Ed,
At 11:28 26/07/99 -0400, you wrote:
(KH)
>>>My point was a different one -- that we shouldn't romanticise the customs
>>of the past. Record them, enjoy them in hindsight, investigate why they
>>arose -- but don't accord them any special sanctity. They were merely
>>decorations that grew around the basic technology of the time. >
(EW)
>I don't disagree, though you do say it a little more bluntly than I would. I
>would add that there may be a sequence here that has been of historic
>importance. This is: changing circumstances => adoption of new technology =>
>cultural change.
Yes, this seems to be what happens.
(EW)
>Whatever the mode of production and technology of the time, "changing
>circumstances" have most often concerned the ratio between people and
>resources. When population grew or resources declined, new ways of filling
>needs had to be found. The transition from migratory hunting and gathering
>to sedentary agriculture was, one can speculate, brought about by declining
>game resources abetted by the diffusion of the atl-atl and bow and arrow.
This is the case put powerfully by Colin Tudge in "The day before
yesterday" and, I think, now being pretty widely accepted by
anthropologists, etc.
>The transition probably happened sporadically here and there as the new
>technologies required by an agricultural society were diffused, but the end
>result was an enormous change in circumstances, technology and culture.
>
>I'm wondering if such a sequence still applies today. It is possible that
>it has become reversed and should now be: cultural change => adoption of new
>technology => changing circumstances. It would seem that much of the
>technology that is being adopted by the entire world today is driven by the
>diffusion of western culture and not by changes in the population: resource
>balance. And much of the innovation is of a "software" rather than
>"hardware" character. Getting even the poorest parts of the world to accept
>Macdonald's hamburgers or Coca Cola has nothing to do with filling basic
>needs but everything to do with creating artificial wants. But once the
>wants have been created, technology must enter the picture in the form of
>golden arches or a bottling plant and everything that is needed to support
>these things, including western management techniques. We may indeed no
>longer have a meaningful sequence at all (assuming that we once had one).
>Consider the jet aircraft. All countries now have airports able to
>accommodate Boeing 747s, even the poorest. Yet has this really brought
>about changes in the circumstances of the vast majority of the people who
>live in those countries? Not likely.
The proposed paradigm, cultural change => adoption of new technology =>
changing circumstances, is initially intriguing but, as you surmise
yourself, wrong. I don't see how cultural change can become widespread or
beneficial without some new economic circumstances taking place already.
Russia tried cultural change alone after the 1917 revolution and it led to
misery, virtual slavery of most of the population and the deaths of many
millions more.
Keith
________________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
