Regarding Ed Weick's latest contribution:
<<<<
What is sad about 'progress', or whatever one wants to call it, is that
something is gained but something is also lost. Some fifty years ago, the
Inuit of northern Canada still lived migratory lives on the land. An
anthropologist friend told me that on northern Baffin Island, where he
spent a year among them, they had some seventy different words for snow.
Inuit now live in fixed villages. They still venture out in hunting
parties, but do not spend nearly as much time on the land as they once did.
Many young Inuit can barely speak their language, let alone name snow in
seventy different ways. In our Indian villages, I've seen old grannies
scold children in the native language, which the children no longer
understand, and besides, it's alright to ignore old grannies now. At one
time, it was strictly taboo. The gains have been many. The ill-mannered
children stand a much greater chance of survival to a ripe old age, being
educated (as we understand education) and earning a good living than their
ancestors of even a generation ago. Yet much that is irreplaceable has
also been lost. That is the price people pay, usually without knowing it,
for something they think we are getting without any real idea of what it is.
>>>>
I'm not so sure about all this. I used to think the same as Ed. I think,
now, that this point of view romanticises our ancestors. I rather think
that if their society had been as natural/stable/satisfying as is often
implied then it would have been a great deal more robust when faced with
modern society. True, in many places, indigenous society and modern
settlers both needed the same land and couldn't possibly co-exist, but in
many other places the original culture could have survived more or less
intact if they'd wanted it to. Instead, when faced with all the gewgaws
and temptations (including strong liquor) that modern man had to offer,
then most indigenous societies folded up quite quickly -- voluntarily, as
it were.
For better or for worse, we recreate society much as it was before whenever
we have passed through technological/economic change. OK, we might well
lose picturesque customs and metaphors (such as 7 or 70 different names of
snow -- and it's important for scholarly reasons that records are kept of
these), but we recreate new ones which are equivalent. In England during
the last couple of centuries the typical medieval village has entirely
disappeared and there has been much wailing and nashing of teeth about its
demise. But in its place today a vigorous and attractive new type of
village is emerging -- together with modern equivalents of ancient customs.
The important features of man and society are not the customs and
ceremonials but the fact that we are at one and the same time a creature
that is capable of being both viciously cruel and selfish but also helpful
and altruistic (a form of sensible long-term selfishness). Given a
sufficiently long period of economic stability, then most societies learn
to accommodate both extremes within some similar sort of "democratic"
society. In doing so, they will decorate their procedures with newly
developed customs and ceremonials which are useful to keep most of the
population (which normally doesn't want to think things out for itself) on
track. But let's not sanctify these customs. They're useful as pedagogic
devices and it's sad when they start disappearing ('cos this signifies
change -- always uncomfortable), but they don't have anywhere the basic
importance that some intellectuals give to them.
(I haven't written to Futurework for a long time -- it's good to see Ray
and Ed slanging it out still.)
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]
________________________________________________________________________
