4 ms·

Can you summarize three of these paradigm shifts?

culi 5y ago
Lol this sounds like a class assignment. E.g. the origins of agriculture. It's going from the idea of having a single point of origin to multiple (~15-20) points of origins around the world. Another major shift in thinking about agriculture is realizing it wasn't so much of a technological advancement (indeed agricultural people had radically reduced lifespans, less leisure time, more disease, etc) as something people were likely forced into. And most people around the world grew at least part of their food or at least had the knowledge to do it so people shifted in and out of agriculture commonly. Another major shift in thinking is around cities. In anthropology the concept of cities have actually been defined by hierarchical social structures. We have more and more examples of many very large rural places that very much go against the idea and drive a big hole in the idea that hierarchy is a natural biproduct of increasing populations. I could go on. One that I wish got covered more in the book was the relationships between cultures and ecologies. This is more of a major shift in archaeobotany and will probably take a while to be fully fleshed out and reach the wider public, but archeologists are increasingly seeing, for example, the Amazon rainforest as a manufactured landscape. One that was very heavily shaped by the indigenous peoples that lived in them and would not be around in the way that it is without them. Same for California and it's deep dependence on cultural burning practices and also for most of Australia that early colonists often described as looking like a "giant well-managed park".
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Thanks! That’s helpful. I was a little bit aware of these paradigm shifts, and it’s useful to know that Graeber was important in discovering and/or popularizing them.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > We have more and more examples of many very large rural places that very much go against the idea and drive a big hole in the idea that hierarchy is a natural biproduct of increasing populations. For those that are unaware, this is basically the core of anarchist political theory; hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force.
  - vishnugupta 5y ago
    To add to it, “an-archy” literally means the absence of top-down order, in a way the opposite of “hire-archly”.
    - teddyh 5y ago
      hier-archy
      - culi 5y ago
        that too
  - ChainOfFools 5y ago
    > hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force by force of whom? Gods? Aliens? or was it by the humans within that society? this hypothesis has naturalistic fallacy written all over it.
    - krapp 5y ago
      I assume by force they mean coercion by other humans with a greater capacity for violence or control over resources, although the obvious contrary example would be the natural hierarchy of families, of which tribal and clan societies were an extension. Knowledge and skill also tend to create hierarchies without necessarily requiring coercion, depending on how valuable that is in a specific society, although consolidating that power probably does require coercion, at least by keeping knowledge secret.
      - culi 5y ago
        This is a bit of a tangent to your comment, but I still kinda wanted to point it out. In chimpanzee cultures, the "alpha males" are rarely the strongest or most violent ones. It's usually the most charismatic chimps that get along with the most other members of the group and have their support. Usually the approval of the elders plays a big role. In some of the Northeast woodland cultures talked about in the book they had similar leadership models based on charisma. Charisma here doesn't really mean just having a way with words (though it does also mean that). It means being able to understand the needs of all the members and having their approval Whether or not you wanna call this "hierarchy without coercion" is mostly a matter of semantics and what you ultimately define as "hierarchy". But I think a key difference to point out is that these positions of leadership don't really hold any permanent power. They have a lot of influence, but that influence can be taken away as easily as it's given to them
- vishnugupta 5y ago
  > more in the book was the relationships between cultures and ecologies. Though he does touch on this topic in the chapter about the origins of private property. Specifically that foragers did in fact took active care of, and shaped, their ecology not unlike farmers. It’s just that they didn’t have a burning need to permanently stick with the domestication of plants and animals as the food was abundantly available to them.

culi 5y ago

Lol this sounds like a class assignment. E.g. the origins of agriculture. It's going from the idea of having a single point of origin to multiple (~15-20) points of origins around the world. Another major shift in thinking about agriculture is realizing it wasn't so much of a technological advancement (indeed agricultural people had radically reduced lifespans, less leisure time, more disease, etc) as something people were likely forced into. And most people around the world grew at least part of their food or at least had the knowledge to do it so people shifted in and out of agriculture commonly. Another major shift in thinking is around cities. In anthropology the concept of cities have actually been defined by hierarchical social structures. We have more and more examples of many very large rural places that very much go against the idea and drive a big hole in the idea that hierarchy is a natural biproduct of increasing populations. I could go on. One that I wish got covered more in the book was the relationships between cultures and ecologies. This is more of a major shift in archaeobotany and will probably take a while to be fully fleshed out and reach the wider public, but archeologists are increasingly seeing, for example, the Amazon rainforest as a manufactured landscape. One that was very heavily shaped by the indigenous peoples that lived in them and would not be around in the way that it is without them. Same for California and it's deep dependence on cultural burning practices and also for most of Australia that early colonists often described as looking like a "giant well-managed park".

Robotbeat 5y ago
Thanks! That’s helpful. I was a little bit aware of these paradigm shifts, and it’s useful to know that Graeber was important in discovering and/or popularizing them.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> We have more and more examples of many very large rural places that very much go against the idea and drive a big hole in the idea that hierarchy is a natural biproduct of increasing populations. For those that are unaware, this is basically the core of anarchist political theory; hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force.
- vishnugupta 5y ago
  To add to it, “an-archy” literally means the absence of top-down order, in a way the opposite of “hire-archly”.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    hier-archy
    - culi 5y ago
      that too
- ChainOfFools 5y ago
  > hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force by force of whom? Gods? Aliens? or was it by the humans within that society? this hypothesis has naturalistic fallacy written all over it.
  - krapp 5y ago
    I assume by force they mean coercion by other humans with a greater capacity for violence or control over resources, although the obvious contrary example would be the natural hierarchy of families, of which tribal and clan societies were an extension. Knowledge and skill also tend to create hierarchies without necessarily requiring coercion, depending on how valuable that is in a specific society, although consolidating that power probably does require coercion, at least by keeping knowledge secret.
    - culi 5y ago
      This is a bit of a tangent to your comment, but I still kinda wanted to point it out. In chimpanzee cultures, the "alpha males" are rarely the strongest or most violent ones. It's usually the most charismatic chimps that get along with the most other members of the group and have their support. Usually the approval of the elders plays a big role. In some of the Northeast woodland cultures talked about in the book they had similar leadership models based on charisma. Charisma here doesn't really mean just having a way with words (though it does also mean that). It means being able to understand the needs of all the members and having their approval Whether or not you wanna call this "hierarchy without coercion" is mostly a matter of semantics and what you ultimately define as "hierarchy". But I think a key difference to point out is that these positions of leadership don't really hold any permanent power. They have a lot of influence, but that influence can be taken away as easily as it's given to them
vishnugupta 5y ago
> more in the book was the relationships between cultures and ecologies. Though he does touch on this topic in the chapter about the origins of private property. Specifically that foragers did in fact took active care of, and shaped, their ecology not unlike farmers. It’s just that they didn’t have a burning need to permanently stick with the domestication of plants and animals as the food was abundantly available to them.