Diverting briefly from my blog cycle about my recent book Finding Lights in a Dark Age, here I’m going to continue my polite discussion with Tom Murphy about the human condition past, present and future – and, more specifically, about the place of foraging (gathering and hunting) vis-à-vis farming in it.
When you compare the biophysical mechanics behind agrarianism and foraging, distinguishing the two along essentialist lines becomes impossible. When the forager turns the ground over to dig their roots, and leaves behind tilled earth and resting seeds, how is this any different from a plowed field and sown seed? The difference is just in scale and degree. Some might argue intentionality is a difference too but I don't see it -- both the forager and farmer must be fully aware of the consequences of their actions and actively plan and time to ensure best results.
Of course, there is a "what" that matters here too. Isn't there a difference between tending to native edible plants within the context of habitat, vs sowing exotic cash crops into a field whose native ecosystem has been stripped away? Of course! But as you point out in your (excellent) commentary, there are often mistakes made in framing and comparing these two contrasting examples.
In these kinds of debates focusing around a primitivist critique, hunter-gatherers vs farmers, etc., I think it's worth highlighting that there was a historical and Western cultural context for the anthropology of the '60s and '70s, upon which the primitivist critique is built upon. However, there were some deeply flawed ideas in said canon, namely, Woodburn's division of immediate return (IR) with delayed return (DR), and with Richard Lee's ethnological interpretation that hunting-gathering peoples didn't plant or sow or otherwise significantly modify their environment.
For the IR vs DR debate, the whole concept gets upended when it is considered that in IR contexts the whole ecosystem serves as food storage and surplus safeguard. Why store up dried desert roots in a huge basket, when you can just keep them safe, alive, and growing underground, to be easily dug any time on demand? In this sense, IR is actually the most robust sort of DR society. Contemporary anthropologist Helga Vierich presented this very inversion and idea to James Woodburn later in his life.
Helga, who was a student of Richard Borshay Lee, was invited on foraging trips by the women of the Kalahari, and while on these trips -- notably absent the documentation by male ethnographers who generlly focused on hunting -- the women planted tens of thousands of seeds and replanted countless dug roots to new locations. Helga estimates that the entire Kalahari is a tended ecosystem. If the bush people of the Kalahari domesticated an entire landscape, and are often held up as the gold standard for who and what IR hunter-gatherers are, then what does that suggest?
You describe, what appears to me, as a balanced and pragmatic situation. The urgency of working out the right way to live for humanity is coming at us very quickly and the long view is almost irrelevant. It’s good that you can discuss this amicably with Tom. Regarding the conversation with Gunnar, I think we all have different ways of communicating and zeroing in on offense or not is not worth the time. You are both amazing thinkers and commentators but from different cultures/languages and sometimes may communicate differently. It is difficult for all of us to be challenged in our thinking and we need to learn to accept this and not be hurt by perceived offences.
"For Tom, any form of agrarianism seems to figure at best as a necessary evil, while for my part I don’t see all its forms (and there are many) as necessarily evil. Tom evinces some suspicions about my standpoint in this respect:
I will disclose the concern that Chris is bodily committed to agrarian pursuits as his life’s purpose—in a way that may make it more difficult to land in a place disparaging agricultural practices entirely. The Upton Sinclair quote comes to mind that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
I've only read this far so far, and my first thought is These guys must discuss the distinction between agrarianism and agriculture. It's not a small distinction at all.
This sharp minded article provides a review of Oneness and how it was embraced by the Skeptical Enlightenment in opposition to the dualism of the Strong Enlightenment.
He then associates the Strong Englightement with a r-Strategy survival strategy and associates the Skeptical Enlightenment with a k-Strategy survival strategy which are the ecological classifications that form the basis of the CSR ecological framework.
Ultimately, to prepare for post growth decentralised economic systems, critical resources, critical infrastructure and critical goods and services need to be identified and developed where possible with overlapping decentralised systems filling the scale gap where one system can't do it alone.
The Strong Enlightenment neoliberal system is obviously taking us in the opposite direction. However, UK devolution might be a precursor preparation for post growth realities.
