I’ve often argued with a primitivist friend that even if all of America adopted a primivitist lifestyle that another country, like a European or Asian country, would end-up enslaving us all. Of course, this idea is quickly dismissed because she believe the entire world should convert to a primitivist lifestyle.
Of course, I’ve thought of other reasons against primitism in this day and age as well. I mean, she’s vegan for one, and a vegan lifestyle would be hard to keep in a primitivist culture, right? Another thought that occured to me was that people would no longer kiss.
Yeah, I kind of figured that kissing spread some diseases that sex, food or wounds didn’t spread… or at least that a primitivist culture that kissed may wipe itself out in some time.
Surpisingly, there is little information on kissing and ancient cultures available on the internet. I found this which is kind of interesting though.
To quote a part of it:
“The Celts did not kiss nor did any groups outside the Middle East and India until these ideas were carried beyond those regions by conquering armies,” Bryant said.
Could kissing during the ancient days have been avoided due to the possibility it could spread disease? The more info on this the better.
Would anyone mind giving me some reasons (preferably as factual as can be) as to why primitivism is not an option for us to return to as a way of life now?
mind you, these are my own speculations, as I have thought of these questions myself and manifested my own answers. You have to understand that many cultures did not quite understand what disease really was, remember plagues? remember the civil war and many soldiers dying not from muskets but from infections from minor wounds? I do not believe that the ancient people really understood the microscopic world of bacteria and germs. I think what the real reason is BECAUSE they did live in a primitive world. The mouth has always been an oriface for accepting food and drink, and our teeth used to tear through meat. C’mon, if you had the mindset that another person’s mouth is used as a weapon or utensil, would you really want to put yours to war with theirs? I can see WHY people would still today believe it to be disgusting to kiss each other, seriously, it is kinda sick, but why oh why does it feel so good? So i guess my real answer to this is that it had nothing to do with disease, but was more of a societal agreement that it was not a cool thing to do.
This implies a decision to not-kiss because of the possibility it could spread disease. This decision would have to be made despite the many other things that were done that did spread disease. Therefore, I conclude that kissing was NOT avoided during the ancient days due to the possibility it could spread disease.
Coul you provide a definition or explanation of primitivism as you’re using it?
i have an answer to your other question too: I do believe that we CAN return to primitism if we as a society should choose to. But I would have to ask you a question, as i am not really too familiar with primitism. what is it? Do you mean like hunting and gathering, and being neandrathal like, beating women and carrying around clubs? If that is the case, i believe that we simply choose not to live in such a primitive way. We have our heat, we have our computers (ahem, ironic isn’t it?) we have everything we need plus some to BREAK AWAY from being primitive, we have our prefabricated cabinets, and our processed food. Shit, what else do we really need? In America at least, we have the government who’s main goal as it seems to me is to keep tabs on us citizens. If we were to return to a primitive culture, there would be no social security numbers, and no money, just bartering with corn and leather. Considering there are a few people who move out into the middle of Montana or something and live in a shack (the unibomber) and have virtually no strings attatched to the outside world. But once again, since i seem to have rambled…this is what i really think. It is possible, but we have already come this far, to the point of no return, we would have to start with the next generation teaching them to hunt without guns and also teaching them to cook food over an open fire rendering it digestable, if we even know how to do these things ourselves. I think it’s just too convenient to have it the way we already do. If i was way off subject keep in mind that i do not know the connotation nor denotation of “primitivism”, but i have been insightful, well i am happy to answer your question
i have an answer to your other question too: I do believe that we CAN return to primitism if we as a society should choose to. But I would have to ask you a question, as i am not really too familiar with primitism. what is it? Do you mean like hunting and gathering, and being neandrathal like, beating women and carrying around clubs? If that is the case, i believe that we simply choose not to live in such a primitive way. We have our heat, we have our computers (ahem, ironic isn’t it?) we have everything we need plus some to BREAK AWAY from being primitive, we have our prefabricated cabinets, and our processed food. Shit, what else do we really need? In America at least, we have the government who’s main goal as it seems to me is to keep tabs on us citizens. If we were to return to a primitive culture, there would be no social security numbers, and no money, just bartering with corn and leather. Considering there are a few people who move out into the middle of Montana or something and live in a shack (the unibomber) and have virtually no strings attatched to the outside world. But once again, since i seem to have rambled…this is what i really think. It is possible, but we have already come this far, to the point of no return, we would have to start with the next generation teaching them to hunt without guns and also teaching them to cook food over an open fire rendering it digestable, if we even know how to do these things ourselves. I think it’s just too convenient to have it the way we already do. If i was way off subject keep in mind that i do not know the connotation nor denotation of “primitivism”, but if i have been insightful, well i am happy to answer your question
As one interested in anthropology and the study of cultures, I must tell you there really is no such thing as a primitive culture. I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but it is important for people to know that one should not look down upon a so-called “primitive” culture. I’m a bit busy and have ot go soon, so I can’t bring up any detailed examples, perhaps a nice person with my same interests will stop by and explain this better. For now, just think of it this way: If you were dropped in the middle of what you called a “primitive culture”, do you think that you could survive for long without much help? Do you believe that the so-called less advanced technologies they use really are less advanced, or do they serve the purpose that they should serve? If you were thrown into a horticulturalist society, and started using agricultural tools and methods, how long do you think you could survive before reverting back to the advanced and developed methods of horticulture. Cultural relatavism my friend… cultural relativism.
