robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:You say hold a vote, LB, but how is a rational individual to vote? Surely only by making a good faith effort to decide between the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality?
Stuart, you could ask LBird how he expects a global population 7 billion to vote – and vote knowledgeably – on each of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that are churned every year to determine their " truth value" or indeed why this is is even necessary (if I believe the earth revolves around the sun and the majority thinks otherwise I am not going to be dissuaded from what I believe just because a majority thinks otherwise). You could ask LBird but don't expect an answer – he has been dodging this question over several threads now. His views are an odd mixture of the basically sound – e.g. no branch of human knowledge including anthropology is "value free" – and the truly nutty. . But "thats just my opinion" as the guy on RT keeps on sayingFirst 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 might be of interest to some here – an article entitled "Analysing Steven Pinker's rates of violence in non-state societies" that I stumbled uponhttps://www.academia.edu/5735381/Analysing_Steven_Pinkers_rates_of_violence_in_non-state_societies Tan makes two or three interesting points – that much of the data supporting the " war is innate" camp is inconsistent- that in absolute terms violent deaths in non state societies are statistically very small indeed, typically in double digits or less for most of the groups mentioned. But if you convert the figures into violent deaths per 100.000 that makes it seem like these societies are very violent when compared to state-based societies- that what is counted as "war deaths" within non state societies may very well have resulted from state violence inflicted on non state societies. As Tan puts it:to reiterate what has been mentioned in the previous section, we are also unclear whether some of these figures included war deaths incurred as a result of clashes with the state. Whether it does or not brings us back to the same dilemma that was voiced earlier- i.e.. is the Leviathan a force for suppressing violence as Pinker has been saying or whether it is a perpetuator. As to Pinker, I'm beginning to somewhat change my opinion of him. I don't think he is quite the genetic determinist he is made out to be. In The Blank Slate, he evidently seeks to disassociate himself from such a position:Though no book on human nature can hope to be uncontroversial, I did not write it to be yet another "explosive" book, as dust jackets tend to say. I am not, as many people assume, countering an extreme "nurture" position with an extreme "nature" position, with the truth lying somewhere in between. In some cases, an extreme environmentalist explanation is correct: which language you speak is an obvious example, and differences between races and ethnic groups in test scores may be another. In other cases, such as certain inherited neurological disorders, an extreme hereditarian explanation is correct. In most cases the correct explanation will invoke a complex interaction between heredity and environment: culture is crucial, but culture could not exist without mental faculties that allow humans to create and learn culture to being with. My goal in this book is not to argue that genes are everything and culture is nothing – no one believes that – but to explore why the extreme position (that culture is everything) is so often seen as moderate and the moderate position is seen as extreme. (Preface) The problem lies with his representation of the state as exerting a pacifying influence on the population. The implication would seem to be that if the state were to disappear tomorrow then rates of violence would increase sharply to levels they are claimed to have been in non state societies. But this might not be quite correct. Pinker's seems to attribute the relative decline in violence to social factors other than the state Notably: 1. the feminisation of society – significant since most violence is committed y men aged 18-302. the "escalator of reason" – the civilising influence resulting increases in educational levels etc3.the expanding circle of ethics – the tendency to morally identify with ever larger social entities4."gentle commerce" – the idea that commercial interdependencies make it more difficult to wage war Some of these factors are a bit more questionable than others. But they do go to show that Pinker's position is more nuanced than it might appear to be on a first reading….
stuartw2112 wrote:Robin: "Am I to take it that you too have become a pro-statist by virtue of your evident enthusiasm for what Diamond has to say?"Me; No, not at all. Early on in his book, Diamond says explicitly that his book shows why the "dreams" of anarchists can never be realised. I'm fairly sure he's wrong about that – I hope so anyway. I'm sure he's wrong about lots of things. But his books are wonderful.Good to hear that Stuart!
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:We all know people are naturally capable of both grotesque violence as well as incredible kindness. The much more interesting question is what causes them to behave in one way or another.[my bold]This is a contradictory statement, robbo.If something is 'natural', then that is the cause of the 'behavour'.
There is nothing contradictory about the above statement. I'm talking about what people capable of doing; I'm not necessarily trying to explain what causes them to do what they do.
