Loading
Note: Beware of a website proclaiming to be New Tribal Ventures/An Ishmael Community! Do not reply to any request for information. Our legitimate pages are available on our site here & on the navigation to the left.
HOME

DQ on Facebook!Follow Us on
 Facebook!


FIND OUT ABOUT
What's new
Daniel Quinn
Daniel Quinn's books
Schools & courses
Telephone Conferences
This website
New Tribal Ventures
Ishmael's Annex
Speaking Invitations
Events

THINGS TO DO
Register
Visit Guestbook
Find others
Help us
Order books
Contact us
Telephone Conferences
Special Requests

THINGS TO READ
Essays
Speeches
Dialogues
Parables
Answers to Questions
DQ's suggested reading
DQ's Blog

FOR TEACHERS
The Ishmael Companion
Beyond Civilization
 Study Guide


  The Ishmael Community: Questions and Answers

The Question (ID Number 612)...

    What do you think of Robert Carniero's theory of environmental circumscription? This seems to be the most widely accepted theory on why tribal societies become state societies. He does, of course, speak from a background influenced by Mother Culture, and seems to think that population automatically expands and food production must be expanded to accommodate it, but would you say that his theory holds true if the societies he studied were already in the food race? He studied South American societies but applied his theory to the Western one as well. He begins with agricultural tribes and doesn't address hunter-gatherers or semi-agricultural peoples. Would you agree that circumscription was a catalyst for abandoning tribalism in the cases Carniero studied, but that he simply hasn't gone back far enough in their history to pinpoint the adoption of totalitarian agriculture as the real reason? What do you believe IS the reason that people abandoned tribalism? It begins with complete dependance agriculture, doesn't it?

    ...and the response:

    What is clear is that becoming agriculturalists does not automatically mean "abandoning tribalism." Most remaining tribal peoples are in fact agriculturalists. Even living in farming villages doesn't involve abandoning tribalism. In other words, adopting agriculture doesn't always result in the formation of a nontribal "state." When a state does evolve (for whatever reason--the reason given by Carniero or any other), tribal identity is necessarily lost in the larger whole. Thus "complete dependence on agriculture" is not the issue. You can depend completely on agriculture and still be a tribe. It's entering a larger, nontribal "state" that costs you the tribe. My own theory about the origin of the state deals only with the bare beginnings: when food surpluses become substantial enough to need guardians, these guardians of the food eventually become controllers of the food and hence a ruling class.

    (Mark Meritt's masters, linked on this site in a few places already, provides a fairly comprehensive critique of Carneiro's circumscription theory in the context of critiquing the ecological dynamics of Taker culture as a whole. It can be read at http://www.potluck.com/offerings/increase.shtml -- and Mark has posted an update to some of his thinking here: http://www.potluck.com/offerings/socialfullhouse.shtml)


Go Back OR return to the Questions & Answers OR Browse to the Next Question
Site design and content, © 2018, Daniel Quinn