Re: [ox-en] Multi-local societies and Global Villages
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
I think I agree with you, in that any society will exhibit different measures of hierarchy and participation. Tribal hierarchies were 'soft', based largely on objective attributes (age, gender), not kept in place by the state. But it's not just about having the right people in charge, but of having the 'right' process to combine both selection for excellence and the broadest possible form of participation.
If you want to have a generous view of the anti-technological stance, you will find that most do use technology, and that they in fact reject a particular form of technology, one that is largely determined by the type of society in which it operates. And it does seem to me that tribal living arrangements would implicate that producers are implicitely emancipated. It's rather a matter fo them to do it in the here and now rather than wait for a hypothetical total revolution.
It's walking away concept, doesn't it strangely echoe Negri's Exodus?
Christoph Reuss <crox iac-research.ch> wrote: Michael Bouwens wrote yesterday:
Daniel Quinn's neo-tribalism
(http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Beyond_Civilization), is not a
primitivist plea for a return to the tribal era, but rather for a return
of the type of close relationships which existed at that time,
but starting from the conditions of today. I have not studied it in depth,
but I think it makes a lot of sense.
Well, if you will study it in depth, you may find out that it doesn't make
a lot of sense... E.g. Quinn's basic claim in the text referenced above
is that "Tribalism is non-hierarchical" -- wrong! Tribes have chiefs
and clan hierarchies (i.a. in family clans, e.g. parents > children,
and oldest sibling > ... > youngest sibling). The hierarchies may be less
tall and more informal than in complex civilizations, but that is mainly
due to the small population size of the tribe, and it doesn't mean the
absence of hierarchy!
Quinn makes the grave mistake of vilifying hierarchy as such when in fact
the problem isn't hierarchy but who is in charge (incompetent predators).
If hierarchy is based on technical competence and real on-the-ground
abilities, it is good and makes sense, in that the decisions will be made
by those who actually know best, instead of by bullies, fraudsters or
preposterous fools.
But the main problem with (radical) neo-tribalism, as you found out in the
2nd posting, is that it is anti-technology. And I may add, anti Producer-
emancipation. That's what it makes no option for the information society
which has to be based on hi-tech civilization. This is where I see the
contradiction with "Global Villages" -- with or without "hubs", btw.
Chris
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de