LBird wrote:The beginning of wisdom, though, is starting to realise that all 'facts' reflect the 'opinion' of the researcher. Carr's What is History? would be relevent reading here, for those comrades who do realise that simplying looking for the 'facts of anthropology' is the really pointless activity. Stuart will remain the prisoner of the framework of the last anthropologist that they read.Yes , we know all this LBird. Why do you feel the need to endlessly repeat this same old argument as if know one else apart from your good self is privy to the insight that there is no such thing as a value free anthropology or science? Can we kinda move on with the argument a bit, eh? .. Its getting quite boring hearing the same old thing being constantly regurgitated
stuartw2112 wrote:I have not followed all of what looked like a mostly pointless debate on this thread, but I am interested in the ostensible subject matter, and thought this link might be of interest – it's Jared Diamond defending his recent (and brilliant) book on the subject:http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Rousseau_Revisited.htmlInteresting link though I can't say I was overly impressed., Stuart. Diamond along with Pinker and co have been charged with confusing complex HG societies – tribes – with simple HG societies – bands – and also with confusing hunter gatherer societies in general with horticulturalist societies. In his book "The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?" (2012) Diamond makes much of the fact that the Dani people of Papua New Guinea have a reputation for being violent. However, not only are the Dani tribal in social organisation; they also happen to be agriculturalists practicing an elementary system of property rights. With territoriality and sedentism coming into the picture this would indeed provide an incentive for violent conflict. but the point about simple HG bands is that they are nomadic – there is no territory to defend. I note that Diamond in the article you posted is still talking about tribal societies not band societies Why is this important? Well, as John Horgan points out in the link I posted earlier One of the most insidious modern memes holds that war is innate, an adaptation bred into our ancestors by natural selection. This hypothesis—let’s call it the “Deep Roots Theory of War”–has been promoted by such intellectual heavyweights as Steven Pinker, Edward Wilson, Jared Diamond, Richard Wrangham, Francis Fukuyama and David Brooks. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots)If it is the case that "war is innate, an adaptation bred into ancestors by natural selection" then this would have had to have happened a long long time ago – when in fact human beings were universally living as simple hunter gather societies – not tribal societies. Tribal societies are too recent for this warlike "adaptation" to have taken effect. So in order to make this argument stick you would have to demonstrate that war was a fact of life when we were all simple hunter gatherers way back in the distant past. And that is precisely where Diamond , Pinker et come unstuck; they cannot produce such evidence as R Brian Ferguson has very effectively demonstrated in the link I provided So the Diamond-Pinker hypothesis falls at the first hurdle. What worries me is that this is an argument that has ostensibly been used to justify the need for a state as a supposed "pacifying influence" on the population which is allegedly prone to this innate disposition to wage on their fellow human beings. Am I to take it that you too have become a pro-statist by virtue of your evident enthusiasm for what Diamond has to say? I sincerely hope not Stuart Oh, and just as an aside, I note in Diamond's article he saysTribal victors kill their captives and don’t take prisoners, because they can’t be readily imprisoned or exploited. Is this necessarily the case though? Its a long time since I read Evans Pritchard book on the Nuer so I may be wrong here but I vaguely recall that in their sporadic fighting with the neighbouring Dinka tribe that occasionally, instead of being killed, the defeated Dinka would simply be assimilated and became Nuer themselves . If I recall correctly Evans Pritchard was saying that the Dinka and the Nuer were often one and the same people. Correct me if I am wrong
stuartw2112 wrote:Regardless of the facts in the debate about hunter gatherers, I would have thought that the merest introspection would reveal that human beings are naturally capable of and indeed delight in the most grotesque violence and stupidity (as well as kindness and intelligence). If introspection won't do it, just look at the contributions to this forum (including mine)!Yes but this is not saying anything profound or novel. We all know people are naturally capable of both grotesque violence as well as incredible kindness. The much more interesting question is what causes them to behave in one way or another. I don't think that has got anything really to do with our genes
