All modern societies are "delayed return societies", but there are some societies called "immediate return societies". They look very weird to us. Today we read from Immediate return societies: What can they tell us about the self and social relationships in our society (Martin, Shirk, 2008)
Immediate-return societies represent an extreme minority in the world today. They are scattered across the world (e.g., Africa, India, South America, Asia), but their combined population can be counted only in the tens of thousands (Stanford, 2001). Despite their small numbers, these societies are important to us in at least two ways. First, they are the best approximation of what life was like for our evolutionary ancestors (Marlowe, 2002)
Immediate-return hunter-gatherers live in small, temporary, autonomous camps spread out among the landscape as part of a larger population. There is frequent movement of individuals in and out while a camp remains at one site, and the camps themselves may move every few weeks (Woodburn, 1979). When it comes time for a camp to move, the members may either move together or they may move separately, and they may either establish a new site or they may move to a camp already established by others. There are no special criteria for acceptance in an existing camp. When members from one camp arrive at an established camp, they are allowed to share equally in the camp’s resources while they live there.
In immediate-return societies, it is very easy for individuals to leave and join different camps. This so-called fission and fusion is simply a part of their life. Because the composition of camps changes so frequently, each camp is defined primarily in terms of its present membership. There may be some stability in the composition of a camp (e.g., a family may move with the wife’s mother), but nothing formally holds the members together except each individual’s involvement in the current round of activity.
There are no formal long-term, binding commitments (Woodburn, 1979). In immediate-return societies, individuals generally choose which relationships to pursue or abandon. They do so through visits, meal sharing, cooperative work, and even through the positioning of the openings of their huts.
Summary: they live in communal camps that are free to join and leave.
Next: they don't do long-term commitments and are more than okay with that.
With a binding contract, the first party holds power over the second party until the latter delivers on his or her end of the deal. In immediate-return societies, individuals are not allowed to assert dominion over one another. So, by avoiding formal long-term, binding commitments, they reduce the possibility of social domination.
Fortunately, failure to respect formal long-term binding commitments does not cause problems in immediate-return societies. This is because individuals in these societies have few possessions and can generally get what they want through free and direct access to the natural resources. Couple this self-sufficiency with the changing composition of the camps and we see that it makes little sense for individuals in immediate-return societies to enter into formal long-term binding relationships with specific others.
A man and a woman, for example, may very well stay together for years in a monogamous relationship. It is highly unlikely, though, that the couple would formalize their relationship with a ceremony or with a “ ’til death do us part” vow. Rather, they will simply start living together, and that is sufficient for them and the group to recognize that they are a pair. A divorce is recognized when the two no longer live together.
Next: their begrudging sharing economy.
Although individuals are allowed to possess some personal items (e.g., clothing, tools, weapons, small quantities of food), there is great pressure for individuals to part with any objects for which they have no immediate need (e.g., large animals obtained from a hunt).
This high degree of sharing, however, does not mean that individuals in immediate-return societies are inherently more compassionate than other individuals. Their sharing is a by-product of their social arrangements. In fact, the best explanation of the sharing appears to be “tolerated scrounging” (Marlowe, 2004b). Because individuals in immediate-return societies are not allowed to attain dominion over one another, their society has no clear mechanisms in place to sanction slackers or refuse scroungers. Doing so would place one person above another.
Next: social mechanisms to make sure talent does not lead to power.
Differences in resources rarely occur in immediate-return societies. When they do occur, active steps are taken to eliminate them.
individuals in immediate-return societies meet boasting and other forms of self-aggrandizement with scorn or ridicule—and the ridicule often comes from the children. A successful hunter may leave the kill on the trail, and on entering the camp, speak of the kill only in passing and in a deprecating manner (Lee, 1968). Alternatively, the hunter can walk into camp and let the bloody arrow speak for itself. Then, other members of the camp will go into the forest, retrieve the kill, and bring it back to camp. One sure way for individuals to lose esteem in an immediate-return society is to attempt to claim that esteem for themselves.
The group equalizes would-be dominators through criticism, ridicule, and simple disobedience. In more extreme cases, the group may desert or even assassinate the would-be leader. Woodburn (1979) tells of two Hadza who attempted to impress a visiting anthropologist by getting other members of the camp to clear a path to the river. The others in the camp merely laughed and walked away. It is difficult to be a leader if there is no one to lead.
Next: nature is good:
Immediate-return hunter-gatherers think of the forest as a parent and think of themselves as children of the forest. Moreover, they believe that the forest, like any good parent, is morally bound to share food and other material resources. They also believe that the forest shares equally to everyone regardless of prior reciprocal obligations.
The benign view of nature held by individuals in immediate-return societies was expressed clearly in an observation by Turnbull (1962). He observed a Mbuti hunter singing to his young son. The words of the song, Turnbull noted, “like the words of most molimo songs, were few. They simply said, ‘The forest is good’ ”
They have a mindspace somewhat similar to meditation practices: focus on the present, be here now.
In immediate-return societies, individuals usually obtain a relatively immediate yield for their labor and use this yield with minimal delay (Barnard & Woodburn, 1988). They know within a few hours, for example, if their hunt has been successful. If it has been, they can return to the camp to eat, and if it has not, they have time to search for an alternative food source.
This relatively immediate feedback allows members of immediate-return societies to maintain an extreme focus on the present. In the words of Forde and Douglas (1956), individuals in immediate-return societies “are bound to the momentary present, scarcely ever striking out new lines for themselves, never forecasting the distant future, and seldom making provisions for the near future. Capable of anticipating its future needs only for a very brief span. Accumulation is difficult, long-term planning is impossible” (p. 332). In immediate-return societies, individuals seem to live by the motto “If it is not here and now what does it matter where (or when) it is?”
Implications for obedience vs creativity:
in hunting and fishing societies, each day’s food comes from that day’s catch... individuals in hunting and fishing societies can meet with initial failure and still switch to an alternate plan to acquire resources... As a result, the child-rearing in these societies places an emphasis on personal initiative and skill.
in a farming society, individuals must plow the fields, plant the seeds, water the fields, and monitor them for weeds and pests. They must also harvest the grain and store it safely. Each of these activities must be done in the right way at the right time. It will be months, though, before the farmers know if their efforts were successful. If they were not, then the consequences (e.g., hunger or starvation) are likely to be severe, widespread, and long-term. As a result, the child-rearing in these societies emphasizes obedience and rule following.
Implications for just-world belief and victim blaming:
According to Hafer (2000), the belief that the world is just is especially important to individuals who are committed to the pursuit of long-term goals. After all, if the world is not just, these people would have no confidence that their long-term efforts would pay off. Because of the centrality of this belief to their continued goal pursuit, these committed individuals are highly motivated to maintain their belief in a just world. The suffering of innocent people, however, challenges that belief, so individuals committed to the pursuit of long-term goals may be especially likely to blame innocent victims for their unpleasant fates.
[experiment shows]... participants displaying features common to delayed-return societies (commitment to long-term goals) were more likely to blame an innocent victim.
No comments:
Post a Comment