Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

This project builds on James' Scott synthesis of “reactive statelessness” theory (famously beginning with Pierre Clastres), in which he argues that pastoralism, nomadism, and foraging were often secondary forms of adaptation in response... more

“[The] argument reverses much received wisdom about “primitivism” generally. Pastoralism, foraging, shifting cultivation, and segmentary lineage systems are often a “secondary adaptation,” a kind of “self-barbarianization” adopted by peoples whose location, subsistence, and social structure are adapted to state evasion. For those living in the shadow of states, such evasion is also perfectly compatible with derivative, imitative, and parasitic state forms in the hills. (Scott, 2000, pX)”

My contention is that new foraging and nomadic livelihoods are on the rise in the wake of global neoliberalism and the transnational corporatization of power on the one hand, and the techno-militarization of States on the other. These need to be examined and contrasted with studies of the new forms of alienation that are also arising among the world's “middle” and “affluent” classes. There is nothing new here, of course (see David Graeber on the past 5000 years), except for a question of scale.

I argue that the world's old and new foragers have a lot to teach us about sustainable knowledge and livelihoods, socio-political organization, and ecological justice.

The aim of this research effort, then, is to gather ethnographic and empirical data to support the claim that there are strong overall benefits (social, political, ecological, epidemiological, etc.) to foraging lifestyles.

A word of warning, of course, about using “foraging” as an ideological, atemporal, naturalized category. 19th and 20th century science and anthropology have produced too much of that.
My use of the term is heuristic. Tim Ingold's critique of narrow extrapolations of Optimal Foraging Theory and rational choice in biology, economics, and anthropology is a good starting point for this discussion (see Ingold, 2000; see also Barnard, 1983; 2004, or anything by Richard Lee). Following Ingold and others (see bibliography below), I focus on a few broad aspects of livelihood that can be loosely characterized as foraging, and contrasted to the increasingly standardized systems of “modernity”.

An emphasis on autonomy, immediacy, and sharing at the level of social organization; autonomy being defined as relational—in contrast to the self-contained, self-interested 'rational' individual of modern societal constructs (Ingold, 2004); relationality being forged through decentralized, established or emerging relationships among humans and non-humans in a non-finite, complex, and dynamic field of operation.
Knowledge derived and kept alive from (not just of) the environment (“natural” or not); collaborative knowledge established through the “fine-tuning” of these “relational contexts” between humans and the world (Ingold, 2000);
Perceptual and relational involvement with the world through open-ended wayfinding, or wayfaring practices, in contrast to grid-and-point, goal-and-destination oriented navigation and cartography (Ingold, 2000; 2007).

While we must be cautious about using modern constructs like “equality” (e.g., in terms of “gender” or “poverty”--Karen Endicot (2004) has a good review of debates on gender equality among foragers), the emphasis on relational autonomy must include more-or-less conscious efforts to avoid coercion and alienation. This usually entails knowledge of more coercive systems (e.g., agrarian, industrial, militaristic, etc.), and the “reactive” adaptive efforts to “vote with one's feet” (Lee, 2004), or “take to the hills” (Scott, 2009).

“Traditional Ecological Knowledge” is not a model to be put in a powerpoint pie-chart! The point here is to look for anti-model forms of wayfaring knowledge and social organization that are constantly renegotiated in adaptive contexts. The Inuit Elders Saullu Nakasuk, Hervé Paniaq, Elisapee Ootoova, and Pauloosie Angmaalik put it best in their group interviews with anthropologists Jarich Oosten & Frédéric Laugrand:

“Traditional knowledge is not static and not something abstract and separated from the context in which it is produced, but is always related to the present. In this respect, it contrasts with the modern education system, which sets great value on the absorption of objectified knowledge”. (Aupilarjuk et al, 2002, p3, emphasis added)