Lisa replies re: Lisa's anthro

[Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The flurry of comments upon my recent post re: 'economic base' and
'social relations' has left me a little confused, and suspecting that
some of my readers do not quite see what I am up to.  Of course, I
may not know either, but perhaps we could work out on clarifying
things together, like Brian suggests.

Definitions of 'economic base':
Carrol: The "social relations" **ARE** the "economic base,"...
Adam:  The forces + relations of production together form the base,
while eveything else is superstructure.

Maybe I do need a review of these categories.  I think I also want to
interrogate them.  I'd like to see how they may fit a foraging
society/economy.  I'm willing to change terms, I didn't intend
definitional rigidity by referring to 'patterns of resource
characteristics' as 'economic base'.  Also, note that I referred to
'social relations' rather generally.  I have not yet tried to make
any statements about 'relations of...', though I would like to move
in that direction, and some help with this is more than welcome.  I
am really very happy that some people finally took note of my
anthropological comments on Engels' OFPPS and such!

Somebody, please tell me what marxian label/category you would prefer
for 'resource characteristics'?  Where does this fit into a marxian
view of the social totality?  I'm not sure.

I think of it partly as presenting opportunities, costs, benefits,
facing the forager who must choose [in some sense] what to do.  Shall
I harvest mongongo nuts or something else?  When, how much?  Shall I
take the kids with me?  In making these decisions, people seem to
take into account features such as the distance to the resource, the
harvest rate offered by that resource, the processing time required
to make them edible, the alternatives available, etc.  [I say seem
because this conclusion is based upon observation and analysis of
their circumstances and behavior, not necessarily with any reference
to what the people _say_ when asked about it.]

Resource characteristics are also related to social behavior.  Let me
first emphasize one direction of relation, that 'social relations'
are [partly] a function of resource characteristics.  For instance,
edibles which are acquired in very large packages at very
unpredictable intervals are transferred most widely among many
individuals that are not closely related to the acquirer.  Food that
comes in smaller, dependable units is transferred mostly only within
a small group of immediate relatives.

At the same time, foraging behavior is a function [in part] of the
'food-sharing' patterns, i.e. the knowledge that one resource will be
widely distributed, that it will be treated as if it were not even
the private property of the acquirer to begin with, that knowledge
affects a forager's choice of which resources to go after to begin
with.

I would like to review the definitions of some other things that some
people have raised, and compare the way that they apply to modern
capitalism and that they might apply to foraging societies:

forces of production
relations of production
mode of production

I haven't tried yet to rigorously apply these concepts to foraging,
any suggestions?

Carrol wrote:
"That is, while "patterns of resource characteristics" obviously
affect human life in some important way, a given pattern would be
compatible with many different social relations, that is, economic
bases, and so the study of those patterns does not necessarily tell
us anything about the "economic base" of the given culture."

I'm curious about what you think that 'important way' is?  Also, are
we just using the term 'social relations' quite differently?  And
what do you base this claim upon?  Or do you think this post is
responsive to this point, or would you like to rephrase it, so we're
talking more the same language, perhaps?

Despain seconds Carrol on that point: "Carrol also is correct to
point out that the base or substructure only suggest the
(materialist) 'conditions of possiblity' for the emergent
superstructure", but I wonder if you understand me.  Did I imply
something very different from that?  Or has this post changed your
reading of my position?  See, I'm not talking about the whole
superstructure right now.  I'm talking about specific, discernible
links between particular characteristics of resources and specific,
directly relevant behaviors.

I certainly do appreciate Brian's remarks.  A distinction between
various 'modes of production' within/among foraging societies is not
what I have in mind, however.  I'm interested in hearing about how
you think it might be helpful, because I'm not sure if it is.

Thanks for all the interest, and further discussion,
Lisa
----------------------------------------
[Background quotes from here down.]

From: Lisa Rogers
Which reminds me, my own work in evolutionary ecology and
anthropology is doing exactly that, looking for the links between the
nature of the resources [food] and the various patterns of
food-transfer between acquirers/producers and consumers, for example.
 Or between patterns of resource characteristics [including
distribution in the landscape, density, processing time, etc.] and
foraging and food-transfer behaviors.
This _is_ examining the 'economic base' and its effects upon social
relations!

From: cbcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Carrol Cox)
    This doesn't make sense, for it leaves "economic base" empty of
content.        The "social relations" **ARE** the "economic base," so it
makes no sense to speak of the economic base having  "effects" upon
itself. [snip]
That is, while "patterns of resource characteristics" obviously
affect human life in some important way, a given pattern would be
compatible with many different social relations, that is, economic
bases, and so the study of those patterns does not necessarily tell
us anything about the "economic base" of the given culture.

From: Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>
[snip] The forces + relations of production together form the base,
while eveything else is superstructure.
This is very easy to state but difficult to apply - are ideas forces
of production, relations of production, or superstructure ?
The state ? the familly ? ( At different times and places some or all
of the above have been in all three categories, I think ).

From: [Brian] lucinda <lucinda1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[snip]In contrast, I believe Lisa's position (and work) is tenable
and potentially fruitful.
[snip] Indeed, can we distinguish between the mode of production and
the relations of production primarilly  on the basis of identifying
the mode as "hunting and gathering" and then  examining differences
between such societies to find particular sets of relations which can
be diffentiated at that level [?]

However, we can refine our concept of the mode of production to
include distinctions in the particular ecological/societal nexus. For
example, a fishing society on a river bank is distinct in mode from a
hunting gathering society transversing arrid mountains.[snip]

Lisa's work is useful because it establishes links between the
ethnological analysis of resource acquisition, the anthropological
analysis of rudimentary social forms, and the conceptual aparatus of
marxian social thought.

[snip] respondents might consider suggesting more developed
conceptual schemes to approach her concernns. [snip]
Brian S-J.





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------