Okay, I'll put the rest of my previous post here rather than editing the first one.
I expressed a similar sentiment to some of my engineering friends after my first sociology class. Their response was: "Not if you're taking the higher-level math classes." In the more advanced areas of mathematics, problems frequently do not having a single definite correct answer.
I suspect that is more due to them not actually knowing the answers than to questions having multiple answers, but then I really suck at advanced math. (Which is why I became a socio-historian.)
I'm still of the opinion that the social sciences are not always held to quite the same level of scientific rigor as the physical ones, but it would be a mistake to claim that sociology does not involve the same process of research->hypothesis->experimental verification->analysis->review as other sciences. Particularly when you provide no support for these claims other than stating that you call yourself a socio-historian.
The note that I call myself a socio-historian is to indicate that I do not exempt myself from the disdain I express for the field.
Seriously. While I do classify myself as an expert in the field, and really have studied enough to merit some consideration when I present actual facts of history, I in no way expect any sort of automatic deferral to my conclusions. While I certainly possess enough ego to think I'm right, my insanity in no way includes believing I'm "proven" right.
As for supporting it, how many references to exploded social theories do you want?
I forget who pointed out the dispute over Chagnon's work on the Yanomamo (which by chance I happened to be assigned during my brief foray into formal study of the subject), but there's a start.
Then there are the issues with Mead's work on Samoa.
The whole realm of eugenics and related issues, with The Bell Curve being a present incarnation.
The Colonialism debate, particularly the extremes of both sides.
It is less a question of a lack of scientific rigor as that it is simply a field almost completely subverted to ideological ends rather than any functional goals. That such winds up encouraging incessant attacks on established views rather than legitimate direct research, and using influence to corrupt the review process to accomplish such, is more a symptom of the problem than the actual problem.
[Citation Needed]
Are you claiming that national governments are protecting modern hunter-gatherer tribes? Because that would be hilarious.
The Brazilian tribes once again, with the entire dispute over "contamination" by researchers.
You may find the efforts to be so feeble as to be laughable, and they may well be, but the fact that these groups continue to exist at all in any accessible areas is a priori evidence that they are being protected to at least some degree.
Why hunter-gatherers turned to agriculture isn't really relevant to the discussion, though it is an interesting question.
Ultimately, it is.
And it is critical for any analysis to understand why, as it is the foundation of understanding why everyone didn't switch over.
You are correct that the initial switch did lead to malnutrition, but from what I've read that was because the foods being cultivated did not supply all the same nutrients as their previous diet, even though the quantity of food being produced was greater. Same thing happens to modern-day vegetarians: try to subsist primarily on grains and vegetables and you're liable to develop some vitamin deficiencies. There weren't exactly a lot of nutritionists back in the Neolithic to teach people how to avoid that or prescribe supplements.
Most people, no matter how scientifically "unsophisticated" (which is my best attempt at a functional descriptor but even that falls short) are capable of understanding when they are dying of malnutrition and taking action to correct the situation. Anything from continuing pastoral habits to some extent to manipulating their foods to seeking other foods. While legends may construct a supernatural source of something like the Three Sisters, it is much more reasonable to expect that people kept eating different things until they found the combination that kept them alive.
I would note, this is again an element of cultural arrogance, specifically technological arrogance, presuming that a less technologically adept people are somehow less capable regarding certain things. Don't project what we need to know we are malnourished onto the people who first adopted agricultural ways.
Also, I don't think anyone has been claiming that early farming was as reliable or productive as the modern variety. The key points were that it allowed a settled, rather than nomadic, lifestyle and that it became successful enough to allow populations to grow beyond what a hunter-gatherer lifestyle could have supported.
Actually the key points are that it required a greater degree of social organization than that of nomadic hunter-gatherers or pastoralists, along with promoting a number of key technological advancements.
As it goes, farming doesn't "allow" a settled lifestyle, it requires it.
Pastoral societies are an interesting issue, however. They combine the semi-nomadic qualities of early hunter-gatherers with the greater focus on maintaining active control over their environment and food sources common to farming communities.
While they do focus on control of food sources, they express as little active control over the environment as hunter-gatherers. It was only later animal husbandry that employed environmental control.
Offhand I'd assume they would be less inclined towards the type of wealth disparity seen in agrarian tribes since the need to be mobile limits how much each member can accumulate, but more likely to see their lands and herds as "property" to be defended with violence. However, I haven't studied much about such cultures so I really wouldn't know. Do you have any information to share on the subject?
Well, first remember that "wealth" is a thoroughly subjective term.
That said, their herds, as their wealth, were very much to be defended with violence. Equally they were often to be acquired by violence.
In terms of other wealth, it really depends. How much would you value a high quality, composite, recurved bow? A string of 4 horses rather than 2? (Contrasted against additional sheep or cattle.) An ornately carved leather saddle? A yurt that can withstand a Siberian blizzard? A handful of beaten silver chains with carved agates? And probably most critically, the oaths of 10/100/1000 leaders of lesser bands.
And then contrasted against that, there is the number of pastoralists that invaded, conquered, and were assimilated by neighboring agriculturalists, with of course a previous period of raiding and collecting loot and tribute from said agriculturalists.
Did Genghis Khan and his family and closest allied leaders enjoy as great a wealth disparity from other Mongols as existed in some agricultural groups before they conquered China?
(And of course that should suggest the Genghis Khan quote used in the Conan movie as to what is best in life as a example of different standards of wealth.)
