Why have hunting and gathering societies been described as ‘affluent’ and ‘egalitarian’? Are they?
To start with a rather polemic answer to the explicit question whether hunter-gatherers are affluent, it seems to be the case that many of them nowadays are suffering from poverty. A few, on the other hand, accumulate riches that are impressive – even judged with a Western standard. This is what Gell (1988) shows for the Muria in India. Those people are predominantly not hunting and gathering anymore, however, but under the influence of a modern economy. They are capitalists without capitalist notions of boastful and lavish consumption.
Table of Contents
- Affluence
- Egalitarianism
- Note on definitions
- Because data tells us - or we want to read it that way
Objectives and Key Themes
This essay explores the common perception of hunter-gatherer societies as "affluent" and "egalitarian." It examines whether this portrayal is accurate, considering the evidence from anthropological studies, and investigates the role of definitions and cultural biases in shaping our understanding of these societies.
- The concept of affluence in hunter-gatherer societies
- The relationship between affluence, leisure, and material wants
- The concept of egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies
- The role of gender, age, and social status in shaping social structures
- The impact of cultural biases and Western perspectives on interpreting evidence
Chapter Summaries
- The essay begins by introducing the question of whether hunter-gatherer societies are truly affluent and egalitarian. It acknowledges that while some individuals may accumulate wealth, the focus is on the broader historical perception of these societies.
- The concept of affluence is discussed, examining the argument that hunter-gatherer societies were affluent because they were able to satisfy their material wants with relatively little work. The author cites studies like those by Lee and Sahlins, who use time studies to demonstrate the leisure time enjoyed by hunter-gatherers.
- Criticisms of the "affluence" argument are then presented. Kaplan highlights issues with the methodology of some studies and argues that the short lifespan and high infant mortality rates in hunter-gatherer societies contradict the notion of affluence. The author also discusses the challenges of applying Western definitions of affluence to a different cultural context.
- The essay then turns to the question of egalitarianism. It explores the argument that hunter-gatherer societies exhibited a strong ethos of sharing and equality, citing the work of Woodburn and Lee on the !Kung and Hadza people. The author highlights examples of shared ownership and the importance of social networks in maintaining egalitarianism.
- The chapter examines potential limitations in the "egalitarianism" argument, considering the influence of gender roles, age, and social status in shaping social structures. While there is evidence for a high degree of freedom and shared rights, the author acknowledges that inequalities can still exist.
- The author concludes by emphasizing the importance of considering different definitions and cultural perspectives when interpreting data on hunter-gatherer societies. They highlight the potential for bias in Western interpretations and suggest that the "utopia" narrative surrounding hunter-gatherers may be a product of wishful thinking rather than objective observation.
Keywords
The key terms and concepts explored in this essay include hunter-gatherer societies, affluence, egalitarianism, time studies, material wants, leisure, cultural biases, Western perspectives, social structures, gender roles, and the "utopia" narrative.
- Quote paper
- Johannes Lenhard (Author), 2012, Hunter-Gatherer: Why have hunting and gathering societies been described as ‘affluent’ and ‘egalitarian’? Are they?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/205565
