Desite his agreement that
> Gerry: What you have said makes sense. If the natural resources are
> ample, then why would it be necessary for class to exist?
Gerry seems to have difficulty with the essential classnessness of
hunter gatherers living in circumstances where they don't exceed the
carrying capacity of the environment.
He askes
> Did everyone possess the same
> projectile points (perhaps so)? But what about family size? Surely
> some families were larger than others. Or what about leaders in the
> hunt (a Bigman)or for finding natural resources? Even among the
> !Kungbushmen, some of the folks were better at dancing, or drumming,
or
> hunting -- actually there was some form of stratification but perhaps
> this didn't cause social problems because everyone had access to a
wide
> assortment of things. But what if someone by chance found a special
> "shell" or "rock". Wouldn't he/she gain the groups envy? Hmmm. Nope.
I
> really can't buy the fact that some groups were classless. Even in a
> family clan, there are folks who are chiefs and those who are
indians.
I think he is confusing here between "achieved" (earned) status in a
group, and "ascribed" (unearned) stauts in a group. Class is generally
a case of unearned, ascribed status, based upon characteristics of
merely "belonging" to or being identified with a certain pre-existing
group of people. It occurs when children enter the race of life with
differential access to goods and services, and a social stratification
between "haves" and "have nots" can be observed into which children are
largely born.
These distinctions are important, as otherwise we would say that
"class" is found in Chimpanzees where the alpha male and his henchmen
dominate (and sometimes terrorise) a chimp foraging band, or in
Gorillas, where the silverback males dominate their harem of females
and subdominant non breeding males. Clearly such cases are not "social
classes".
> I'm reminded of Lord of the Flies by Golding or Orwell's Animal Farm
> where some kids (pigs too) are more equal than the others. There's
> heirarchy in all animal groups from birds, to ants, to bees etc. No.
I
> think hierarchy is what's natural and equality is a social structure.
> But I'm open to pursuasion, so pursuade away.
Of course some people are better dancers, others are better story
tellers, others are stronger, more mechanically apt etc. This is not
the same as social class, where people have status irrespective of
their aptitudes, merely by basis of greater "wealth" or by social
position. Thus in hunter gatherer bands generally social status went
with age. As one got older, so one built up a greater number of
important strategic alliances with others within your age cohort, or
people yoinger than you. As those who were older died, so the next
generation stepped into their shoes, but such status was earned over
the couse of a lifetime. Such hierarchies (of dancers, singers, story
tellers, warriors etc) are a natural occurrence in any social species,
and humans with a greater cultural repertoire have a greater number of
dimensions upon which such hierarchies can develop. In a "non-class"
system, the "starting point" for the development of the hierarchy is
one of equality. Basically everyone starts at the same point, as a
young woman or a young man, and on the basis of interest, persistence
and tallent develops their skills accordingly. Hunter gatherers in
situations where they are not exceeding the carrying capacity of the
environment have this kind of a system.
Australian Aborigines for instance had a system of initiating young men
into "age grades" and "moieties" or "skin groupings". Whilst different
from each other, all of these groups were recognised as equal. Once
initiated, it wasd then the young man's qualities which determined the
degree to which they earned respect within the group. How well did
they provide for their families, how well they participated in
ceremonial life, and how farsighted they were in making decisions, or
in pursuading others. As an elder, such people would be listened to
more often than those people who wasted their opportunities, or who se
children and wife (or wives) were not adequately provided for.
Various social mechanisms, (being cared for by the mothers' brothers
etc) enabled children born of such a disfunctional fanmily to escape
its consequences. Children were considered the joint future of the
whole social group, and to maintain social cohesion (the key factor in
hunter gatherer success) great care is taken to make decisions by
consensus and to ensure social equality is maintained.
Socially stratified societies seem to grow where population densities
increase rapidly. Magdalenian Europe shows the first evidence of
socially stratified cultures, with the graves of children beginning to
be differentiated by the number of cowrie shells that adorned their
clothing. That children show differences in status shows the
appearance of "ascripition" versus "achieved" status. But the end of
the Ice Age and the reversion to simpler mesolithic societies shows
that such status was shortlived and unstable, until the beginnings of
agriculture.
In sedentary agricultural societies, when population exceeds carrying
capacity, then intergroup violence increases, as the rewards of
confiscating the production of your neighbours, if successful, exceeds
the risks. Warrior bands proliferate, either as conquerors, or for
defence against would be neighbours. The preparedness of these people
to "kill" those who are perceived as "other", and the rise in
population densities leads to the emergence of a military elite, which
can institutionalise expropropriation of the agricultural product of
the peasant "underclass". These trends lead to the appearance of
societies stratified, not by individual ability, but by birth into a
particular social class.
So you see Gerry, relatively egalitarian societies have existed in the
past, and still exist today. Animal farm societies only are maintained
by the consent of the governed, who internalise feelings of inferiority
to those they see as "their betters". The upper class, by language,
dress and social mores seeks to distance themselves from the "proles",
who mystified, confused and divided amongst themselves, (so long as
ends almost meet) accept the status quo. Nevertheless peasant revolts
are possible, and have been found throughout history. If unsuccessful
they usually result in greater suppression than before. If successful,
they usually finish up creating yet a new class system, with a new
upper class, and the process begins all over again.
Hope this helps
John