See, what you just described sounds to me like a perfect example of what I was talking about. You go from a system of mutual agreement to an increasingly stratified system where an ever-shrinking group at the top has the authority to use violence while those below them do not.
Not really.
The question of direct, personal, self-defense remains (mostly) intact.
It is only retaliatory violence above and beyond self-defense that has become limited because of the evolution of the agreements.
It is critical to note this distinction which you want to gloss over.
Does it not occur to you that the "King's peace" protects the king and his power? Blood feuds reduce the number of subjects supporting his empire, while peasants who are accustomed to using violence are harder to keep in line and pose a greater threat of rebellion.
Does it not occur to you that the "King's peace" protects the people from casual violence? Blood feuds threaten bystanders and "innocents" (non-combatants) as well as active participants. Meanwhile, to have an army the rulers must have subject accustomed to using violence.
Such a circumstance defined a very real two-way obligation. A king unable to enforce his declared peace was very soon not a king at all, particularly as kingship among the Anglo-Saxons in England was significantly more elective than directly inheritable. If you couldn't secure justice people were more than happy to back someone who could, be it a direct relative, a collateral relative, an alternative family, or even a long-time rival.
"Murder" is considered a crime in modern statist societies for the same reason that suicide is outlawed and defecting to another (or no) country is made so difficult--your life is not your own, it belongs to your rulers.
Which presumes that all "statist" societies are absolutely equal in their expectations and requirements of members.
They aren't.
And just as you repudiate "violent" anarchists there are more than a few of us who believe in an ordered society who reject utterly, both on ideological and practical grounds, the demands of those who believe in more ordered societies. As you do not wish to be lumped together do not lump others together.
When you set yourself above others using force of arms (actual or implied), you're painting a giant neon sign that says "violence is the way to get ahead." If you're a smart ruler, the first thing to do is convince your subjects that violence is inherently bad so they won't follow your example and use violence against you.
As it happens, while convincing fellow citizens that violence is not the way to get ahead, the particular social ideology I believe also concedes that citizens have an inherent right to use violence against the government if said government exceeds its lawful bounds.
Hmmm . . .
In a stateless society, discouraging violence is less of a concern, because force and aggression-based dominance are not explicitly rewarded by the social structure.
Sure they are - who exactly is going to stop it?
By what justification?
Right, people using force and aggression to defend themselves.
Ultimately, violence really does solve many things.
As for the other stuff you posted, I'm just going to say this:
Viewing yourself as "better" than someone else is never justified.
Sure it is.
I am quite justified in viewing myself as better than a rapist.
This isn't just some personal, subjective moral belief. History has demonstrated that valuing one person's life as less than another's leads to atrocities.
Non-sequiter - believing yourself to be "better" than someone is not identical to valuing their life less.
I am "better" at history than my friend.
He is "better" at being an electrician than I am.
If we were both hired to assist people in learning history, clearly I should be in charge. Conversely, if we were both hired to wire a house, he should be in charge. In fact, he should stay outside for the history class and I should be sent to the next county for safety purposes to wire the house.
This doesn't make either of us more or less valuable as a human than the other.
It does make our labor more or less valuable at different tasks, and thus our relative status within those fields higher or lower.
You cannot use a term as general as "better" in such discussions without significant explanation of the scope of the context.
Certainly no one should be "better" before the law.
But to disparage any concept or form of hierarchy as a consequence?
It's called dehumanization and it is the basis of every form of bigotry and prejudice known to man.
Well, in some cases, that is still justified.
Remember my confidence that I am better than a rapist?
I certainly regard said individual as less human than I am, and well deserving of death.
The social issue arises when it is determined if I alone have the power to accuse, judge, and sentence any individual for rape on my own, or whether such things must be decided by the community as a whole.
But I, and ever other functioning member of the community, can absolutely view ourselves as better than rapists without engendering any automatic dehumanization of any group, or even individual accused of rape.
And I would note that even in a stateless society people must make similar judgments as to whether some act makes a person less worthy of participation within their society, including meriting punishment. If they do not, then they can never find any way to resist someone using violence to establish supremacy over them.
This is the Catch-22 that people who declare themselves incapable of passing judgment but wish to challenge the authority of others to pass judgment find themselves in. What gives "me" the authority to decide? "You" do, by abdicating all responsibility of judgment.
So long as you agree that bigotry and oppression are bad things, it rationally follows that ideals which foster bigotry and oppression are also morally objectionable--and whether it's openly stated or not, hierarchical societies carry the implicit assumption that some people are worth less than others.
Not at all.
You are viewing "worth" in an extremely limited fashion - exclusively that of imperium.
That is not the only manifestation of a hierarchical system.
It may well be an inevitable end of certain hierarchical systems, suggesting that such systems must be regularly "reset" in some fashion (new elections, new constitutions, violent revolutions), but it does not mandate the kind of absolute and dehumanizing aspects you assert.
There is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing expertise and accomplishment. By generalizing "hierarchies" as solely expressing such distinctions as essential statements of humanity rather than acknowledgements of different personal ability, you create a society that discourages achievement, and thus overall advancement and development of wealth.
Equality sounds all well and good - until it is equally poor. Just how many hunter-gatherers can produce an internet capable device?
A lack of recognizing distinctions sounds wonderful - until the plumber is the guy treating your appendicitis and the sewer worker the one bringing you water to drink. Just how many hunter-gatherers have a life expectancy above 40?
