John Croft writes on Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2000:
Let's explain this more slowly
In all social mammals - status differences are "earned" usually as a
result of combatitive display. The alpha lions usually are a group of
young brothers who oust a last solitary survivor of a previous group of
brothers, who becomes a solitary male (and usually dies shortly
thereafter of starvation). They kill all the cubs of the previous
alpha male (to bring the lionesses into oestrus) and mate. When they
reach maturity, the male cubs are ousted, and they travel and hunt as a
team, until they oust another solitary alpha male. One by one the
brothers die until a last male is ousted by a new set of brothers.
Gerry: Social structure based solely on the biological certainly
appears to be doomed and doesn't seem to enhance the survival of the
alpha male.
Alpha chimps have a similar system, in which the alpha male builds a
strategic alliance with a group of henchmen, who in return for
supporting the alpha male in his displacement of the previous alpha
male (who often becomes a shortlived solitary or may revert to lower
subordinate status), get rewarded by being given sexual access to the
females. Periodically, a pair bond develops between a single female
and a single male, and they leave the group, but are at risk of being
attacked and preyed upon by neighbouring bands.
Gerry: So among chimps, pair bonding places the couple in jeopardy of
attack by neighboring bands of chimps. Thus, *the group* becomes one of
the major factors in individual survival as opposed to pair bonding and
alpha male status.
In these cases, status is earned, and is temporary - lasting only as
long as the domination lasts.
This is true in hunter gatherer human societies too.
With the creation of socially stratified class-based societies another
type of stratification was added to this one. This was where people
were given ascribed characteristics of superiority or inferiority at
birth. The Indian caste system is a classic example. There, no amount
of personal achievement could ever allow a person to leave the caste
into which they were born. Thus Brahmins remained Brahmins, Kshatriya
remained Kshatriya etc. These "class-ascribed" based stratification
systems, as separate from the earlier "status-earned" ones (found in
humans and animals), are only found in a limited number of human
societies.
Gerry: The Indian caste system is a major *overview* of the concept of
class. Even within Brahmins, Kshatriya, Untouchables etc. are more
designations of class. All Brahmins are not created equal!
"Ascribed class based" societies are usually found in cases where a
group, exceeding the carrying capacity of the local environment,
attack, and confiscate the resources of neighbouring groups, enslaving
them in the process.
Gerry: That's because your "ascribed class" are thieves. They've
forgotten the social purely in favor of the biological. And why did
they enslave the neighboring groups? Stocking up the larder for the
next meal? Hee, Hee :-)
Upper class status here has nothing to do with
true merrit, rather it is determined by the group into which an
individual is ascribed. Apartheit in South Africa was an example where
"coloured" doctors were held to be inferior to labouring "whites" - an
ascribed status - not an earned one.
So when you say
> >>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".
These are not examples of "class". There are not a separate "class" of
chimps who are destined for alpha male status, irrespective of their
abilities, nor a "class" of pre-determined silver-backs who will come
to dominate, in the same way that an infant aristocrat would
automatically come to dominate in feudal Europe, or a Brahmin child
would automatically come to dominate in India.
Gerry: Yes there are certain chimps who are destined for alpha male
status. They are the ones who are larger, more agressive, perhaps
highter testosterone levels etc. and they *biologically* attain alpha
status. What happened in feudal Europe and Brahmin India was that an
agressive groups attained alpha status and to insure the survival of its
own kind, bamboozled the surrounding groups into adulation and respect
while managing to insure the survival of offspring who weren't
necessarily of alpha status.
Differences in status
exist between alpha and non alpha males, but it is not due to
predetermined (ascribed) social class differences.
> 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.
Gerry: You actually missed the irony ;-)
Social class isn't found in Australian Aborigines either.
Nor in many cultures. As far as alpha males in Chimps is concerned
they certainly do take turns. The previous alpha male is ousted, and a
new alpha male takes his place. Status here is earned - not ascribed.
Gerry: Status here is fang and tooth.
> John:
> >>Not at all, except that "class" is a cultural construct, uniquely
>>
> >>human.
>
Gerry: Only if you take the term "class" and seperate the biological
from the social. As far as I can tell, once you do this you've
eliminated the true sense of the term *class*.
> So species have no class at all and humans, contrary to modern day
science,
> are unique against the primieval backdrop of our lowly ape
ancestors...
Gerry: Again I say poppycock.
> John, even I have to say "poppycock" now and side with Gerry. Make up
your
> mind. Do animals have social classes or not? We know they can't eat
at the
> dinner table all too well but I'm very sure they have social class.
