Life without Chiefs Marvin Harris

Life without Chiefs

Marvin Harris (USA, 1927-2001)

b. Write the summary of text "Life without Chiefs".

Summary

Before ten thousand years ago people used to lead a nomadic life of hunting. Only last two thousand years bank people started to live in the village or towns. No doubt, there are still some societies which have no any rulers to rule others. Though it seems surprising but it is true reality that our ancestors used to live without chiefs no kings, presidents, rules, prime ministers, etc,

Before starting live in a systematic group of ruling system, people used to live the life of sharing, give and take and with reciprocity. There was no "Thank you" because they took it as rude and it would make them repay back. To the proof for this concept anthropologist Richard Lee has given many examples.

In hunting life there was full sharing what they had hunted. The one who killed much meat would be a big man. Besides, foods and other items were shared among them. To create everyone's freedom was all's interest. There was a life of egalitarian reciprocity. The one who wanted to be king would be worthless. For the political leadership "Headman" was the leader without any controlling power. The power of leader would be similar to other persons. Almost all would be on the headman's position. He would be ready to work harder and give others more without having anything to himself. Headman had to control his sexual and other desires a lot.

During such social life all natural resources used to be communal properties not the individual nor of any group. A pure communism could be felt because there was no private possession. Personal wealth would be weapons, clothing, tools, etc. Some free loaders who took more than they used to give but they used to be punished. Headman had to be Big Man with useless power with the power of redistribution of property. Through youth wanted to be Big Man but he had to sacrifice more, work harder desire less and become great provider. Headman used to be redistributors at the time of food shortage and problem.

The post of Mumi was respected one who would be pleased with full reciprocity but Mumihood didn't represent and possess absolute power. Sacrifice and giving others was main quality of mum hood. When the Big man post was promoted it would be chief. The chief would have largest storage of foods though all had store. In the shortage time people used to go to him and people would expect Chief could be fed well.

But with the passage of time the post of chief became like an office and had less trust. The commoners had to work for chief who enjoyed sexual impulses as well. The commoners knew that their Chief had luxurious life with meat and fat and they were living with nothing. It became the rule of heredity possession. Chief had cruel domination to other members. He had to wear more expensive, eat more delicious, and live more comfortably. That chiefdoms developed further as the states and states into empires.

Now we can see history and out original biological human nature and cultural evolution. The long cultural evolution has created the different classes, levels and clear concept of rulers and ruled ones. For the conflict we must understand the cultural evolution rather by innate quality. Human beings didn't have violence and anger in the origin of nature rather it is by product of cultural evolution.

c. Write four levels of interacting with the text "Life without Chiefs".

Literal comprehension: Before started to live in village or society people used to live in an egalitarian society full of sharing and gave and take. There was not concept of chief like king, Prime minister, etc. No "thank you" used to be exchanged in giving anything. In hunting societies whatever were properties and food all used to be shared among members. Head man used to be superior without any personal member. Head man used to superior without any personal power rather more sacrifice and hard worker. When Headman was promoted the post of 'Big Man 'was made who would be redistributors. People would donate foods, etc.  As they wished and in the time of problems they used to go to Big Man. Chief past was made from Big Man that slowly crossed the boundary and social ethics. He possessed more luxurious life and stored more. With the bad cultural tradition and evolution chiefdoms brought the concept of states bad empires and rulers and ruled ones. Though biologically human is noble creature but had cultural evolution has brought division in the society and turned human being to be greedy, savage, aggressive and violent.

Interpretation: This essay might be trying to point out the noble origin of human being and bad cultural nourishment to become present world of rulers and ones. It shows that by nature human beings were not savage aggressive rather gentle and full of humane qualities. They are very good, heart was full of harmony and sharing and concept of live and let others live happily. The concept of equality and natural selection is given clearly in this anthropological essay.

Critical Thinking: The concept presented in this essay is scientifically proved because it is research based. It easily captures the attention of reader to understand good and gentle nature of human beings at the origin. We can point out that the essay is one-sided. As human does possess good as well as bad qualities only good are presented here. Can we find such society at present? Can the chief be so good for the benefit of public? Can there be society without ruler and ruled? etc. Still the ethical aspect seems to be unquestionable.

Assimilation: After reading this text I came to know that by origin human beings are not cruel and aggressive. I used to think that human beings are by nature like animals. They are evil and full of anger who always want violence and destruction. They always want to dominate and rule others. This chapter has changed my previous negative thinking towards human nature. The root cause of present world ruling conflicts and violence is because of bad cultural evolution. Some optimistic concept emerged in mind while thinking to 21st century cruel, unkind and money-minded people.

d. "Can humans exist without some people ruling and others being ruled?" Based your answer to essay "Life without Chiefs".

We normally think at present that it is not possible to have human existence without being rulers and ruled ones. As given the ideas by the writer in this essay "Life without Chiefs" we can say that they can and it is possible. Humans can exit without being two classes. No doubt, there are superior and inferior people or rich and poor or haves and haves not. In our society, we see different sections of people. But we can give the logic that because of bad cultural development there are such types of groups. Otherwise by origin human beings are non-aggressive, kindhearted and full of sharing quality. From ancient to present social exercises there are always game play of power and position; this is a true example of wrong cultural development.

e. According to Harris, are inequality and aggression inherent in human nature or are they a mere byproducts of cultural evolution?

Harris has given a picture of an ideal society full of generosity and sharing. The social picture points out that inequality and aggression are not inborn qualities in humans rather they are byproduct cultural exercises. There was a society with sharing, help, common properties and no sense of ruling and ruled. There was no any differences between sexes and classes. The posts of Headman to Big Man were known to be ideal posts full of trust, understanding and absence of dominance. By the passage of time and cultural evolution, there came to a concept of superior and inferior. The chief made his life more comfortable and broke the boundary of social generosity. Eventually the ideal society turned into the states and the empires. On this evidence we can deduce that human beings are not criminal, aggressive violent, cruel by innate nature  rather by the product of cultural change or development they have turned to be so. This text is the best example of how wrong cultural evolution has shaped an aggressive and violent society (world) from an ideal and humane society.