The Bushmen and their remarkable society

[Zostrianos]

Something that made a great impression on me a couple of years back was a documentary on South Africa's San tribes (better known as the Bushmen). Here was a society that in technological terms is as simple as it gets, but from a social standpoint it is arguably the most advanced human culture on this planet. Now, I don't believe in primitivism, but there are aspects of San society that put the rest of the world to shame, and there's a lot we need to learn from them.

The San have no violence or conflicts in their society. Whenever there is tension or a growing conflict, they get together, discuss the issue at hand until they reach a compromise that will satisfy all those concerned. This extends even into how parents deal with their children: they don't yell at or berate their kids, but calmly talk to them. In the documentary, a western anthropologist who had spent 10 years among the San confirmed that not once did he witness a single act of violence, dispute or even corporal discipline by anyone. Here's a relevant extract from the book The Bushmen on the civilized and egalitarian customs of their society:

Although initial marriages are often arranged by families, subsequent partnerships and their dissolution can come at the initiative of either sex. Women such as Nisa speak of a woman having lovers as a blessing - she can on her travels gain many tributes of food, affection, bonding and possessions that make life good. Domestic disputes which could become violent are often settled by protestations of concern from neighbouring families in their close-knit shelters. When a man does not help his partner she may scold and curse him publicly until the grumbling of the other forces him to take responsibility. When a major dispute threatens to burst into violence, it is confronted by the entire band in frank and forthright discussion, which leaves the offender in no doubt about the consensus of opinion concerning his behaviour and where it is likely to lead him. When their leisure is not beset with pressing problems, they exchange banter and merriment by the firelight, often talking about their relationships long into the night.

From a social point of view, we who live in the West are savages compared to these tribes. The first thing that popped into my mind when I discovered about the San was "Where have we gone wrong?"

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The Bushmen are an excellent example of an egalitarian society. I envy them in some respects.

A few years ago, in 2010, I picked up a Nat Geo magazine. In it was this article on the Hadza people. They are very similar to the Bushmen.

Here's the article I read: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text/1

[piet11111]

So they do know violence but they are stopped by the community before it can escalate.

While in our world when we hear our neighbors fighting we can only be arsed to call the police if we hear "please put down that gun/knife/other-weapon"

[RedHal]

I'm looking for the old 1950s Gardner and Marshall documentaries on the !Kung bushmen, if anyone knows where to download episodes, PM me!

I've only been able to find 1 episode on this blog, but it was hosted on megaupload so it's no longer available :crying:
http://cuandoeltiemposopla.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Marshall

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Biology and especially the evolutionary one, togheter with evolutionary antropology allways tend to confirm that socialism IS the true human nature. Things like democratic, grassroot democracy, fair distrubution of the resourcess, society is built on solidarity and really takes 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' in its real practice.

But they are also so few, which makes theire idylic living work so well. To co-op with the 7 billions of today i dont think that we can get such a warm and harmonic society as they, or the Hadza, or the Bayaka Pygmees has. But still way better then the current one.

[Zostrianos]

Biology and especially the evolutionary one, togheter with evolutionary antropology allways tend to confirm that socialism IS the true human nature. Things like democratic, grassroot democracy, fair distrubution of the resourcess, society is built on solidarity and really takes 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' in its real practice.

But they are also so few, which makes theire idylic living work so well. To co-op with the 7 billions of today i dont think that we can get such a warm and harmonic society as they, or the Hadza, or the Bayaka Pygmees has. But still way better then the current one.

That's what I find tragic: it seems a good, egalitarian society appears to be untenable in highly populated and urban centers. But I think part of the problem has to do with social inequality and capitalism as well.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

That's what I find tragic: it seems a good, egalitarian society appears to be untenable in highly populated and urban centers. But I think part of the problem has to do with social inequality and capitalism as well.

I know right? In one of his documentaries, David Morris speaks about this. Since we have never been prepared, evolutionary, for the amount of fellow humans that we have today, our brains tend to see others more like obsticles, such as rocks, trees and so when youre walking in a crowded citie (NYC; Seoul you name it). Instead of see each individual as we are 'suposed to do'.

[Mr. Natural]

The San/!Kung/Bushmen were surrounded by and immersed in nature's ecological (communal) relations and therefore tended to live communally, at least internally amongst themselves. They "automatically" lived according to the rhythms and relations of life and community.

The Tolowa are the Native American group in my area. This is a region rich in natural resources, and the Tolowa lived as well as any human group on Earth prior to the invasion of Europeans and their diseases.

