3 ms·

I think this is a good piece of writing, the only part I disagree with is the claim that these thoughts would be broadly overlooked or disagreed with. Seems I'

I think this is a good piece of writing, the only part I disagree with is the claim that these thoughts would be broadly overlooked or disagreed with. Seems I'm pretty much alone with this, but that's OK. I agree with other comments that it should have more links to prior philosophical and anthropological studies. This is not academic writing or an essay arguing for a point. At least, the point at rhetorical end seems a bit tacked-on. To me this is a stream-of-consciousness like text. Sometimes, being reductive helps in bringing a point across. I think that the article does this well. The close similarity of cronyism and tribalism is pointed out especially well, too. My critique would be that the text is a bit engagement-baity. And it uses the simplistic rhetoric so well that for the most part it feels as if the author is arguing for an abandonment of law and a return to "tribalism". The claim that people have "forgotten" the ideas of this essay seems unneeded. A more humble tone would maybe make this post more interesting to many readers.

AlotOfReading 1y ago
Can it really be good writing if the central premise that we followed a tribal "law of the jungle" for all of human history, is fundamentally flawed? I'd like to see literally any anthropology work from this century advocating it. For what it's worth, modern foragers that we can study are almost to a group stiflingly egalitarian. Being powerful and egoistic gets you quickly cut down to size in the social order. A few people (myself included, but more notably graeber) argue that other social structures were historically common and didn't survive to be recorded ethnographically. Neither of these suggest what the post is talking about. What they're calling tribalism is actually a characteristic of warfare, usually modern. That's not a normal social environment by any means and there's probably an interesting discussion to be had on it, but the author seemingly isn't even aware.
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  I'm not sure. I agree that the "law of the jungle" trope seems like an oversimplification. But the fact that cooperation was also present in pre-modern societies does not completely refute the point. That's why they are talking about tribes, not just families or individuals. I an not a professional historian or anthropoligist, but the scope and phenomenology of cooperation in ancient societies is not a question with a global, settled answer, as far as I'm concerned. I'm currently reading this book: https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschichte/dp/3948075093 https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschicht... It deals with many of these topics, especially the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture. It is more academically rigorous than the submission post, and it quotes other research. Unfortunately, there are two flaws: a) the author has transitioned to what we'd call a far-right activist prior to his suicide. He became known outside the scientific community due to his book "Finis Germania" (which I haven't read). But the book that I am reading was published much earlier, and well-received by the scientific community. The same goes for other works by him. He focused on the living conditions that allowed for a humanitarian mindset to even emerge, basically what humans do to provide the resources for living. b) there seems to be no English translation
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in German and haven't read any of his works. Can't really comment on it. Broadly, in the English speaking anthropology community, the views you'll find are pretty well summarized by Kelly's Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers, if you want English reading. The vast majority of these groups probably would have been very vocally egalitarian to avoid even the appearance of status and power. Everyone's aware of it, simply to avoid it because of the social repercussions that come from the association and the fact that others can simply leave you.
    - moritzwarhier 1y ago
      Thanks for your reply! The back-cover text of the book I linked explicitly says the same, but with a strong reversal of causation. Roughly translated and summarized, it says: "Genuinely egalitarian societies must be small and tight-knit". It kind of ties egalitarianism to hunter-gatherer tribes, and even doubts the possibility of egalitarianism in industrialized (and even agriculture-driven) socieities. I'm not here to replicate this claim, the book's contents are of course more nuanced that my summary of the cover text. I think it even quotes Kelly, but I'd have to move my fat ass to the shelve and look up the appendix to confirm this. It discusses many different works about pre-modern societies.

AlotOfReading 1y ago

Can it really be good writing if the central premise that we followed a tribal "law of the jungle" for all of human history, is fundamentally flawed? I'd like to see literally any anthropology work from this century advocating it. For what it's worth, modern foragers that we can study are almost to a group stiflingly egalitarian. Being powerful and egoistic gets you quickly cut down to size in the social order. A few people (myself included, but more notably graeber) argue that other social structures were historically common and didn't survive to be recorded ethnographically. Neither of these suggest what the post is talking about. What they're calling tribalism is actually a characteristic of warfare, usually modern. That's not a normal social environment by any means and there's probably an interesting discussion to be had on it, but the author seemingly isn't even aware.

moritzwarhier 1y ago
I'm not sure. I agree that the "law of the jungle" trope seems like an oversimplification. But the fact that cooperation was also present in pre-modern societies does not completely refute the point. That's why they are talking about tribes, not just families or individuals. I an not a professional historian or anthropoligist, but the scope and phenomenology of cooperation in ancient societies is not a question with a global, settled answer, as far as I'm concerned. I'm currently reading this book: https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschichte/dp/3948075093 https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschicht... It deals with many of these topics, especially the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture. It is more academically rigorous than the submission post, and it quotes other research. Unfortunately, there are two flaws: a) the author has transitioned to what we'd call a far-right activist prior to his suicide. He became known outside the scientific community due to his book "Finis Germania" (which I haven't read). But the book that I am reading was published much earlier, and well-received by the scientific community. The same goes for other works by him. He focused on the living conditions that allowed for a humanitarian mindset to even emerge, basically what humans do to provide the resources for living. b) there seems to be no English translation
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in German and haven't read any of his works. Can't really comment on it. Broadly, in the English speaking anthropology community, the views you'll find are pretty well summarized by Kelly's Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers, if you want English reading. The vast majority of these groups probably would have been very vocally egalitarian to avoid even the appearance of status and power. Everyone's aware of it, simply to avoid it because of the social repercussions that come from the association and the fact that others can simply leave you.
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    Thanks for your reply! The back-cover text of the book I linked explicitly says the same, but with a strong reversal of causation. Roughly translated and summarized, it says: "Genuinely egalitarian societies must be small and tight-knit". It kind of ties egalitarianism to hunter-gatherer tribes, and even doubts the possibility of egalitarianism in industrialized (and even agriculture-driven) socieities. I'm not here to replicate this claim, the book's contents are of course more nuanced that my summary of the cover text. I think it even quotes Kelly, but I'd have to move my fat ass to the shelve and look up the appendix to confirm this. It discusses many different works about pre-modern societies.