Everything about Original Affluent Society totally explained
The
"original affluent society" is a
theory postulating that
hunter-gatherers were the original
affluent society. This theory was first articulated by
Marshall Sahlins at a
symposium entitled "Man the Hunter" held in
Chicago in
1966. The significance of the theory stems from its role in shifting
anthropological thought away from seeing hunter-gatherer
societies as
primitive, to seeing them as practitioners of a refined mode of
subsistence from which much can be learned.
At the time of the symposium new research by anthropologists, such as
Richard B. Lee’s work on the
!Kung of
southern Africa, was challenging popular notions that hunter-gatherer societies were always near the brink of
starvation and continuously engaged in a struggle for survival (Barnard, 197). Sahlins gathered the data from these studies and used it to support a comprehensive argument that states that hunter-gatherers didn't suffer from
deprivation, but instead lived in a society in which "all the people’s wants are easily satisfied" (Sahlins,
Man, 85).
Overview
The basis of Sahlins’ argument is that hunter-gatherer societies are able to achieve affluence by desiring little and meeting those needs/desires with what is available to them. This he calls the "
Zen road to
affluence, which states that human material wants are finite and few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate" (Sahlins,
Original). This he compares to the
western way towards affluence, which he terms as the "
Galbraithean way" where "man’s wants are great, not to say infinite, whereas his means are limited..." and "the gap between means and ends can eventually be narrowed by industrial productivity" (Sahlins,
Man, 86). Thus Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer and western societies take separate roads to affluence, the former by desiring little, the latter by producing much (85). Through this comparison Sahlins also stresses that hunter-gatherer societies can't be examined through an
ethnocentric framework when measuring their affluence. For example, one can't apply the general principles of
economics (principles which reflect western values and emphasize surplus) to hunter-gatherers nor should one believe that the
Neolithic Revolution brought unquestioned progress.
By stepping away from western notions of affluence, the theory of the original affluent society thus dispels notions about hunter-gatherer societies that were popular at the time of the symposium. Sahlins states that hunter-gatherers have a "marvellously varied
diet" (Sahlins,
Original) based on the abundance of the local
flora and
fauna. This demonstrates that hunter-gatherers don't exist on a mere subsistence economy but rather live amongst plenty. Through thorough knowledge of their environment hunter-gatherers are able to change what foreigners may deem as meagre and unreliable natural resources into rich subsistence resources. Through this they're able to effectively and efficiently provide for themselves and minimize the amount of time spent procuring food. "[T]he food quest is so successful that half the time the people don't know what to do with themselves" (Sahlins,
Original). Hunter-gatherers also experience "affluence without abundance" (Sahlins,
Original) as they simply meet their required ends and don't require surplus nor material possessions (as these would be a hindrance to their
nomadic lifestyle). The lack of
surplus also demonstrates that they trust their
environment will continuously provide for them. By foraging only for their immediate needs amongst plentiful resources, hunter-gatherers are able to increase the amount of
leisure time available to them. Thus, despite living in what western society deems to be material poverty, hunter-gatherer societies work less than people practicing other modes of subsistence while still providing for all their needs, and therefore increase their amount of leisure time. These are the reasons why the original affluent society is that of the hunter-gatherer (Sahlins,
Affluent).
Through his thesis on the affluent society, Sahlins
deconstructed the then popular notions that hunter-gatherers are primitive and constantly working hard to ward off starvation. However, one must take into consideration that there has been much progress in this field since
1966 and that ideas on the category of hunter-gatherer are always shifting, with new paradigms continuously emerging (Barnard, 210). One must also acknowledge that one can't generalize about hunter-gatherer societies. Although they've been pushed to the margins of society, there are still many such societies in the world and they differ greatly from each other.
Criticisms
"Work time" and "leisure time"
Sahlins' argument relies on studies undertaken by
McCarthy and
McArthur in
Arnhem Land, and by Richard Lee among the !Kung. These studies apparently show that hunter-gatherers need only work about twenty hours a week in order to survive and may devote the rest of their time to leisure (Sahlins,
Affluent). However, Kaplan points out that it can be difficult to distinguish between work and leisure in hunter-gatherer societies as members of these societies don't have jobs or employment. Lee didn't include food preparation time in his study, arguing that "work" should be defined as the time spent gathering enough food for subsistence. But, Kaplan argues, if work is defined as mere subsistence, people in Western societies would do hardly any work at all (Kaplan, 2000:313). When work is seen as all life-sustaining activity, the !Kung will be observed as working for more than forty hours a week (about as much as a Westerner spends at their job alone) (Kaplan, 2000:308). However, if cooking, bathing and all life-sustaining activity were counted in addition to employment in Western societies, the average person would spend far more than 40 hours per week sustaining themselves.
Further problems with the data used
Some anthropologists claim that the studies Sahlins relies on are far from representative of the people they observe. The Arnhem Land studies observe groups of only nine and thirteen over a period of one or two weeks. Moreover, McCarthy herself admitted that the individuals used in one of the studies were picked up from a
mission station and were accustomed to using the food available at these stations (Bird-David, 1992:26; Kaplan, 2000:305).
Lee's study is also alleged to be a poor representation of a hunter-gatherer society. Kaplan argues that as the investigation only covered a four-week period, it's in no way representative of the living conditions of a whole year -- especially as there are significant differences in
climate between the wet and dry
seasons (Kaplan, 2000:507). Moreover, Lee discovered that the !Kung he studied occasionally worked for
wages or grew their own food (Bird-David, 1992:26). Hence, it's claimed that the society studied is far from "purely" hunterer-gatherer.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Original Affluent Society'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://original_affluent_society.totallyexplained.com">Original affluent society Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