YMS That Radical Anthropology article by Peter Gray you posted a link to was very useful and informative. In connection with this discussion I think the following passage is highly relevant: Essentially all researchers who write about the social lives of hunter-gatherers emphasize the high value placed on individual autonomy. The descriptions make it clear that hunter-gatherers’ sense of autonomy is different from the individualism that characterizes modern, Western, capitalist cultures. Western individualism tends to pit each person against others in competition for resources and rewards. It includes the right to accumulate property and to use disparities in wealth to control the behavior of others. Thus, Western individualism tends, in principal, to set each person apart from each other person. In contrast, as Tim Ingold has most explicitly pointed out, the hunter-gatherers’ sense of autonomy is one that connects each person to others, rather than sets them apart but does so in a way that does not create dependencies. Their autonomy does not include the right to accumulate property or to use power or threats to control others’ behavior or to make others indebted to them. Their autonomy does, however, allow people to make their own decisions from day-to-day and moment-to-moment about their own activities, as long as they do not violate the implicit and explicit rules of the band, such as rules about sharing. For example, individual hunter-gatherers are free, on any day, to join a hunting or gathering party or to stay at camp and rest, depending purely on their own preference. This is a freedom that goes far beyond the freedom of most workers in Western cultures
LBird wrote:I'd simply ask, YMS, why you and robbo keep using the loaded term 'individuals'.Why use an ideological term so closely connected to the bourgeoisie?Why draw parallels between 'individuals' who live in very different societies, which is also a method used as an ideological justification for 'what exists, now' by showing the alleged 'similarities' with 'what existed, then'?If neither you nor robbo share neither ideology nor method with the bourgeoisie (as you both say that you don't), why employ the ideology of 'individuals' and the comparative method of 'sameness'.Especially as the 'individuality' being expressed is one of 'biological traits' ('that we all share, after all, we're all humans, we individuals', implying bosses and workers, being 'human' should look to their similarities), rather than emphasise the contrast and vast differences between societies and their production methods.What's the fascination with 'individuals', for alleged socialists?Groan. Isn't the term "bourgeoisie" itself closely connected to the "bourgeoisie"? Why do you keeping using this "loaded term" if this does not demonstrate your own bourgeoisie way of looking at the world? See – this is what your kind 2+2=5 logic comes to. You end up trying yourself in knots. Look, nobody is saying that the individual is not "socially constituted". I've said that several times to you but as usual you are just not listening. You just bang on with your bee in your bonnet like you've stumbled across some revolutionary new sociological insight but the rest of us, philistines that we are, are unwilling to accept it , are too stuck in the mud and blinded by bourgeois ideology to embrace it. Its getting tedious, LBird. Very tedious The "bourgeois individual" is quite a different animal to the "feudal individual" or again to the individual in a hunter gatherer society. We know this but you are trying to tell us more – that only under the rule of the bourgeoisie , under capitalism, does the "individual" qua individual come into being , that before that "individuals" simply didn't exist and after that individuals too will not exist. But this is ahistoric nonsense. It rides roughshod over the sociological (and indeed Marxist) maxim that individuals are not only constituted by society but continuously constitute or reconstitute society.. You can't have society without individuals or individuals without society. They hang together. They are two sides of the same coin There is no sense of this dialectic or interaction between individuals and society at all in your philosophical musings which is why these come across as so sterile and barren. For you individuals don't exist; only social categories exist – "I'm a worker not an individual" – despite the fact social categories too consist of individuals. Your whole approach is simplistic and black-or-white. Can one not be a worker and an individual too?You askWhy draw parallels between 'individuals' who live in very different societies, which is also a method used as an ideological justification for 'what exists, now' by showing the alleged 'similarities' with 'what existed, then'? Actually, it shows quite the opposite! What it demonstrates is that anatomically identical individuals with the same mental equipment as us can live under a wide variety of social systems. That being so there can be nothing more subversive than such a thought as far as the existing capitalist social order is concerned for it demonstrates very clearly that there is nothing in human nature that prevents us living in a different kind of society. You call yourself a communist yet you would wish us to spike this most subversive and revolutionary thought! In fact I would go further – if what you say held any water then the whole Marxian concept of alienation would make no sense at all. The "individual" in your absolutist behaviourist schema would just be assimilated into some infinitely mouldable putty shaped by the forces of history over which we would have no control. The kind of logic that underlies your thinking is the same kind of logic that informs the racist with his or her essentialist talk of "races". It stands in sharp contrast to the humanism and universalism that informs Marxism. Yes we are workers under capitalism but we are also defiantly human beings and it is the