribe – or rather a collection of tribes –  and subject to both inter and intra-tribal violent conflict as well as conflict with neighbouring peoples like the Dinka – I think both these conditions you specify above would apply, Richard.  In other words, there would be both external pressure in the form of the encroachment of outsiders, whether it be Dinka  or some other Nuer tribe ,  as well as internal pressure arising from a developed sense of territoriality cum property  that goes with being a mainly pastoralist society in respect of grazing rights and the ownership of cattle. Simple hunter gatherer bands, as you say, being "immediate return" societies – they could immediately appropriate the fruits of nature wherever they went – had no sense of territoriality and therefore no reason to defend (or enlarge) "their" territory.  The very idea of "their territory" would have been meaningless to an essentially nomadic people.  So they wouldn't have seen any problem with outsiders "intruding" on their traditional hunting grounds.  Indeed, they sometimes collaborate with outsiders in organising joint hunting trips. Always at the back of their minds, one supposes, would be the idea that you can always just move on if localised resources got scarce.  This conflict avoidance mechanism would have operated from the get go – or at least up until the point some 10.000 years ago when the first signs of sedentarisation, agriculture and hence a sense of territoriality began to develop.  It was probably an important factor in the determing the pattern of human migration in prehistoric times out of Africa.  Up until then the human population on planet earth was no more than 15 million at most according to one estimate I came across. Meaning there was more than enough space for everyone to roam around in.  Climate change and widespread environmental scarcities would have been the key variable in bringing about a change in the mode of subsistence In other words, for the vast majority of our time on this planet there was no reason for nomadic groups to go to war with each other. If wars have only occurred recently, along with a sense of territoriality ingrained in an agricultural and pastoralist way of life, this is simply not enough time for war to have been "naturally selected for" as a fundamental human attribute amounting to an evolutionary adaptation In other words, E O Wilson's claim that “war is embedded in our very nature" must be dismissed as bunkum.  One-to-one violence may well have occurred in our prehistoric past but, even with this, there are strong grounds for thinking this would have been relatively subdued due to the deterrent effect of immediate retaliation and because of the awareness of the complete interdependence among group members.  This is to say nothing of the possibility of groups simply fissioning or breaking up should social tensions within the group reach unacceptable levels. However, one-to-one violence is not the same thing as war and the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that what violent deaths did occur within hunter gatherer band  society were the result of the former not the latter….. 

[Hud955]

Hi RobinLOL I keep getting drawn back into these discussions  whenever I realise how much I have yet to do and it all becomes overwhelming.  I'd pretty much agree with all of that.  If I recall the Nuer have had quite a lot of  'dealings' with colonial powers.  And I suspect they would have been subject to slave raiding over a long period as well.  If Evans Pritchard is correct and they have retained an egalitarian form of social organisation in the sense that it is currently understood by hunter gatherer specialists, then that, rather than their proclivity for making war would be the real anomaly in need of explanation.  My money would be on the fact that when EP was using the term (in the 1940s was it?) it meant something somewhat looser.  If not, then we have a real puzzle on our hands.I spoke to Douglas Fry about a month ago when he was in London, and he mentioned that his latest book, currently only available in an expensive academic hardback, is soon to be given a paperback edition.  I think that would be very worth getting hold of when it comes out. Cheers

[alanjjohnstone]

This review of Ynval Harari’s of his new book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind may be useful for those following this thread.http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/searle20150308

Quote:

“Money is the only trust system created by humans that can bridge almost any cultural gap, and does not discriminate on the basis of religion, gender, race, age or sexual orientation…For although money builds universal trust between strangers, this trust is invested not in humans, communities or sacred values, but in money itself and the impersonal systems that back it. We do not trust the stranger or the next store neighbor- we trust the coins they hold. If they run out of coins, we run out of trust."

 "…Harari, also throws doubt on the argument that has been made most recently by Steven Piker, that the era before states was one of constant tribal warfare and violence, suggesting that it’s impossible to get an overall impression for levels of violence based on what end up being a narrow range of human skeletal remains. The most likely scenario, he thinks, is that some human societies before agriculture were violent, and some were not, and that even the issue of which societies were violent varied over time rising and falling in respect to circumstances…."

[LBird]

Review of Harari wrote:

The most likely scenario, he thinks, is that some human societies before agriculture were violent, and some were not, and that even the issue of which societies were violent varied over time rising and falling in respect to circumstances…

alan, this scenario fits well with my earlier suggestion of the concepts of 'peace-band' and 'war-band', and the view that their origins, and any inter-changing between them, is due to various environmental, social and historical factors, rather than genetic human disposition to violence.As I've said before, there are no anthropologists simply 'following the evidence', and the issue of 'concept formation' which allows anthropologists to selectively examine the evidence, is of fundamental importance, because the concepts used determine what one 'sees'.Of course, 'concepts' are always formed based on ideologies, because they are human constructs, not things that emerge from evidence.If you want to understand hunter gatherer society, you need to first understand the process of 'concept formation' by the anthropologist that you're reading. All anthropology is ideological, just like all science.If you choose to agree with an anthropologist who argues that 'violence is not natural', then you'll 'find' non-violent hunter gatherers. And equally, the opposite.