Modern humans can no longer live well by hunting and gathering, but we sure as hell can live communally. We can develop ecological/communal/socialist relations in our cities--we just need to know how.

"Community" can take near-infinite forms. The point is that communities honor the human social individual: everyone belongs and gives and receives.

Life and communism are community. On several occasions I have pointed out that the base unit of life--the cell--is a communist community, for all of its parts "belong" and are maintained by and contribute to the overall community of the cell. Communism is natural.

The left, though, universally rejects the new sciences that reveal the organizational relations of life, community, and thus communism. What Marx and Engels thought of as "scientific socialism" is now rejecting the science that can bring it to life.

Example: the Sciences and Environment Forum. Technology and scientific discoveries are discussed, but there is no mention of the new sciences of organization, despite the inability of the left to organize.

Coincidence? No.

[bcbm]

Biology and especially the evolutionary one, togheter with evolutionary antropology allways tend to confirm that socialism IS the true human nature. Things like democratic, grassroot democracy, fair distrubution of the resourcess, society is built on solidarity and really takes 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' in its real practice.

there is no true human nature, gatherer-hunter egalitarianism is a dynamic survival response. the group lives in an egalitarian state because that is the best way for it to survive.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I know that the topic has been brought up many times here on revleft. And yes, our 'nature' is very easy to shape and addapt. But this egalitarian societies is the kind of world where we humans became what we are. And there are several small factors that seems to be almoust universal for ppl all around the world, such as the feeling rootlessness when youre brought up in a society thats very individualistic, when we are "made for" having lots of friends and comrades, so to speak.

[bcbm]

I know that the topic has been brought up many times here on revleft. And yes, our 'nature' is very easy to shape and addapt. But this egalitarian societies is the kind of world where we humans became what we are. And there are several small factors that seems to be almoust universal for ppl all around the world, such as the feeling rootlessness when youre brought up in a society thats very individualistic, when we are "made for" having lots of friends and comrades, so to speak.

this is speculation based on currently existing gatherer-hunter groups which have more or less been forced to extremes in order to survive, which requires extremely egalitarian relations and lack of violence. in cro-magnon archeological finds there is evidence of some social differentiation via ornamentation, evidence of murder and warfare, etc. some of these have been observed in more recent gatherer-hunter groups as well. as for 'lots of friends and comrades' most cro-magnon groups were probably smallish family groups who would meet with other similar groups on special occasions for rituals, 'marriages,' whatever.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

indeed it is specualtions, since we dont have to much evidence to proove anything frome this era. There are remains of ppl that have been murdered, but they are the once that gets much of the attention and im skeptic to say that they represent whole cultures and periods. The hunter-gatherers of today that are violent (often found in Papua New Guinea and the Amazones) are often semi farmers because of lacking resources.

[bcbm]

very little could represent 'whole cultures and periods,' we are severely lacking in evidence. the point is that even within gatherer-hunter groups there was probably a range of social organization and violence and we should be hesitant to talk about things like 'human nature' and what we were 'made to do,' as something outside of the conditions that produce modes of social organization

[Tavarisch_Mike]

very little could represent 'whole cultures and periods,' we are severely lacking in evidence. the point is that even within gatherer-hunter groups there was probably a range of social organization and violence and we should be hesitant to talk about things like 'human nature' and what we were 'made to do,' as something outside of the conditions that produce modes of social organization


Oh! Dont get me wrong im not into this primitivistic romantisising of resarecting Rossous Noble Savage, which says that evrything, back in the days, where just peaches and cream. No no. Its more of an injection towards the right-wingers talk about humna nature, that we all are greedy, savage and hiarchly by nature, Nothing we can do about that, This justyfies todays society, capitalism is as obvious a the theory of relativity. Thats why i like to point out that the latest reseach of the human evolution shows that thiere picture of paleoliticum isnt right. But i do not denie that there where a hell lot of problems then too, and we have never been free from the ugliest of mankinds chracters even then.

[Zealot]

Besides the fact that killing off people every year would be detrimental to the survival of a tribe, Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel makes the point that bureaucratic institutions were unnecessary in small groups connected by blood and marriage:


"One reason why the organization of human government tends to change from that of a tribe to that of a chiefdom in societies with more than a few hundred members is that the difficult issue of conflict resolution between strangers becomes increasingly acute in larger groups. A fact further diffusing potential problems of conflict resolution in tribes is that almost everyone is related to everyone else, by blood or marriage or both. Those ties of relationships binding all tribal members make police, laws and other conflict-resolving institutions of larger societies unnecessary, since any two villagers getting into an argument will share many kin, who apply pressure on them to keep it from becoming violent. In traditional New Guinea society, if a New Guinean happened to encounter an unfamiliar New Guinean while both were away from their respective villages, the two engaged in a long discussion of their relatives, in an attempt to establish some relationship and hence some reason why the two should not attempt to kill each other."

- Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel (London: Vintage, 2005), 271-272.

[ckaihatsu]

In traditional New Guinea society, if a New Guinean happened to encounter an unfamiliar New Guinean while both were away from their respective villages, the two engaged in a long discussion of their relatives, in an attempt to establish some relationship and hence some reason why the two should not attempt to kill each other."


This is some *very* suspect research that really smacks of a standard bourgeois *pessimistic* attitude or coloration.

I'll argue that -- while Diamond's empirical research may be *generically* valuable -- his entire approach to historical development is *fetishistic* and *not* dialectical. This standard bourgeois fetishistic mindset inevitably encourages a *pessimistic* outlook since human beings and our relations become *dehumanized* and *devalued* in comparison to the fetishized material objects. If one wishes to *emphasize* the glass-half-empty outlook on the human condition (as with "human-nature"-type arguments), it's not necessarily because the "glass" *isn't* "half-empty", but rather that one consciously subjectively decides to *only* use the glass-half-empty outlook as a mindset for their *entire* analysis -- as in this case where "two strangers meeting" would feel compelled to find reasons why *not* to kill each other.

In other words it's a paticularly macabre outlook to have for reporting on research or discussing the human condition, and I seriously wonder whether his empirical research backs up this sweeping generalization about New Guinean culture and personalities.

[Zealot]

Well this is just a short quote from his book and I found his reasoning quite dialectical and materialist in many parts. Diamond actually spent quite a lot of time in Papua New Guinea and he frequently references it in his book going so far as to say they are "more intelligent" than other modern humans because of their extensive knowledge about their environment (although I suspect he only said this as a rhetorical device because he expresses his worry that people may think he's writing a racist tract since the book is essentially about why Eurasia developed faster than the other continents).

I agree that it was probably a sweeping generalization of New Guinean society but it can't be doubted that this happened, I've seen it myself in my own country where tribes don't actually exist in a literal sense, but tribal culture inherited from parents and grandparents still prevails in some parts (in fact, in my own family), including the tribal conflict-resolution method. I've even witnessed a case of "two strangers meeting" discussing who their family is to prevent a fist fight breaking out (not a murder, I'll concede). That is obviously anecdotal so make of it what you will but his main point is still valid.

He's written a separate book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, which could be interesting to read and find whether or not he really does have a "standard bourgeois *pessimistic* attitude or coloration."

[ckaihatsu]

He's written a separate book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, which could be interesting to read and find whether or not he really does have a "standard bourgeois *pessimistic* attitude or coloration."




I agree that it was probably a sweeping generalization of New Guinean society but it can't be doubted that this happened, I've seen it myself in my own country where tribes don't actually exist in a literal sense, but tribal culture inherited from parents and grandparents still prevails in some parts (in fact, in my own family), including the tribal conflict-resolution method. I've even witnessed a case of "two strangers meeting" discussing who their family is to prevent a fist fight breaking out (not a murder, I'll concede). That is obviously anecdotal so make of it what you will but his main point is still valid.


Yes, the social example is *anecdotal* -- exactly. I'll rephrase and say that Diamond is *dramatizing* a perfectly ordinary, commonplace event, regardless of culture or location.

Most strangers *anywhere* have no "constructive" reason to lash out randomly at another, so it just wouldn't be worth the bother unless they somehow felt *threatened* by the other. Conversing about one's own familial background upon meeting a stranger is, again, perfectly ordinary, and I don't think social anxiety or fear is the motivation for it.





Well this is just a short quote from his book and I found his reasoning quite dialectical and materialist in many parts. Diamond actually spent quite a lot of time in Papua New Guinea and he frequently references it in his book going so far as to say they are "more intelligent" than other modern humans because of their extensive knowledge about their environment


I'll take this opportunity to point out *another* instance of dramatization / fetishization: Bourgeois culture is replete with competitiveness over "intelligence", whatever that may be. More to the point, and away from such fetishization, is that we both adapt-to and change our environments according to needs and wants, not unlike any other living organism.

If some seem "more intelligent" it's just that their particular cultural environment happens to be more information-filled or may be less-known to the observer.