fact that we are human beings, that we have certain needs, that we chafe under the condition of being exploited members of the working class and therefore seek to overthrow capitalism. If that were not they case then from whence would arise the incentive to overthrow capitalism? If we were totally mouldable, the product of our social environment , if there was absolutely nothing about being a human being that transcended any and every kind of social system that human beings have ever lived under, then it totally conceivable that we could be indefinitely conditioned to accept capitalism as not only the best of all possible worlds but the only possible world. Your logic permits this. And so to answer your question -what is the fascination with individuals for socialists? – it is because we are ourselves human individuals one and all. Even you LBird. I doubt very much that you are some 3D hologram programmed by certain remote impersonal social forces to endlessly parrot the mantra that there are no such things as individuals – only "society.". The utter absurdity of your whole position is exposed by your glib dismissal of the fact that hunter gatherer possess a strong sense of individuality and an interior subjective life as "ahistoric waffle". What you are saying in effect is that hunter gatherers had no feelings, were incapable of feeling sorrow, anger, remorse, happiness, boredom and the full gamut of emotions which some "superior" being (presumably yourself) is capable of feeling. No? Well then why come out with this daft statement of yoursWhy draw parallels between 'individuals' who live in very different societies, which is also a method used as an ideological justification for 'what exists, now' by showing the alleged 'similarities' with 'what existed, then'?There is nothing "alleged" about the similarities I have referrred to above. They are actual similiarities It is precisely because hunter gatherers are capable of precisely the same emotions as ourselves i.e.. are similar to us – that they are of huge interest, more so because for over 95 % of our existence on this planet we human beings lived as hunter gatherers. That may very well have important consequences for us today and for the struggle to achieve a communist world
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:The hunter gatherer like the modern proletarian has what we call an interior subjective reality: self consciousness. Its something that acquire through a process of socialisation.Yeah, after a busy day 'hunting and gathering' our wages in the factories and offices, we often stop off at 'The Watering Hole', where we quench our thirst alongside our socio-economic bretheren, the Kalahari Bushmen, where we all marvel at the identity of our 'self-consciousness'.Do us a favour robbo: recognise this ahistorical woffle about 'interior subjective reality' as the nonsense that it is.It's bourgeois ideology, and you're propagating 'ruling class ideas' about anthropology.
Oh so, you have penetrated the mind of a hunter gather and concluded in your seemingly infinite wisdom that he or she has no sense of self awareness, has no feelings of anger , rage , happiness , jealousy , sadness or love. These things are just…er…"bourgeois ideology" and "ruling class ideas". Presumably when the hunter gatherer reports to the anthropologist or to another hunter gatherer that he or she dislike some member of the band we should altogether discount this. According to you such a person is incapable of reflective conscious thought and presumably is to be regarded a "mere machine" as Descartes said of animals.You remind me of the case of Albert Magnus, the 13th century scholar, whose pupils included St Thomas Acquinas. Magnus argued that while humans were indeed distinguishable from "the brutes", the latter could be divided into true animals and manlike creatures or "similitudines homines" which included also, in his view, pygmies. Not even the obvious ability of pygmies to speak convinced Magnus that they warranted being categorised as "true humans" since their speech, he claimed, was more akin to the mimicry of parrots: "Pygmies do not speak through reason but by the instinct of nature". Except of course in your case its a case of pygmies not having an "interior subjective life". The only thing that is "infinite" from where I am standing, LBird is not your wisdom but your colossal arrogance compounded by the fact that you make absolutely no attempt whatsoever to justify your outrageous nonsensical claims about your fellow human beings
LBird wrote:If I take this statement at face value, I'm left wondering why all your contributions, to every subject we've encountered, are about 'individuals', and none of them are about the 'society' within which those individuals find themselves.Another misrepresentation. I have constantly pointed out that its a two way thing, not a one way thing. If you only see me talking about individuals that is because you have probably subconsciously blocked out the other side of the equation which I have also stressed – because it suits you to do so. The point of my pointing out the importance of individuals was to counterbalance your nonsensical claims about individuals not existing etc etc. At no point did I ever suggest that individuals existed in some free floating atomistic sense free of any kind of social conditioning or context. I repeat my position is neither an individualistic one nor a holistic one but an intermediate one. Kindly stop misrepresenting me!