It’s sad to see how cultural evolutionism is still the prominent viewpoint taken by the media and many people around the world, specifically in Europe and North America.
The entire would could not just simply change their ways of life in a snap, nor over many, many years. Cultures have adapted their ways of life in order to adapt perfectly to the world around them. In the industrialized world, we need everything we currently have. Western culture is just as complex as Middle-Eastern, Asian, African and every other society around the world. Our cultural ideals consist of so many things: religion, kinship, market systems, ego, hierarchies, wealth, food, caste levels… the list goes on, and the more you delve into each of them, the more complex things get. If you just suddenly decide to turn things around, saying “Okay, no more industry and agriculture, we’re all becoming foragers and pastoralists”, it just WOULD NOT work.
Klockwerk, I wish I were the one to drive the point home nicely, but unfortunately, I am young and not experienced with such cultural information such as details. But I do know this, like you said, it can not just HAPPEN that we reform back to primitivism, and that we do NEED everything that we own today, we have become a mercilessly materialistic society and have benefited from it. I believe that it is a natural human attribute to evolve, and create comfort for ourselves. The whole cultural ideals that you have listed are very true, and it is virtually impossible to break free from all of those listed. The ONLY possible way I could see it being negated is armageddon. Ok, well, not that far, but still, some major catastrophe. This may be going way off subject, but consider the possibility of beings on other terrestrial planets. We have always had the inclination that aliens have been super intelligent and have traveled many light years to come look at our menial operation we call “life.” But, what about the planets that are just NOW spawning life, the cave-dwelling aliens that do not have a solid foundation of culture and are just learning the principles of life and gravity. If we could somehow see the way that they live, it would be a great case study in relevence to this thread. I think I need ritalin (ironic, isn’t it?)
Well, about kissing… I tend to think we underestimate how observant the ancients were, so if kissing did in fact spread more disease, I tend to think they’d see that. I mean, the ancient star charts are a pretty fine example of how observant some of the ancients have been, but they didn’t know what stars were, and so they mixed god-type mythologies in to the star charts and what-not.
Concerning primitivism. Well, this girl I argue with calls it “Green Anarchy”. As I understand it, it’s basically a hunter/gather society. And it’s not that I think we’re superior over that or anything… I mean, I’m the first guy to say that our societies need to change. Expodential growth is clearly mistaken as being a good thing… and I think that’s where primitivism comes in…
But I don’t think we can ever go back, not now. At the very least, another country that doesn’t go back to primitivism would use the opportunity to enslave us. But there are other reasons too. Health being one of them, in that most of the human population would not be able to survive in the wild, because of poor immune systems… and then many people wouldn’t be able to actually live the lifestyle in order to get by… and what about all the treatment our water goes through? I couldn’t go from drinking American water to Mexican-like water just like that you know… and what the fact that eventually the sun will fade away?
No, I don’t think primitivism is an answer, and I’m wondering if there is anything else I’m missing here, or any other reasons to back that statement up.
Further to Klockwerk’s point, no culture can be considered “primative”. Originally, anthropologists used this phrase because they found some cultures that appeared to be much more simplistic than their own, namely, European culture with all it’s dress codes, architecture, and technological advancements (albeit nothing like what we have now).
However, they were missing much of what was really going on in these so called ‘primative cultures’. Every culture has highly structured cultural rules and norms - if you were dropped into an Australian aboriginal group in the outback (100 years ago), you would probably conclude that they spend their time looking for food, eating and sleeping. However, they have highly sophisticated things like ‘dream time stories’ upon with the culture is based. Cultural legends, myths, spirituality, values and beliefs make even the most seemingly primative culture, very complicated. Some of these relate to stopping disease, some to stopping war, some to encouraging intermarriage and so on.
