Kottak Ch. 5 - Making A Living (Subsistence)

HERE ARE SOME OF THE CHAPTER OBJECTIVES Know what an adaptive strategy is. In addition, you should be familiar with Cohen's typology of societies based on their adaptive strategies. Understand examples of how today's globalizing world and state policies are altering the ways of life of many communities that traditionally practiced different adaptive strategies. Distinguish between modes and means of production Understand how industrialism leads to the alienation of producers from their products. Distinguish between the various forms of distribution and exchange, including the market principle, redistribution, and generalized, balanced, and negative reciprocity. Click here to read the previous posts on the potlatch and watch two brief videos of the ritual. Specifically, you should know what it is, where it has been practiced, and how it relates to local and regional patterns of resource abundance and shortage. What role do religious and social ceremonies play in an economy? Answer: The potlatch of the native groups of the North Pacific coast of North America is a good example of the integral role a festival can play in a group's economy. The sponsors of a potlatch traditionally gave away food, blankets, pieces of copper, and other material goods. In return, they gained social prestige, and the more they gave away, the more their prestige increased. Like most regions of the world, the North Pacific coast of North America is subject to local fluctuations in resource abundance. One village might have a good year while another experienced a bad one. A village enjoying a good year would take advantage of its surplus to increase its prestige by hosting a potlatch and inviting the members of the surrounding villages to attend. In this way, the potlatch created and maintained a regional economy in which a series of villages pooled their resources. The needy villages would receive the surplus from the wealthy villages, which in turn gained prestige.

Ch. 6 Political Systems - Social Networks from Bands and Beyond

I was thinking about why humans created political systems. Was it to create ways of dealing with conflicts within bands or among tribes? Is this what led to the creation of laws? And who gets to make the laws and why?

The following list about the complexity of groups helps me understand the need for political systems on a level I hadn't considered before. As human population began to increase and more and more "strangers" began to interact. Their ideas of how to subsist changed and needed to be managed on some level. And there was a need to cope with the exponential relations that came with larger and larger populations--governance became a necessity or so it seemed.

The Complexity of Groups
2 people = 1 relation
3 people = 3 relations
4 people = 6 relations
5 people = 10 relations
12 people = 66 relations
35 people = 600 relations
50 people = 1225 relations

Wesch has a diagram that suggests two ways humans have organized themselves -- (uncentralized) INFLUENCE and (centralized) POWER -- as we moved from bands and tribes to chiefdoms and states. You might consider Chapter 6 a way of looking at how "law & order" came into being. If you add the barrel model of culture to this and think about ideas alone, somehow we need uncentralized and centralized ways of organizing ideas alone. That's what the information age has come to be about in some ways. It's also what TED is doing with their tag "IDEAS WORTH SPREADING". They use video to share ideas with a world of people no matter what their level of wealth, power and prestige (Weber).


Wesch's list (above) of the complexity of groups also makes me think of Web 2.0 (click the tags for references to Web 2.0 at the top of the blog). Web 2.0 or online social networks like MySpace and Facebook are allowing a new kind of governance for the people, of the people, by the people more or less. Or is it a return to the egalitarianism of bands?

The Internet, esp. Web 2.0 -- user-generated-content stage of the WWW-- is allowing millions of users to mix both the INFLUENCE of being in a small band or tribe with the POWER of industrialization. Individuals can broadcast like state governments once exclusively did. You and I can talk to the writers of our textbooks or government officials with ease.

Students can write THEIR OWN textbooks and create THEIR OWN education with other students around the world whether in Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or just the South Bronx. They all can access and use info immediately without being limited by wealth, power or prestige (Weber). That was nearly impossible in my time before the Web appeared esp. for the lowest class of folks in our society or for folks outside the U.S. in developing countries. Now with a laptop at an Internet Cafe you can reach the world with the click of a mouse and a keyboard.

QUESTION FOR COMMENTS: How are people in industrialized nations claiming or reclaiming being egalitarian in the anthropological sense? Conversely, how are people in developing nations becoming powerful--in the sense of the "achieved status" found in the U.S.? Could someone from a lower caste in India move beyond their "ascribed status" today and how so? Do a little homework on Google with this one. Don't just share your own opinion. Gather evidence online.

