Is the primary mechanism by which stateless societies cooperate to prevent unequal distributions of power really just to suppress the innovators? You would think that some tribe would instead consider forcing the innovators to share their methods with everyone else, which would allow everyone to prosper while still preventing anyone from getting too far ahead. I guess punishing the one is easier than educating the many, but I would like to think that humanity could evolve toward doing things the other way around.
I think that’s not the way how people instinctively think. Consider following statement: “Wall Street bankers should be stripped of their wealth/heavily taxed/prosecuted.” Ignore whether it would be a good policy or not. Still, it’s a human way to think and many do adopt that kind of stance. Now consider the opposite: “Wall Street bankers should be forced to share their methods so that everyone can prosper.” That’s quite an alien approach and one would be hard pressed to find many people who actually think that.
For the psychology behind it consider this article which describes how !Kung people of Kalahari were insulting an ox they were given, calling it a bag of bones and similar. When asked why, they’ve explained:
Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle
Is the primary mechanism by which stateless societies cooperate to prevent unequal distributions of power really just to suppress the innovators?
I’ve seen it used as an example before. I think the reasons are:
a) this book is popular?
b) It’s interesting because it’s a striking approach. I think it gets mentioned because of the difference, not necessarily the prevalence.
c) Or perhaps that society is closer to us in time, or lasted longer and is easier to study?
d) Maybe its design perhaps helps it last, and maintain stability, at the cost of being a worse approach:
These socio-political arrangements caused great frustration to British attempts to incorporate the population into Colonial Nigeria and establish an administration on the lower Benue. The strategy of indirect rule, which the British felt to be highly successful in regards to ruling over the Hausa and Fulani populations in Northern Nigeria, was ineffective in a segmentary society like the Tiv. Colonial officers tried various approaches to administration, such as putting the Tiv under the control of the nearby Jukun, and trying to exert control through the councils of elders (“Jir Tamen”); these met with little success.
I don’t know, frankly. But what I find fascinating is that one finds the tall poppy syndrome in any society. It almost feels like something inherent to human nature. Does it mean that there’s something adaptive about it? And if so, are the societies like Tiv just those that that managed to take the full advantage of that potential?
Is the primary mechanism by which stateless societies cooperate to prevent unequal distributions of power really just to suppress the innovators? You would think that some tribe would instead consider forcing the innovators to share their methods with everyone else, which would allow everyone to prosper while still preventing anyone from getting too far ahead. I guess punishing the one is easier than educating the many, but I would like to think that humanity could evolve toward doing things the other way around.
I think that’s not the way how people instinctively think. Consider following statement: “Wall Street bankers should be stripped of their wealth/heavily taxed/prosecuted.” Ignore whether it would be a good policy or not. Still, it’s a human way to think and many do adopt that kind of stance. Now consider the opposite: “Wall Street bankers should be forced to share their methods so that everyone can prosper.” That’s quite an alien approach and one would be hard pressed to find many people who actually think that.
For the psychology behind it consider this article which describes how !Kung people of Kalahari were insulting an ox they were given, calling it a bag of bones and similar. When asked why, they’ve explained:
Interesting that some states seem to do the opposite of this. (Like with Disney’s eternal copyright.)
Is the primary mechanism by which stateless societies cooperate to prevent unequal distributions of power really just to suppress the innovators?
I’ve seen it used as an example before. I think the reasons are:
a) this book is popular?
b) It’s interesting because it’s a striking approach. I think it gets mentioned because of the difference, not necessarily the prevalence.
c) Or perhaps that society is closer to us in time, or lasted longer and is easier to study?
d) Maybe its design perhaps helps it last, and maintain stability, at the cost of being a worse approach:
I don’t know, frankly. But what I find fascinating is that one finds the tall poppy syndrome in any society. It almost feels like something inherent to human nature. Does it mean that there’s something adaptive about it? And if so, are the societies like Tiv just those that that managed to take the full advantage of that potential?
is it an instinct present in ‘feral humans’?
No idea. I was just speculating.