Re: Egalitarian societies and language

Gerry wrote

> 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).

Ascriptive vs achieved status systems are common categories in the
sociological literature. Achieved status seems to have been the state
found in most hunter-gatherer societies that are not pressing on the
carrying capacity of the natural environment. It is also the case in
most social species. Ascriptive status systems are found only in
humans and are an artifact of agrarian or horticultural societies,
linked to the social stratification systems we usually call "social
class".

Gerry said

> 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.

I see no problem with such nested holarchies.

> 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?

Not at all, except that "class" is a cultural construct, uniquely human.

> 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.

I believed you were speaking of social class. Social class is not
something found just in European cultures. It is found in all state
societies; often a tripartite definition between aristocracy, commoners
and peasants.

> 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.

It is far from being pure poppycock Glen. I would suggest you read a
little of Australian Aboriginal Anthropology. R.M. and C Berndt "The
World of the First Australians" is a good starting place. The moieties
for the Nyungar people, for instance (the Aboriginal people of the
South West of Australia where I live) were manitjmaat (white cockatoo)
or wardungmaat (crow). Which one of those was superior? Neither, they
were equal. Traditionally, manitjmaat men had to marry wardungmaat
wives and their children were wardungmaat. Wardungmaat men married
manitjmaat women and their children were manitjmaat. To the people in
the groups (as well as to the anthropologist) they were equal.
Although the patterns were different, this was true throughout
Australia.

> 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.

Yes, they all started as "children of the band" - they received the
same care and attention as any other child. They received the same
foods, heard the same stories, played the same games, associated with
all the other children as equals.

> 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.

Not if the one who shoots the squirrel is a shaman, or the tribal
storyteller, or the most skilled healer, or the best intergroup
linguist.

> 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?

Not ascribed.

> 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?

Gerry this is a racist social Darwinism that has been rejected by all
the reputable literature since World War II. Such attitudes were
brought into disrepute as it underpinned the race theories of Nazism.
Proles, brought up in upper middle class families, adopt upper middle
class attitudes. Upper class children brought up in peasant
suroundings will think, speak, act and behave as a peasant - nothing
biological there - and not much to do with selection. It has nothing
to do with selection or biology - it has to do with culture and
sociology.

Hope this helps

John