“Some anthropologists argue that it goes very far back indeed—hundreds of thousands of years, in fact—and that most people in prehistory lived in hierarchical tribal societies rather than band societies (even if bands were more widespread, they were far smaller).”
I forget if you’ve addressed this in anything else you’ve written, but I’m curious to hear if you find these arguments very convincing.
Thank you for summarizing a book I now don't feel obliged to read. Gripe: its broad descriptive categories ("The Clan", "The Shaman", "The Matriarch") sadly conceal so much more than they can explain, namely the individual moments and occasions of a social custom being nudged in a new direction by, for example, a person who's decided (because they're psychopathic?) that they want to do things in a way that benefits themselves alone, and who cares about everyone else. Of course there's no way to ever know all these millions of good-bad-indifferent steps taken by millions of individuals in thousands of different circumstances over the span of millennia.... but one has to at least be aware that it's dangerous to mistake a process for a fait accompli. One impression I get from your summary is that the author lacks self-consciousness about the limits of his generalities and abstractions. Was that your impression too?
Note number 3 has me thinking that the idea of familial legacy is the root of all empires.
“Some anthropologists argue that it goes very far back indeed—hundreds of thousands of years, in fact—and that most people in prehistory lived in hierarchical tribal societies rather than band societies (even if bands were more widespread, they were far smaller).”
I forget if you’ve addressed this in anything else you’ve written, but I’m curious to hear if you find these arguments very convincing.
Thank you for summarizing a book I now don't feel obliged to read. Gripe: its broad descriptive categories ("The Clan", "The Shaman", "The Matriarch") sadly conceal so much more than they can explain, namely the individual moments and occasions of a social custom being nudged in a new direction by, for example, a person who's decided (because they're psychopathic?) that they want to do things in a way that benefits themselves alone, and who cares about everyone else. Of course there's no way to ever know all these millions of good-bad-indifferent steps taken by millions of individuals in thousands of different circumstances over the span of millennia.... but one has to at least be aware that it's dangerous to mistake a process for a fait accompli. One impression I get from your summary is that the author lacks self-consciousness about the limits of his generalities and abstractions. Was that your impression too?