It has sruck me recently that, no matter what societal/economic model one lives in, there’s always a privileged few who make the major decisions and enjoy a greater standard of living than the majority, while the majority make their living by providing ‘services’ to the people at the top of the pile.
This seems to be true for an evolved system (e.g. tribalism, capitalism), an imposed system (e.g. what Communism becomes every time it’s been tried, dictatorships), or even in global macroeconomics (e.g. the majority of countries generate their income by providing ‘services’ to larger economies).
If this is so, 1) can it be explained in terms of evolutionary sociology; and 2) should we stop complaining and just get on with it?
I think you’re using “feudalism” very loosely here.
At any rate, I agree that it would hopelessly utopian to try to eliminate all distinctions of power or wealth from human society, and is very likely to backfire and result in all sorts of nastiness (including new systems of unjust disparities in power and wealth, as in the USSR). However, it has clearly been possible to both improve things for those on the bottom in an absolute sense, and to reduce the distance between the top and the bottom in a relative sense. Both decision-making and access to resources are much more widely distributed in modern industrialized democracies than they were in most if not all of the other sorts of societies you mention. Trying to continue to make things better (while recognizing that individuals will always be different) strikes me as a worthy goal.
As a member of the SCA I’d have to say that, yes, it is only right and proper
Seriously, though, I believe it depends what you mean by “Natural Human State” - I believe the natural state is akin to small tribes, such as Kalahari San or Australian Aborigines - and there, I think you’ll find a slightly paternalistic family structure, which I think is the human baseline, but I don’t think this tribalism is “feudal” in my understanding of the term - no strict hierarchy, no rigid class structure, no über-warrior caste above everything - to me feudalism is basically “Government as Protection Racket”, and I don’t think that’s the natural human state at all.
I should clarify, shouldn’t I: I acknowledge that my use of the word “feudal” is not clear enough. I guess I mean “pyramid-shaped” - as in a small volume at the top, vast majority at the bottom.
“Natural human state” is not meant to indicate that which is right - I mean that it’s the state every human endeavour ends up in, no matter what the intention.
I agree that making things better for those at the bottom is a worthwhile goal. By “Stop complaining” I meant envying.
Thank you for helping me get my thoughts in order.
In that light, doesn’t a ‘slightly paternalistic family structure’ conform to jjimm’s idea?
Pater has the strength/power to dominate his family in much the same way as a ‘higher’ institutionalised power dominates his underlings. It’s still the same thing; ‘You’ll do as I say or I’ll whack you one’.
Ah no, “paternalistic” in the sense I meant it, means men lord it over women…that’s all adult males…not really very triangular, is it? San(Bushman) tribal structure is really just an extended family, and I think they’re probably one of the groups out there closest to a natural human state - All triangular power structures arise out of our desire to congregate in larger groups where such a close-knit structure isn’t practical. And I did say only slightly paternalistic. There really isn’t this sense of “Wack you one” at all - in fact, I believe Bushmen, like some other stone-age tribes, really don’t go in for corporal punishment…but IANAAnthropologist.
I think it is the “natural state”. Until human nature somehow changes, any culture will end up like this. Because of several factors:
People can claim equality all day long, but the truth is, there are some who are just better than others.
Some people just have a drive to succeed, or get on top. Whether by ethical or unethical means.
Some people actually want/need to be told what to do.
With human nature as it is, if we were to somehow even the playing field, and have everyone start off on the same “level”, there will be people who will do their dangest to get more than others.
Some will just be VERY good at what they do, and outshine those around them. Of those, some will burn out if they aren’t given the opportunity to “pass up” their peers.
And there will be those who are just constantly coming to the rest and asking how they should do things, or look for direction.
I am not that familiar with Bushmen social structure or customs. Certainly there are cultures that are far less violent, although I seem to remember an article that stated that some of the alledged peaceful stoneage tribes were more violent than the original anthropoligist had stated.
What I would like to know is if Bushmen have a chief. As far as I know (nearly?) all tribes have someone with higher status.
Our closest relatives, the chimpansees, have one. But more important, do the chief’s friends also hold a higher status by being alligned with the chief, as they do with chimpansees.
This phenomenon might also be considered a basis for pyramidical society.
I am not sure about the structure of natural human society, but I know my observations of people in work settings show that only a few have the drive to go out and get the business. The bulk of people I work with expect to be given tasks and patted on the head after completing them or slapped for not doing what was expected.
I believe that this is true throughout human experience, that is, only a few have the ability and desire to “sell” themselves and compete with others for whatever scarce resourse is at issue.
So, maybe the barons of feudal times are only the rainmakers of today. Connected and competative, always “closing.”