What was the precolumbian population of the Americas, 3 million? Presumably that was some sort of steady-state number, reflecting the carrying capacity of the continents at that level of technology.
What does your friend propose to do with the billion or so extra bodies?
You have a computer. Your friend might dislike computers. But I’d suggest booting up any version of Sid Meier’s Civilization and getting a first hand look at the development of “culture”.
If this game were in every sixth grade classroom we’d have an entirely different country.
Primitivism. . .people will make up things if they can’t find answers they like.
Has this woman not noticed how large the world’s population is? 6 billion people and rising is not a trivial number. We can not feed that many people without artificial fertilisers, irrrigation, pesticides, mechanical transportation and mechanical processing. Fact, pure and simple. A return to a level of techology even equivalent to medieval Europe would entail killing at least 4.5 billion of those people. Never mind medicine or the military, starvation will take out most of the people alive on this planet without any doubt.
A return to a more primitive state is no longer possible for humanity. We are totally reliant on our technology for our most basic requirements of food and shelter. If we can reduce the global population by at least 60% and if we can indulge in mass global mgration and forced setlement before we destroy all the ships and planes, and if we are hyper careful and nothing ever changes in terms of climate or disease, we might just manage it. However it would entail destroying all arable wilderness areas in favour of agriculture. As others have pointed out, disease would be rampant, as would environmental degradation, regular famine, illiteracy, despotism and all the othe problems associated with primitive agricultual societies. But it might just be possible if we could kill over half the world’s people and forcibly re-settled the rest.
I would treat such claims with considerable scepticism as the rest of the article is worthless, not least because it proceeds from a false premise. The custom of kissing under mistletoe is not ancient at all. It can only be traced back to the eighteenth century.
(I have to say that Cecil’s column on the subject isn’t much better. It’s not a good sign that his only source seems to be an 1898 newspaper article.)
We cannot revert back to something that does not exist. There is no such thing as primitivism or being primative! Our western culture is so convinced that such a thing exists that we continue to discuss it here how we can revert back to it. Therefore, it’s quite simple to say that such an event is impossible. I believe the OP rather should have asked:
Rather than the western world relying on industry and our current agricultural mode of production, is it possible we could all decide to become foragers (hunter-gatherers)/pastoralists/horticulturalists?
The answer is no. There are very complex and sometime inexplicable reasons why our culture has developed into what it is today, and on top of that, populations have grown a LOT since North America was inhabited by precolonial societies. If we try to “live off the land”, there probably won’t be any land for every person.
People seem to think that primitive is the proper word and description for a culture other than their own (specifcally one of non-western influence), but this is not true. It is ethnocentric and outright wrong. A foraging culture is that way for a reason. It has it’s complex values, rules, relgious rites, and distributive system because that is how it developed over centuries!; the same way the western culture has developed. You can’t just go and suddenly change a culture, but keep in mind, cultures DO change. Sometimes rapidly, sometimes over years, ages, centuries, millenia…
Primitivism is not an option for us to return to as a way of life now because:
Define primitivism. From a cultural perspective there is no such thing. Primitivism in an invention of ethnocentricity as far as I’m concerned.
See no.1
That’s the most logical answer to your question at this point, until it is rethought under the proper terms and ideals. If you wish to take a cultural evolutionist perspective on this, that’s fine be me. But you should know that those theories were considered outdated and irrelevent sometime around 1910 to 1920.
Of course there is. A primitive state is the ancestral or more ancient condition. Even in anthropology that defintion is accepatble. Granted almost no one used in that way, but that’s another debate. The first humans wer ehunter-gathereres. That is a primitive condition. Subsistence agriculture is more primitive than social sussidisation and strorage and so forth. Nothing wrong with primitive if it’s used correctly. Certainly not a purely western fantasy.
If you take that definition -which you might, for some purposes- you are most likely equating ‘primitive’ with a lack of pervasive evident (to you) technology - unless, of course, that you wish to argue that the Roman/Mayan/Incan/Mohenjo-daro civillizations were more primitive than the relative poverty and disorder which followed their collapse.
The disgruntled anthropology student, having studied many cultures in detail, including ones you consider ‘primitive’ has come to believe that there is far more to human culture and lifestyle than the external trappings. More ‘advanced’ civilizations often offer no real benefit to anyone but their rulers. Several studies have shown that hunter-gatherers have longer lifespan, more leisure time, and higher indices of happiness than the kind of transitional, subsistance level agrarian cultures which supplant them (generally for centuries before developing further. It’s just that 100 starving farmers can chase off one happy healthy hunter-gatherer.
