From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 01:31:05 MDT
> [henson]I think a good case could be made for primitive societies
being
> more violent than non primitive societies. They certainly are at the
> level of violence seen by the murder rates.
[Blunderov]
A lot depends on what the word murder means I think. The subject
interest me very much = vote of thanks to both Henson and Mermaid for an
absorbing discussion.
I found this;
http://norlonto.net/index.cfm/action/reviews.view/itemID/96/type/rvwsBoo
ks
Archeology of Violence
by Pierre Clastres
a review by Gyrus
Recommended
Published by Semiotext(e), 1994
ISBN: 0936756950
by Pierre Clastres
a review by Gyrus
Recommended
Published by Semiotext(e), 1994
ISBN: 0936756950
<snip>
Clastres argues that most cultures referred to as "primitive" in fact
choose their mode of living together. They are suspicious of any
evolution of this social structure, hence the term "traditional
cultures" - cultures whose social and religious laws are embedded in a
sophisticated oral tradition traced back to "the ancestors", mythical
antecedents who are seen to originate the eternally repeating pattern of
current society.
This formulation, like all generalisations, contains its own prejudices,
but let's stick with Clastres here for a moment. What is this social
structure that resists change, presumably well enough to have survived
in some form from the palaeolithic to the present day (just)? And what
is the change that is resisted? In short, the social structure is a
society without a State. And the absence of a State is, in Clastres'
view, no accident. It is precisely the State that is resisted.
The State is defined by Clastres as "a separate organ of power", that
is, something that separates social power from society itself. Instead
of collective self-government, society is split into Masters and
Subjects, the Dominators and the Dominated. This split, Clastres argues,
is seen, or felt, to be the prime evil by primitive societies, the
beginning of the end for social egalitarianism and true democracy, to be
warded off at all costs.
And how is the formation of the State resisted? In a word, war. Here we
need to see that the nature of war itself changed along with the
transformation of social modes. "Primitive" warfare is a different
matter from "classical" or "modern" warfare. Drawing on Marshall
Sahlin's work, which showed that most primitive societies exist in a
state of affluence - where a few hours' work a day will suffice to
provide all necessities, where economic surplus and profit are
meaningless - Clastres argues that primitive war has little to do with
competition for resources. The major resource apparently fought for
among the Yanomami is women and children, but given that peaceful
exchanges can also serve to ensure such genetic distribution, Clastres
argues that something else is essential to primitive war: social
autonomy and the self-determination of the social group....
Warriors also hold a less privileged position in primitive society than
we may suppose. Clastres takes pains to elucidate the distinction
between power (the ability to effect social control) and prestige
(honour, or glory) in primitive societies, where warriors gain the
latter through their frequent raids on other villages and defence of
their own, but are prevented from holding the former.
So, a perpetual state of war exists between primitive groups, a war
which certainly has casualties, but which, in Clastres' view, serves to
maintain the vital self-government of each group. Should this
dispersive, "centrifugal" war cease, he reasons, the exchanges and
friendly connections between disparate social groupings would inexorably
lead to a "centripetal" evolution towards a larger social union, a
drawing together... and the impossibility of self-determination, an
inevitable descent into social division, the splitting of power away
from society itself: the State.
</snip>
[Blunderov]Also worth bearing in mind, perhaps, is the possibility that
death may have not held the same meaning that it does now. Deep in the
ooze of ancient religion is the notion of 'the afterlife'. It is
possible to imagine that the afterlife was a very real place to ancient
peoples; to them, perhaps, a plain fact that everyman could observe for
himself and perhaps nothing like the 'theoretical' possibility which is
haggled over in modern times.
I wonder whether it could be argued from this that the origins of crime
are contained in the State itself. That at its Hollywood heart of
darkness lies a glamorous resistance to the State, a sexy partisan
hiding in the mountains?
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 01:31:33 MDT