Message 03352 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT03330 Message: 10/15 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Multi-local societies and Global Villages



[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
I think I agree with you, in that any society will exhibit different  measures of hierarchy and participation. Tribal hierarchies were  'soft', based largely on objective attributes (age, gender), not kept  in place by the state. But it's not just about having the right people  in charge, but of having the 'right' process to combine both selection  for excellence and the broadest possible form of participation.
  
  If you want to have a generous view of the anti-technological stance,  you will find that most do use technology, and that they in fact reject  a particular form of technology, one that is largely determined by the  type of society in which it operates. And it does seem to me that  tribal living arrangements would implicate that producers are  implicitely emancipated. It's rather a matter fo them to do it in the  here and now rather than wait for a hypothetical total revolution.
  
  It's walking away concept, doesn't it strangely echoe Negri's Exodus?
  
  

Christoph Reuss <crox iac-research.ch> wrote:  Michael Bouwens wrote yesterday:
 Daniel Quinn's neo-tribalism
(http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Beyond_Civilization), is not a
primitivist plea for a return to the tribal era, but rather for a  return
of the type of close relationships which existed at that time,
but starting from the conditions of today. I have not studied it in  depth,
but I think it makes a lot of sense.

Well, if you will study it in depth, you may find out that it doesn't make
a lot of sense...  E.g. Quinn's basic claim in the text referenced above
is that "Tribalism is non-hierarchical" -- wrong!  Tribes have chiefs
and clan hierarchies (i.a. in family clans, e.g. parents > children,
and oldest sibling > ... > youngest sibling).  The hierarchies may be less
tall and more informal than in complex civilizations, but that is mainly
due to the small population size of the tribe, and it doesn't mean the
absence of hierarchy!

Quinn makes the grave mistake of vilifying hierarchy as such when in fact
the problem isn't hierarchy but who is in charge (incompetent predators).
If hierarchy is based on technical competence and real on-the-ground
abilities, it is good and makes sense, in that the decisions will be made
by those who actually know best, instead of by bullies, fraudsters or
preposterous fools.

But the main problem with (radical) neo-tribalism, as you found out in the
2nd posting, is that it is anti-technology.  And I may add, anti Producer-
emancipation.  That's what it makes no option for the information society
which has to be based on hi-tech civilization.  This is where I see the
contradiction with "Global Villages" -- with or without "hubs", btw.

Chris



_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de


		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT03330 Message: 10/15 L2 [In index]
Message 03352 [Homepage] [Navigation]