|
|
Re: Reality Check ReduxRobert Snower (rs219@IDIR.NET)Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:01:55 -0500
>In message <v02130505adff5ff4a264@[202.237.148.8]> John McCreery writes: > >> Then, too, another, even more serious issue. If all that we as >> anthropologists know suggest that societies larger than a few hundred >> people wind up hierarchical, what are we doing teaching social critique >> rooted in the idea that everyone could be equal? > >It seems to me that we should not be teaching that everyone COULD be equal. The >more subtle message, which we should be teaching, is that human societies have >existed which were structured in such a way that the large, structurally based >inequalities which we see in modern state-level and/or imperial societies did/do >not exist. This is not the same thing as teaching that everyone in state or >imperial societies could be equal. > >> Shouldn't we be talking about the various forms of hierarchies and how they >> seem to differ empirically, instead of communicating the message that >> hierarchy=BAD? > >I agree; we should be giving students the knowledge and skill needed to apply >analytic (or, if you like, etic) models to their own state level societies. >They should also be able to compare and contrast their own society, on an >analytic level, with other types of social structure such as autonomous (bands, >tribes), chiefdoms, etc., as well as with other examples of state or imperial >social organization. > -------------------------------------------------- But you can't do this properly without advocacy--for both sides. Sympathy for alternative solutions must be utilized in teaching, in order to achieve understanding, a somewhat difficult task, and, it is my impression, almost utterly lacking in current anthropology. But of course, it is never a pure opposition of equality versus hierarchy. Best wishes. R. Snower rs219@idir.net
|