[stuartw2112]

There was an interesting programme on the Beeb last night that relates to our discussion here. Interestingly, it kind of gives support to all sides of the debate. In other words, it's complicated.   So, are human beings naturally violent? Actually, something like the opposite. From a very early age, ie before you would say it was likely that such behaviour had been learned, children tend to be naturally cooperative, empathetic, eager to help, and to feel your pain. (I hope those against the idea of a genetically determined human nature, to be consistent, will complain that this must be rubbish.)    However, as any sociobiologist would expect, there is variation. Genes "for violence" have indeed been identified, and, when present, will tend to make an individual more prone to aggressive, violent, even psychopathic and murderous behaviours.    Note the "prone" and "tend to". Fascinatingly, one of the scientists working on this discovered during his work that he too had the "warrior gene" and the brain patterns typical of psychopaths. Obviously, this disturbed him and he wondered why he had not himself killed anyone (it turned out that close genetic relatives of his had). Part of the answer is that the gene expresses itself most strongly only when it is present at the same time as certain environmental stimuli – particularly child abuse. The scientist had been lucky enough to be brought up in a loving and caring family environment. Nevertheless, it's not entirely a case of "nurture trumps nature". The scientist admitted that certain moral behaviours he knew rationally to be "right", but that nevertheless he couldn't deep down, to use his own words, really give a shit. And, as his family told him, he was more prone than others to anger and aggression if not violence.    Interestingly, and perhaps most relevant to our argument, such knowledge has been put to use in the US military. Soldiers, according to the programme, are no longer taught to hate their enemy and treat them as subhuman vermin. Although this is useful if your job is to go off and kill them, it is also horribly destructive to the long-term health of the soldier and of society. It is, in effect, against human nature to be so evil. So, instead, the emphasis in military training is not on hating and killing the enemy, but on doing all that is necessary to protect your country, your comrades, your family, your values etc – things which human beings tend naturally to approve of, up to and including, in some circumstances, killing for them.    This is what I meant when I said Robin was in danger of making his socialism a hostage to fortune. Violent and warlike tendencies almost certainly are a part of our human nature. And it's also why I said I was relaxed about it. Because whatever the case is, whatever our human nature turns out to be, we are more than capable of moulding human institutions, including those involved in war, to engineer the happiest outcomes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65R

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Genes "for violence" have indeed been identified…

The problem, stuart, is 'what is meant by 'violence'?'.And the notion of genes being switched on or off by environmental triggers is meaningless in any socio-historical context.For example, could it really be argued that it was 'genes plus environment' that caused the Wehrmacht to invade Poland in 1939?Surely the proper answer lies in understanding German society (learned anti-semitism and anti-slavism), German history (the wish to regain East Prussia, the unfair WW1 reparations), German economics (the collapse of the mark, inflation, Wall St. Crash, mass unemployment) and German politics (the rise of the Nazis and the destruction of the very socio-political forces that could have argued for internationalism, the Socialists and Communists).The issue of 'genes' doesn't get much beyond discussing individuals.It's irrelevant to any issues that Communists are concerned with.As I've said before, whether one wishes to discuss 'biological human nature' or 'socially-produced behaviour' is an ideological choice.If one wants to account for individuals and their propensity to use pointy sticks, one will look to 'genes' (and add 'environmental factors' simply because the case for 'genes' alone has been long destroyed).The 'violence' that affects most people the most, on this planet, has nothing to do with 'genes', either 'on' or 'off', but is a product of politics (ie. power, whether domestic, socio-economic, national or international, like IMF/World Bank).

[stuartw2112]

To test your claims, LB, we'd have to do a cross-cultural comparison. But as you say this is pointless and throughly ideological, why discuss it?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

To test your claims, LB, we'd have to do a cross-cultural comparison. But as you say this is pointless and throughly ideological, why discuss it?

I'm not sure why you constantly feel the need to have a dig.When I make posts that are thoroughly decent and comradely, why is the response of you and others here always to be less-than-comradely? And then all complain when I give it back, but better?Why not just ask yourself why you think 'ideology' equals 'pointlessness'?I've never said 'ideology equals pointlessness', so where have you got this idea from? Not from me, and I doubt that you've thought it all up 'as an individual'. No, someone has told you, in the past, that if ideology is allowed to intrude into 'science', that civilisation as we know it will collapse.You have a 'faith' that scientists know what they are doing, are good at it, and successful.The problem is, they themselves tell us that this isn't true.So, our problem is, who is teaching you and most others that 'ideology equals pointlessness', that discussion of ideology leads to 'relativism' (a bogey word, for the 'objective' scientists), and, more importantly, why are they doing this?Now, I've been entirely polite in this response to you, stuart, and I've taken time to explain the problem, so I expect a suitable answer.That answer can be 'I'm not interested in ideology, LBird', and that's fine by me.I'll simply point out that science is ideological, and that if one aspires to be a scientist, one has to engage in the development of science since Einstein.If you then answer that 'I'm not interested in modern science, LBird, and want to stick with 19th century thinking', then I'll leave the issue alone.For the consideration of everyone else, who're unsure of where our respective positions lead.