LBird wrote:Thanks for ignoring any discussion about the political ideologies of any of the authors mentioned.Not true. I think it is has been quite clearly established that your political ideology is that of mystical holism. As such, I think you share a lot in common with much conservative sociological thought exemplified by the likes of Comte and Durkheim – not to mention the advocates of the totalitarian state to which individuals – oh dear! a swearword in your vocabulary ! – are expected to submit in complete obeisance and apologise for the fact of even existing. I can't speak for anyone else but my own ideology as I have several times pointed is one of libertarian communism in which individuals and society are seen as interdependent terms and meaningless without the other
LBird wrote:Since none of you seem to like being critically questionedSays the man who flatly refuses to answer critical questions asked of him
Young Master Smeet wrote:I've not read it through, but in the search for freely available texts:http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_125.pdfQuote:Hunter-gatherers are highly mobile, not just in the sense of whole bandsmoving from place to place but also in the sense of individuals and familiesmoving from band to band. Bands are not permanent structures with fixedmemberships. Everyone has friends and relatives in other bands who wouldwelcome them in. Because of this, and because they are not encumbered byproperty, individuals may move at a moment’s notice from one band to another.People move from band to band for marriage, but they also move to get awayfrom conflicts or simply because they are more attracted to the people or theprocedures that exist in another band. Disgruntled groups of people withinany band may also, at any time, leave the original band and start a new one.Thus, the decision to belong to any given band is always a person’s choice.The freedom of band members to leave sets the stage for the other playlike qualities of hunter-gatherer life.His source for this is Hunters and Gatherers, Volume 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change, ed. Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn (1988) Happy, erm, hunting.
An interesting quote, YMS, and it points to the existence of a likely conflict avoidance mechanism in the shape of the ability of individuals or groups to simply relocate. The implication is that widepread resource scarcity such as happened among the Maoris of New Zealand after they effectively overhunted large fauna to the point of extinction in some cases may be an important condition for the rise of violent inter-group encounters within hunter-gatherer societies
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Happy, erm, hunting.And a happy, erm, avoiding difficult ideological questioning, to you, too, YMS!
A little hypocritical given that you have left at least two threads on this subject with questions that remain unanswered
Yes absolutely! Like LBird's flat refusal to explain precisely how "the workers" – all 7 billion of us! -are ever going to be in a position to determine the "truth" of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories by means of a "democratic vote" or even to explain why this is necessary!!! The idea is insane but lets not derail this thread which is really about violence in a hunter gatherer society!
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…I recognise that this is also a question of power …As usual for 'individualists', because you've done some reading, you genuflect to the question of 'power', and note it.But… for you, it plays no part in explaining power relationships within societies in particular historical contexts.You simply revert to asocial and ahistoric 'individuals', who suffer universal 'slights' and make universal 'responses'.You believe that you are an individual, and your activities and beliefs are entirely 'free', and that society should be composed of these 'free individuals'.This is bourgeois thinking, robbo.Unless you situate your 'individuals' in their society (ie. stop talking about 'individuals'), then you won't understand either hunter-gatherer society or our own.I'm a 'worker', by the way, not an 'individual', and power relationships are a part and parcel of my social existence, just as they are yours, and were for 'hunter-gatherers'.And as they are for anthropologists, and all scientists…
Oh dear – I have visions of yet another long tiresome thread unfolding in which our resident mystic holist, LBird, continues to utterly misrepresent those who think differently from him with his drearily predictable refrain that they exhibit nothing but "bourgeois thinking". He, it seems, is the only here entitled to call himself a "democratic communist". LOL. No,. LBird I do not believe I am an individual whose "activities and beliefs are entirely 'free', and that society should be composed of these 'free individuals'" Thats is not what I have ever said or implied. At least be honest if you want to engage in a serious debate; I'm frankly bored with having to constantly demolish you repetitive and ludicrous strawman arguments. What I actually said was "Of course individuals are embedded, and act, within a social context – no one is disputing that" . How then can you possibly maintain that I am promoting an ..er.."asocial and ahistoric (view of) individuals"? Your problem frankly is that you have this utterly naive sociological perspective which is in fact the mirror image of Margaret Thatcher's . Whereas for her, there is no such thing as "society", for you there is no such things as "individuals" and therefore we should "stop talking about individuals". What you and Thatcher completely overlook is that the one thing without the other is completely senseless. You both have a totally black-or-white view in which there exists either only concrete individuals (Thatcher) or only some mysteriously reified entity called "society" (You),Nether of you grasp the reciprocal and interactive nature of this relationship whereby individuals constitute society and are constituted by society – continuously. And you don't understand what is individualism is. So you come out with nonsensical remarks like this I think that your ideological individualism compels you to regard any 'social' limits upon 'individual free will' as 'holist'. I don't subscribe to something called "ideological individualism" – I doubt if you even know what that means! – and the mere application of social limits on individual free will does not equate with holism . Holism signifies the whole determining the parts whereas with individualism (or atomism), the parts determine the whole. I don't accept either of these positions but take an intermediate one "Individualism", for your information, is a politico-economic stance which is oriented towards the exterior world – to do with one's relations with other individuals – and is motivated by what one perceives to be in one's self interest. "Individuality" means something quite different and refers to the interior subjective world or the individual himself or herself. The hunter gatherer like the modern proletarian has what we call an interior subjective reality: self consciousness. Its something that acquire through a process of socialisation. By becoming conscious of the existence of others we become conscious of ourselves Please stop confusing these two terms!