When you compare the biophysical mechanics behind agrarianism and foraging, distinguishing the two along essentialist lines becomes impossible. When the forager turns the ground over to dig their roots, and leaves behind tilled earth and resting seeds, how is this any different from a plowed field and sown seed? The difference is just in scale and degree. Some might argue intentionality is a difference too but I don't see it -- both the forager and farmer must be fully aware of the consequences of their actions and actively plan and time to ensure best results.
Of course, there is a "what" that matters here too. Isn't there a difference between tending to native edible plants within the context of habitat, vs sowing exotic cash crops into a field whose native ecosystem has been stripped away? Of course! But as you point out in your (excellent) commentary, there are often mistakes made in framing and comparing these two contrasting examples.
In these kinds of debates focusing around a primitivist critique, hunter-gatherers vs farmers, etc., I think it's worth highlighting that there was a historical and Western cultural context for the anthropology of the '60s and '70s, upon which the primitivist critique is built upon. However, there were some deeply flawed ideas in said canon, namely, Woodburn's division of immediate return (IR) with delayed return (DR), and with Richard Lee's ethnological interpretation that hunting-gathering peoples didn't plant or sow or otherwise significantly modify their environment.
For the IR vs DR debate, the whole concept gets upended when it is considered that in IR contexts the whole ecosystem serves as food storage and surplus safeguard. Why store up dried desert roots in a huge basket, when you can just keep them safe, alive, and growing underground, to be easily dug any time on demand? In this sense, IR is actually the most robust sort of DR society. Contemporary anthropologist Helga Vierich presented this very inversion and idea to James Woodburn later in his life.
Helga, who was a student of Richard Borshay Lee, was invited on foraging trips by the women of the Kalahari, and while on these trips -- notably absent the documentation by male ethnographers who generlly focused on hunting -- the women planted tens of thousands of seeds and replanted countless dug roots to new locations. Helga estimates that the entire Kalahari is a tended ecosystem. If the bush people of the Kalahari domesticated an entire landscape, and are often held up as the gold standard for who and what IR hunter-gatherers are, then what does that suggest?
You describe, what appears to me, as a balanced and pragmatic situation. The urgency of working out the right way to live for humanity is coming at us very quickly and the long view is almost irrelevant. It’s good that you can discuss this amicably with Tom. Regarding the conversation with Gunnar, I think we all have different ways of communicating and zeroing in on offense or not is not worth the time. You are both amazing thinkers and commentators but from different cultures/languages and sometimes may communicate differently. It is difficult for all of us to be challenged in our thinking and we need to learn to accept this and not be hurt by perceived offences.
Fantastic article chris
"For Tom, any form of agrarianism seems to figure at best as a necessary evil, while for my part I don’t see all its forms (and there are many) as necessarily evil. Tom evinces some suspicions about my standpoint in this respect:
I will disclose the concern that Chris is bodily committed to agrarian pursuits as his life’s purpose—in a way that may make it more difficult to land in a place disparaging agricultural practices entirely. The Upton Sinclair quote comes to mind that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
I've only read this far so far, and my first thought is These guys must discuss the distinction between agrarianism and agriculture. It's not a small distinction at all.
Okay, on to reading on.
This sharp minded article provides a review of Oneness and how it was embraced by the Skeptical Enlightenment in opposition to the dualism of the Strong Enlightenment.
He then associates the Strong Englightement with a r-Strategy survival strategy and associates the Skeptical Enlightenment with a k-Strategy survival strategy which are the ecological classifications that form the basis of the CSR ecological framework.
https://substack.com/@theuaob/note/c-231077953?r=al84p
Ultimately, to prepare for post growth decentralised economic systems, critical resources, critical infrastructure and critical goods and services need to be identified and developed where possible with overlapping decentralised systems filling the scale gap where one system can't do it alone.
The Strong Enlightenment neoliberal system is obviously taking us in the opposite direction. However, UK devolution might be a precursor preparation for post growth realities.
See also https://substack.com/profile/45703268-steven-j-newbury/note/c-231097363?r=al84p
Thank you Chris, interesting discussion!!
Have you read Racing to Extinction by Lyle Lewis? It's a fascinating look at deeper history, and these issues.