Humans are unique, just as the chimp is a unique species and a lion is
a unique species. Each has potential abilities that the others do not
have. Not all humans live in class stratified social systems - but,
yes, as far as we know, humans are unique in the social mammals in that
sometimes, under the conditions described above - class systems can and
do develop.
Gerry: Plese name me an example of classless unstratified social
system. AFAIK, none seem to exist.
> Many social animals must and do _organize_ themselves in some way in
order
> to interact with each other in an orderly fashion. Social
organization is a
> survival thing for the sake of the entire species and that much is
common
> sense as well as modern knowledge about social animals.
Gerry: And in order to ensure survival, a heirarchy of social class
must be developed, a slave/master symbiosis established, a gradation of
domestic duties, a gradation of survival tasks etc.
True, I am not arguing otherwise.
> It would follow that this necessary organization be called "class".
Do you
> think they just do whatever random thing that pops into their head
because
> they don't have the brain capacity for such "evolved" things?? They
wouldn't
> survive as well as they do if they didn't have some time of "class",
which
> is another word for "organization".
Why should it be called class? Rather it is a non-class based form of
social stratification, based upon earned status rather than ascribed
status.
Gerry: Perhaps you've overused the earned vs ascribed status which
AFAIK, both mean status. Splitting is as important as lumping but
reaches the carrying capacity when the terms no longer have funcion or
meaning.
The patterns of stratification in other social animals don't
have the chief characteristic of class - the fact that one is born into
it, or placed into it on the basis of "acribed" characteristics. Just
look at the novels of Jane Austen for instance - and the need to be
seen to be marrying within one's own class, and the risk that you and
your children will be seen as "lower class" if you marry outside your
station. Nothing to do with ability or earned status at all - total
ascription.
Gerry: Victorian England is an overused example of class.
> Hmm, I think I would side with John and say no to that one though.
>
> Kind of reminds me of that movie, I think it was called "Time
Machine" or
> something and it was made in the 50's thereabouts. Anyways. This guy
in the
> 19th century makes this time machine and he decides one day that
he'll
> travel a million years into the future. So off he goes and starts up
some
> really bad claymation special effects zooming around him as he
travels
> across the mysterious fourth dimension. The world wars go by and then
a
> mountain forms over him (and amazingly he isn't smothered to death)
and then
> it deteriorates and out before him is a beautiful and natural
landscape with
> some odd futuristic building in the distance that pecks at his
script-driven
> curiosity.
>
> So, yadayadayada, he befriends a ditsy but scantily clad Aryan girl
named
> Weena or Weenie or something, thus establishing himself as a noble
white
> heterosexual in order to be the eventual hero of the dated movie.
Now, Mr.
> Man learns that Weenie's part of this special "social class" where
they
> don't have to think about anything because they get everything handed
to
> them on a platter. Some annoying kid starts drowning in the river but
nobody
> saves them because they don't have to think about anything and
because they
> needed to give the producer's son a film debut.
>
> Anyways, turns out that there are another group of creatures ("blue
color",
> I believe, or is it "blue collar"?) that became sensitive to light
because
> they had been working for a million years and had evolved into cute
furry
> little ewoks that knew how to use other species for their greedy
purposes.
> Shocked as I am, this species is established as evil. The Aryan-heads
to
> which Weenie belonged were ditsy people who became the underclass or
> something and they didn't evolve very well at all and couldn't talk
about
> heady topics like linguistics or social classes like we can or make
run-on
> sentences and things.
>
> But in the end, the ditsy Aryan-head people won and... erh, oh no,
that's no
> good. That movie doesn't speak too well for both genetics nor past
racist
> attitudes. Come to think of it, it could have been called "Das Hitler
Zeit
> Maschine", can't remember, it's been a while...
Different book here. It was the Morlocks - the proles who won. The
book was H.G.Wells "Time Machine". I never saw the movie... sounds
like Hollywood poetic lisence again in which any similarity between the
book and the movie is purely coincidental.
> But anyways, I guess my point is that for a class to be genetically
> "breeded" into humanity, you need at least a million years, a good
time
> machine and a membership card at Blockbuster's. So make it a
Blockbuster's
> night!
No, social classes have existed possibly only six thousand years or so.
It did not exist before then. It is still fairly recent (which is why
it has not yet been "bred" into us in the way in which castes of
workers are bred into ants and bees.
Hope this helps
John
--
Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com