The Ecology of Freedom

[Jim Cross]

Indigenous peoples could CHOOSE to shift back and forth.

You're right that is what they are saying but that may be where I find the most problem. They present their argument as if people were self-consciously (I think they use that exact term or variations of it) making decisions. But that isn't the case at all. Large seasonal gatherings are the result of a seasonal surplus of food and resources. People gather in larger groups when resources permit. When the surplus runs out, they disperse again. They may be choosing to gather in large groups but they are not choosing to disperse. They are forced to disperse because resources do not allow for survival in large groups. This explains exactly why agriculture became associated with states. Agriculture produced a surplus. What's more, the surplus could be stored beyond the harvest season thus stable, year-round settlements were possible The states collapsed when the crops failed and people dispersed again.

[James_B]

I'm surprised there's been no mention of Murray Bookchin in this thread (especially since the thread title is the title of one of his most popular books). Bookchin was an anarchist & later subscribed to "communalism". From what I understand, communalism is all about the abolition of all hierarchies & recognizing the interconnectedness of all living things & the environment & the cultivation of communities & communal living (which necessitates cooperation/mutual aid among all sentient beings).

I find communalism interesting since most spiritual traditions explicitly promoted communal living & cultivating communal living. It would be interesting if more people in this space had a dialogue around communal living.

[Ben Iscatus]

John Michael Greer recently had a post referring to communal living in intentional communities. He says they just don't work except in specific proven instances (e.g. religious monks, nuns), broadly because the ego of the leader interferes with the creativity of the other participants.
https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-dream-2/

[Jim Cross]

John Michael Greer recently had a post referring to communal living in intentional communities. He says they just don't work except in specific proven instances (e.g. religious monks, nuns), broadly because the ego of the leader interferes with the creativity of the other participants.
https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-dream-2/

I tend to agree with you and Greer. Nevertheless, it might good for discussion about it in separate thread. This one seems more oriented to the past and prehistory.

For the future, I think it more likely the hoped for communalism will turn out to be a Borg-like dystopia.

[Lou Gold]

Indigenous peoples could CHOOSE to shift back and forth.

You're right that is what they are saying but that may be where I find the most problem. They present their argument as if people were self-consciously (I think they use that exact term or variations of it) making decisions. But that isn't the case at all. Large seasonal gatherings are the result of a seasonal surplus of food and resources. People gather in larger groups when resources permit. When the surplus runs out, they disperse again. They may be choosing to gather in large groups but they are not choosing to disperse. They are forced to disperse because resources do not allow for survival in large groups. This explains exactly why agriculture became associated with states. Agriculture produced a surplus. What's more, the surplus could be stored beyond the harvest season thus stable, year-round settlements were possible The states collapsed when the crops failed and people dispersed again.

Well, SURE! "Choice" is a tricky word. Is it "free"? Is it a forced adaptation? Is it instinctually embedded in the genes? Is it a relatively limited dominant culture habit change? Some of each? How much and in what context? My take, without having read the book, is that the basic G&W mission is to challenge a dominating consensual view of Western modernity that it is a pinnacle of a deterministic hierarchical autocratic model of development. Personally, I favor a view that whatever is going on in human development is a diverse mosaic of process experimentation with different sets-and-settings. It can be thrown out of balance if one adaptation develops an overwhelming power of conquest, which will then force a more initiatory crisis at the grander ecological-systemic level. What this "break from the past" might be is hard to predict but the range of imaginative possibility is surely increased by the realization that "the past" was much more diverse than is generally taught and thought. To succeed in this mission of diversifying the human imagination to more freely experiment with possible futures would be no small or marginal achievement.

[Lou Gold]

Indigenous peoples could CHOOSE to shift back and forth.

You're right that is what they are saying but that may be where I find the most problem. They present their argument as if people were self-consciously (I think they use that exact term or variations of it) making decisions. But that isn't the case at all. Large seasonal gatherings are the result of a seasonal surplus of food and resources. People gather in larger groups when resources permit. When the surplus runs out, they disperse again. They may be choosing to gather in large groups but they are not choosing to disperse. They are forced to disperse because resources do not allow for survival in large groups. This explains exactly why agriculture became associated with states. Agriculture produced a surplus. What's more, the surplus could be stored beyond the harvest season thus stable, year-round settlements were possible The states collapsed when the crops failed and people dispersed again.

Well, SURE! "Choice" is a tricky word. Is it "free"? Is it a forced adaptation? Is it instinctually embedded in the genes? Is it a relatively limited dominant culture habit change? Some of each? How much and in what context? My take, without having read the book, is that the basic G&W mission is to challenge a dominating consensual view of Western modernity that it is a pinnacle of a deterministic hierarchical autocratic model of development. Personally, I favor a view that whatever is going on in human development is a diverse mosaic of process experimentation with different sets-and-settings. It can be thrown out of balance if one adaptation develops an overwhelming power of conquest, which will then force a more initiatory crisis at the grander ecological-systemic level. What this "break from the past" might be is hard to predict but the range of imaginative possibility is surely increased by the realization that "the past" was much more diverse than is generally taught and thought. To succeed in this mission of diversifying the human imagination to more freely experiment with possible futures would be no small or marginal achievement.