[stuartw2112]

I'll be happy to try to answer your questions, LB, when you can give a straight answer to the one question I have asked you over and over again, and got no reply to. I'll try just one more time.What is the point of a discussion if one doesn't try to evaluate truth-claims by reference to the real world (a practice that made Einstein's name, by the way)?My prediction, as before, is that we'll get another message, much the same as the one above, with no answer to the question.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I'll be happy to try to answer your questions, LB, when you can give a straight answer to the one question I have asked you over and over again, and got no reply to. I'll try just one more time.What is the point of a discussion if one doesn't try to evaluate truth-claims by reference to the real world (a practice that made Einstein's name, by the way)?My prediction, as before, is that we'll get another message, much the same as the one above, with no answer to the question.

[my bold]I've said this before, stuart.The ideological belief that 'truth-claims reference the real world' is called the 'correspondence theory of truth'.There are other theories of truth.We can discuss the contending 'theories of truth', but if you insist on regarding your ideological claim as the only possible one, and won't discuss the others, then we can't go forward.On  Einstein, he changed his position on the philosophy of science and epistemology during his career. Even then, it doesn't follow that where he ended up, in the 1920s, is still to be regarded as correct today, after nearly another century's human thought on the matter.So, we can discuss 'truth' and Einstein, but you have to be open-minded, and support your arguments with evidence. I, of course, will do the same, because I've got several books next to me which discuss both of these issues.BTW, your 'predictions' have turned out wrong, again. Ever thought of changing your method, because it doesn't seem to work?

[stuartw2112]

[The thing I wrote above but with para breaks, which got lost in technotranslation.]There was an interesting programme on the Beeb last night that relates to our discussion here. Interestingly, it kind of gives support to all sides of the debate. In other words, it's complicated.So, are human beings naturally violent? Actually, something like the opposite. From a very early age, ie before you would say it was likely that such behaviour had been learned, children tend to be naturally cooperative, empathetic, eager to help, and to feel your pain. (I hope those against the idea of a genetically determined human nature, to be consistent, will complain that this must be rubbish.)  However, as any sociobiologist would expect, there is variation. Genes "for violence" have indeed been identified, and, when present, will tend to make an individual more prone to aggressive, violent, even psychopathic and murderous behaviours.Note the "prone" and "tend to". Fascinatingly, one of the scientists working on this discovered during his work that he too had the "warrior gene" and the brain patterns typical of psychopaths. Obviously, this disturbed him and he wondered why he had not himself killed anyone (it turned out that close genetic relatives of his had). Part of the answer is that the gene expresses itself most strongly only when it is present at the same time as certain environmental stimuli – particularly child abuse. The scientist had been lucky enough to be brought up in a loving and caring family environment. Nevertheless, it's not entirely a case of "nurture trumps nature". The scientist admitted that certain moral behaviours he knew rationally to be "right", but that nevertheless he couldn't deep down, to use his own words, really give a shit. And, as his family told him, he was more prone than others to anger and aggression if not violence.Interestingly, and perhaps most relevant to our argument, such knowledge has been put to use in the US military. Soldiers, according to the programme, are no longer taught to hate their enemy and treat them as subhuman vermin. Although this is useful if your job is to go off and kill them, it is also horribly destructive to the long-term health of the soldier and of society. It is, in effect, against human nature to be so evil. So, instead, the emphasis in military training is not on hating and killing the enemy, but on doing all that is necessary to protect your country, your comrades, your family, your values etc – things which human beings tend naturally to approve of, up to and including, in some circumstances, killing for them.This is what I meant when I said Robin was in danger of making his socialism a hostage to fortune. Violent and warlike tendencies almost certainly are a part of our human nature. And it's also why I said I was relaxed about it. Because whatever the case is, whatever our human nature turns out to be, we are more than capable of moulding human institutions, including those involved in war, to engineer the happiest outcomes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65R

[stuartw2112]

OK, LB, this is my final word. You didn't answer my question, despite your claim, as anyone could see from reading the question, then the answer. What you did was try to steer the discussion from what it was about, back to your pet subject of the philosophy of science. In other words, as a previous post of mine claimed, you saw a bus coming and once again took it as an excuse to pedal your pet theories. There's a name for this: it's called monomania. There's also a name for what I'm doing: feeding the troll. I'll now stop.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

OK, LB, this is my final word. You didn't answer my question, despite your claim, as anyone could see from reading the question, then the answer. What you did was try to steer the discussion from what it was about, back to your pet subject of the philosophy of science. In other words, as a previous post of mine claimed, you saw a bus coming and once again took it as an excuse to pedal your pet theories. There's a name for this: it's called monomania. There's also a name for what I'm doing: feeding the troll. I'll now stop.

I've just explained the philosophical difficulties with your claim for 'truth', and you've ignored it. You don't want an answer you have to think about, you merely want 'The Truth'.And I see, despite my best efforts, you've descended, once again, like the others, into abuse.So, I'm a 'troll'? Ah well, back to the playground, where you and your ilk seem happiest.You're an uneducated gobshite.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Author]

Posts