LBird wrote:Comrades will note robbo's ideological stress upon 'individuals' being 'slighted or wronged' and responding 'accordingly'.I think this requires an examination of what counts as 'slights and wrongs', and why, and who determines, and what counts as 'accordingly', and why, and who detemines.For example, what evidence of a 'slight' exists in the 'material record'? Or is robbo making assumptions about 'individuals' in our society, and assuming that 'individuals' in other societies recognise and react to 'slights' in a similar way (based upon, say, 'human nature'?).If 'slighting and reactions' are ahistoric, why didn't slaves respond to slights from their masters, but overwhelmingly just accepted them? As too for unresponsive serfs and their lords?Can a 'hunter-gatherer' be slighted, as an individual? If they can, must they respond accordingly?Look at the evidence I have already provided in the form of John Horton's article on Fry and Soderberg's research. In particular note : Most of the killings stemmed from what Fry and Soderberg categorize as “miscellaneous personal disputes,” involving jealousy, theft, insults and so on Why didn't slaves respond to the slights of their masters? Because, taking precisely the historic approach which you refer to, I recognise that this is also a question of power – unless of course you want to take up the position that slaves did not feel slighted in which case, be my guest. The inability of slaves to do anything about their maltreatment and the likely consequences of trying to do something about it probably acted as a deterrent and would explain why slaves for the most part didn't do much "responding" to the slights of their masters. Hunter gatherers, on the other hand, had the freedom to roam where they wished and to break away from the group whenever they wished. They lived in egalitarian societies in which no individual could expect to slight another and get away with it. So to answer your question – of course, they could be slighted and by all account the slighting of one individuals by another seems to have been an a significant factor in what violence there was in that form of society if the anthropological evidence is to be believed. Or does your mystic holism rule this out as being at all possible?
LBird wrote:For example, whether one's definition of 'individual' is biological (and so transcends history and society, and thus one can discuss 'individuals' and their own actions without reference to the place of that 'individual'), or whether one's definition of 'individual' is ideological (and so is embedded in history and society, and thus one can't discuss 'individuals' and their actions without reference to their time).I'll be explicit: my definition of 'individual' is ideological (I'm a Democratic Communist), so I will regard any talk by authors or posters about 'individuals' as contaminated by bourgeois ideology. I would only refer to 'social-individuals', and situation any action by a hunter-gatherer in a political context.Of course individuals are embedded, and act, within a social context – no one is disputing that – but it is nonsense to assert that merely to talk about "individuals" as "being contaminated by bourgeois ideology". You can't talk about society without acknowledging also the existence of individuals who compromise it – just as you can't talk about individuals without acknowledging the existence of the social context in which they are embedded. Your "social-individuals" obscures the necessary reciprocal relationship that goes on here and amounts to a form of mystic holism from which effectively the very idea of "individuals" is expunged Contrary to the ideas of holists like Durkheim with his talk of "mechanical solidarity" and undifferentiated "group think", traditional societies such as hunter gatherers were characterised by a high degree of individuality (which is not the same as "individualism") leading to individuals breaking away from the group to set up another group as a form of conflict avoidance – the fissioning process endemic to HG groups. In other words, they saw themselves as individuals who could be slighted and wronged and so able to respond accordingly – just as much as they saw themselves also as part of a group. Thats is precisely why conflict within a HG societies tended to be radically decentralised and this in turn may be part of the reason why war as a systemic expression of group based conflict did not seem to have been evident in such societies – at least in the paleolithic era