What this "break from the past" might be is hard to predict but the range of imaginative possibility is surely increased by the realization that "the past" was much more diverse than is generally taught and thought. To succeed in this mission of diversifying the human imagination to more freely experiment with possible futures would be no small or marginal achievement.

Which is the theme of this recent review: "Early Civilizations Had It All Figured Out"

[Jim Cross]

Lou,

I think anyone in anthropology for the last 50-60 years wouldn't argue about the past being diverse and complicated. The simple views tend to date from the late 19th and early 20th century. I would need to go back and read Diamond and compare with G&W to see if they have been fair.

Diamond, of course, has other critics. Diamond's book reviewed at link below seems overall to somewhat in alignment with G&W while perhaps having other problems.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/ ... sts-so-mad

To quote some of the positives from the review:

Diamond's message resonates most powerfully when he describes the importance afforded to social relationships in small-scale societies. Even the very old are typically surrounded by at least some of their adult children and their life-long friends. In Western societies, Diamond says, "We acquire and shed relationships throughout our lives much more" readily than do people elsewhere.

Even if Diamond makes mistakes — and he does — might his taking on big questions for large numbers of readers do more good than harm? Science writer John Horgan blogged on Monday, for instance, that "Diamond challenges the kneejerk sense of superiority of those of us in WEIRD societies." That's no small thing.

From what I can gather so far (expecting the book any day), I think G&W's critique of the "current view" seems to be a critique of a caricature of the view from the early 20th century.

And this criticism of Diamond's book seems like it could also apply to G&W.

Another problem, one I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere, bothers me just as much. When Diamond urges his WEIRD readers to learn from the lifeways of people in small-scale societies, he concludes: "We ourselves are the only ones who created our new lifestyles, so it's completely in our power to change them." Can he really be so unaware of the privilege that allows him to assert — or think — such a thing? Too many people living lives of poverty within industrialized nations do not have it "completely in their power" to change their lives, to say the least.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

I think anyone in anthropology for the last 50-60 years wouldn't argue about the past being diverse and complicated. The simple views tend to date from the late 19th and early 20th century. I would need to go back and read Diamond and compare with G&W to see if they have been fair.

Diamond, of course, has other critics. Diamond's book reviewed at link below seems overall to somewhat in alignment with G&W while perhaps having other problems.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/ ... sts-so-mad

To quote some of the positives from the review:

Diamond's message resonates most powerfully when he describes the importance afforded to social relationships in small-scale societies. Even the very old are typically surrounded by at least some of their adult children and their life-long friends. In Western societies, Diamond says, "We acquire and shed relationships throughout our lives much more" readily than do people elsewhere.

Even if Diamond makes mistakes — and he does — might his taking on big questions for large numbers of readers do more good than harm? Science writer John Horgan blogged on Monday, for instance, that "Diamond challenges the kneejerk sense of superiority of those of us in WEIRD societies." That's no small thing.

From what I can gather so far (expecting the book any day), I think G&W's critique of the "current view" seems to be a critique of a caricature of the view from the early 20th century.

And this criticism of Diamond's book seems like it could also apply to G&W.

Another problem, one I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere, bothers me just as much. When Diamond urges his WEIRD readers to learn from the lifeways of people in small-scale societies, he concludes: "We ourselves are the only ones who created our new lifestyles, so it's completely in our power to change them." Can he really be so unaware of the privilege that allows him to assert — or think — such a thing? Too many people living lives of poverty within industrialized nations do not have it "completely in their power" to change their lives, to say the least.

[/quote}

I believe the more substantial G&W critique is contra the two current leading public intellectuals Harari and Pinker who do fit into the legacy of the Hobbes vs Rousseau. Clearly, theirs is not the view of modern anthropology. It's just the dominant one in the history books and popular mythos. Surely the dreary criticism will remain or be replaced by imaginative possibility depending on the intention of the reader. Whether you are looking for faults or possibilities, I'm sure you will find many.

[Lou Gold]

Jim,

With your persistent theme of the population dynamic, you might especially appreciate this story of how Wiley Coyote has managed to survive one the most brutal extermination campaigns in the history the human war on "predators". Perhaps, in a sense, anarchism is a social science version of the coyote tales. Or, perhaps, it expresses the Mexican saying, "They tried to bury us but they didn't know we are seeds."

[Jim Cross]

Jim,

With your persistent theme of the population dynamic, you might especially appreciate this story of how Wiley Coyote has managed to survive one the most brutal extermination campaigns in the history the human war on "predators". Perhaps, in a sense, anarchism is a social science version of the coyote tales. Or, perhaps, it expresses the Mexican saying, "They tried to bury us but they didn't know we are seeds."

Tell me about coyotes. They are regular visitors to my area in suburban Atlanta. We've had to completely alter how we handle our cats especially in the fall and winter.

For the time being, I think I'm pausing on G&W until I actually get the book. It's a fairly long book so it may take some time to review. Eventually I may post something on my blog and add a topic here with some excerpts to my post.