P.S.
I love the image (below) of the world that shows the various social networking sites that dominate each region. Facebook and Myspace are dominant in the U.S. but not so elsewhere.

Consider all the networks being created BEYOND BORDERS with the WWW. For example, you've heard of doctors without borders, but what about teachers without borders, mothers without borders, architects without borders, students without borders, lawyers without borders, to CEOs without borders. Google any of these for more info.

Ch. 6 Politcal Systems: Wealth, Power and Prestige (Max Weber's Theory)

Max Weber formulated a three-component theory of social stratification--wealth (property), power (political power or party class), and prestige (social status and honor).

The three constitute the three sides of a triangle, so to speak, regarding a person's status in society or the "life chances." How do these slides suggest the malleability, the shifting status and integration of these elements?

The man in with the Dairy Queen ice cream is Warren Buffet. He is once again the world's richest man.

NYU Students Would Trade the Right to Vote for an Ipod Touch or Full Tuition

Tuesday in class, Stephen Seymour (4:10 section) showed me a set of statistics on a study done at NYU that appeared in an issue of THE ECONOMIST. It said something like students at NYU were surveyed and would give up their right to vote for a year in exchange for an iPod touch and they'd give up their right to vote forever for free tuition (a free ride). I was stunned.

What's interesting is to compare and contrast the November 22nd print version that appeared in The Economist (very short):

For sale
A poll of New York University students revealed that 20% would give up their vote in the next election for an iPod and two-thirds would do so for a year's college tuition. Half would renounce their vote permanently for $1m.

with the longer version dated November 14th that appeared in The Politico:

...66 percent said they'd forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million.

But they also overwhelmingly lauded the importance of voting.

Ninety percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for the money also said they consider voting "very important" or "somewhat important"; only 10 percent said it was "not important."

Also, 70.5 percent said they believe that one vote can make a difference — including 70 percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for free tuition.

The class — "Foundations of Journalism," taught by journalism department chairwoman Brooke Kroeger — polled more than 3,000 undergraduates between Oct. 24 and 26 to assess student attitudes toward voting.

Which version says more and what difference does it make to the reader? How might the shorter or longer version be better or worse for cultural perceptions of college students? In what way does each contribute to stratification along class lines and to concerns about wealth, power and prestige in the U.S.?

Chapter 7 Poltical Systems

Chapter 7 dicusses about Political Systems and how they affect everyday life. Anthropologist use a sociopolitical typology to classify societies. These titles include the following: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, or states. Foragers use a band- oragnized approach. Bandleaders could not enforce laws or punishments and were first among equals. In horiculture villages leaders have limited power so they lead by persuassion and example. age and gender can also have an effect on politics. Males are seen as the warriors and have to earn movement in grades. The state is made up of many communites and is based on a centural government and social stratification. Chiefdoms are similar to states but lack stratificatio. Like bands and tribes, chiefdoms are organized by kinship, marriage, and descent. According to Weber, the three dimensions of stratification: wealth, power, and prestige. A socioeconomic stratum encompasses people of all ages and sexes. Population control, judiciary, enforcement, and fiscal are systems found in all states. A ruling system or government regulates the state.

One interesting subject we learned in reading this Chapter was about the Inuit. The male role in society took a great affect on prestige. Similar to today, most disputes were over women. Since no government existed rivals challegned each other to a song battle. This is similar to rap in today's world in which songs are made about other rappers in defense of one's self. We also found it interesting that thefts were uncommon. Every man took care of himself and there was no notion of private ownership. Americans pride themselves on competion. If there was no government, as memebers of the class do you feel Americans could handle situations in a justified way as the Inuits did? On the other hand, why do people feel the need to result to competition as a means of just getting by? Power and competion play a major factor in our everyday lives. As citizens and avergae students do you think this can ever change?

This is another video about the Inuits in Chapter 7. We tried to delete the previous post but are unsure if it worked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz9-e8h2Zo8. Being a band/ community in northern Canada, the Inuits are effected by globalwarming. This people are threatended by assimilation. The food production is deteriorating as a reault of globalwarming since the Inuits are interconnected with the enviornment around them. As memebers of the American community, do you feel that it is just to so call "upgrade" people and force them to live industrialized? If not, what can we do as human beings to help or change the future of our world?