Gerry:
> 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.
John: 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.
Gerry: Your labels of earned vs unearned status are reasonably
confusing since anyone can take any entity and subdivide it. You simply
take that entity (here it's "status") take the thesis (which is earned)
then flip it into the antithesis (unearned). What I'm more interested
in is the synthesis between the individual and the group. It seems to
me that each one of us are BOTH an individual and part of a group.
We're an individual meme (or Borg) as well as part of a larger whole.
We speak our local language and use English as the language of the web.
We are Candadian but also part of the World.
John: 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".
Gerry: What's wrong with class being found in Chimpanzees? Are you
being discriminatory? Do those alpha males of yours take turns in being
alpha?
John: 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,
Gerry: Oh, so now you have deliniated class to mean social class. And
what is the hierarchy that determines who is higher on the social class
ladder? Let's see -- a huge home in the suburbs, a vacation home in the
country and a pied au terre in the city, several mink coats, and a few
fancy cars in the driveway etc. etc. etc.
John: 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.
Gerry: I'm sure to the anthropologist viewing the moieties, these
groups were equal; however, to the individual groups, I'll bet the bear
clan was superior to the rabbit moiety. The remainder of what you say
is pure poppycock.
John: 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,
Gerry: how can everyone start at the same point? Sounds like wishful
thinking to me.
John: 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.
Gerry: But I'll bet the hunter who fells a tiger is more BMOC than one
who shoots a squirrel.
John: So you see Gerry, relatively egalitarian societies have existed
in the past, and still exist today.
Gerry: And why must you use the term "relatively egalitarian". Does
that mean "just a little bit egalitarian"! Then what's the other little
bit? Stratified?
John: 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.
Gerry: What a negative attitude towards class! Them proles are
mystified and confused because they were born mystified and confused.
It's natural selection, it's biological, and it's survival. They think
they're fit so why shouldn't they survive?
John: Nevertheless peasant revolts
are possible, and have been found throughout history.
Gerry: Usually these peasants are in greater numbers than the elite
thus their success.
John: 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.
Gerry: Yup. A group of proles in bowling shirts creating the new class
system from the bottom up. Really sounds swift, doesn't it. But it
happens all the time: Peasant Revolution in England, 1789 in France,
Russian Revolution in 1917, 1776 in the US.
--
Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com