From Studyplace

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Reaction papers 2.1 George Barvinchak 2.2 Lauren Click 2.3 Michele Giorlando 2.4 Zhaodan Huang 2.5 Jonathan Lewis 2.6 Joseph Lim 2.7 Brian McNamara 2.8 Harshita Pant 2.9 Sarah Usmani 2.10 Julie Warner 3 Archives

Discussion

Reaction papers

Assignment

Each reaction paper should be between 500 and 1000 words long. Each should minimally focus on one of the issues raised in one of the required readings in term of one of the other required or recommended readings. Maximally, and particularly as the course progresses, the reaction papers should cross reference more of the required or recommended readings, including those for earlier sections.

Guidelines

1. Write up your paper on a word processor like Microsoft Word
2. Find your name on the list and click on "Edit". It should open up a box that shows a space for you to enter text
3. Copy and paste your paper from the word processor onto the StudyPlace window
4. Click on "Show Preview" if you want to see what it looks like
5. Click on "Save Page" to finalize your changes
6. Email a copy of your paper to Professor Varenne and Aaron Hung. If you are stuck at any point, feel free to email Aaron.
7. Feel free to comment on other students' assignments. You can put your comments at the bottom of the other student's paper. Be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~. This will automatically sign and date your comment.

You can also watch a video tutorial of this on Youtube.

The assignment should be on StudyPlace by the time class starts on the day that it is due.

George Barvinchak

--GeorgeB 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Goody and Wittfogel discussed two of the three main issues to be explored during this course - technology and culture. They discussed technical advances in agriculture and its impact on a culture's customs, interpersonal relationships, the family, and the larger society. Goody addressed plow technology and Wittfogel focused on water irrigation technology and its impacts.

In Goody's book I found four topics to be of particular interest: society adapting to new technology while keeping its own self interest/preservation in the forefront, the references to societal pressures on marriage strategies, the problems that anthropologists encounter in formulating time or sequenced developmental studies, and Goody's scientific approach to his reasoning.

First, given all of the technological, political, and societal changes noted in Goody's book, one of the themes that I found to be most interesting was the underlying motivations triggered by the human need for status, recognition, and family pride. Goody noted that diverging devolution is often used by parents to enhance the status of all of their offspring. He noted that in societies with advanced agriculture and a significant surplus an important means of maintaining the family status is to marry a person with equal or higher qualifications. In a male dominated patriarchal society, the view is from the male perspective and it is his status that is in the most urgent need of support through inheritance. Although customs vary, there is also concern for the well being and status of the daughter which is some times satisfied through a dowry. For societies that have the custom of bridewealth Goody observed that 'marriage with bridewealth is usually more prestigious that marriage without' and marriages that involve a conjugal fund are more elaborate than those that don't. Prestige and self interest seem to play a role in cultural evolution.

Continuing with the ego facet of cultural change, a significant statistic that Goody highlighted was that with the introduction of the plow a man's capacity for cultivation is increased by 10 fold ( from 6 acres to 60 acres). It is not hard to imagine how a local farming group exposed to the new technology could potentially be subjected to enormous economic impact and prestige issues - How are the 6 acre parcels of land to be consolidated? Is the new technology shared? And how is the surplus dispersed? Prior to the time of agricultural consolidation exogamy and the forming of alliances was important to the stability of the community; however, after the introduction of plow technology, marriage strategies would have changed, Goody concluded, from exogamy to endogamy, again as an attempt by the family to increase the status of their offspring and conserve wealth.

Second, Goody made several references to cultural pressures outside of the family that influenced mate selection. The dictates often stipulated what was allowed and what was prohibited. Official organizations outside of the family, like today, included religious and state/governmental groups. Socially accepted methods for controlling the behavior of young people developed (especially in advanced societies with limited resources) including isolation, regulated courting (e.g. 'an heiress cannot marry just anyone'), and dowry.

Third, the objective of Goody's book was to show that marriage and devolution strategies are dependent on the many personal and cultural factors that a society is encountering in its specific stage of development. Goody noted that he was performing a synchronic study, but he desired to explore changes through time by relating the culture's developmental stage, the availability of resources (land, human, rain, quality of the soil), the technology used (hoes, plows, irrigation), and the strength of political and religious forces in the society. This strategy resulted, I think, in a set of data and conclusions that are neither strictly synchronic nor diachronic.

Finally, assuming that Goody functioned as a scientist, I was interested to see if his book Production and Reproduction could be viewed as a scientific paper produced in a 'laboratory' as described by Latour and Woolgar (L&W) in their ethnographic study of science and laboratories. To paraphrase L&W, the goal of a scientific investigation is to generate as many Type 4 and Type 5 statements as possible; to construct a fact so that it appears 'unconstructed'; to persuade without being seen as using persuasion; and to convince so that the thought process seems to be apart from material considerations (L&W p. 240). B. Latour further states that a scientist's laboratory is present in the text the scientist produces (Science in Action p. 64).

To explore Latour's proposition that a scientist's laboratory is reflected in his text, Goody's chapters were analyzed with those comments in mind. If Goody was functioning as a scientist, his chapters should reflect a 'virtual laboratory.'

The laboratory should contain all of the features that L&W outlined in Laboratory Life (p. 236): i.) its construction, ii.) accommodation to an agnostic's leaning, iii.) a materialization of facts, iv.) an aspect of credibility, v.) a recognition of circumstance and vi.) an accommodation to experimental noise. Goody's methods for the construction of the facts are described in chapters one and two. Here, Goody recognized previous literature and outlined some of the problems encountered with the research results. At the close of chapter one Goody outlined the major issues of his work and how he will construct the facts that will be the focus of the book: 1.) he will show that there are certain relationships between the type of agriculture employed and the transmission of property, and 2.) he will attempt to apply a sequential 'over lay' to the findings to test possible time and developmental relationships. In chapter two Goody described his tools (e.g. Ethnographic Atlas, and Chi-square analyses) and the processes he would use in an attempt to turn the facts into artifacts. In chapters two and three Goody continued his fact exposition and outlined features of his virtual laboratory directed to the agnostic. That is, he formally presented his theory, detailed the use of the Ethnographic Atlas, and described how the data would be manipulated (e.g. Chi square and correlation and hierarchical linkage analysis as per McQuitty). He pointed out potential problems with the proposed techniques, but noted that it was worthwhile exploring their potentialities for the general insights they could provide. Continuing, Goody used the statements from chapters two, three and four and reified the knowledge that they represented in such a why that it could be used as a part of a skill set in other 'laboratories' (i.e. L&W's materialization). The credibility of Goody's 'laboratory' was reflected in two aspects of L&W's criteria: a combination of costs and research validity. Some examples of credibility building for Goody's lab included: the time he spent in analysis of other expert's 'give and take', the acknowledgment of the large body of effort and work previously done by others, his own investment in time and effort doing earlier studies, his detailing of the pros and cons of his technique, and limiting hypotheses to what could actually be subjected to scrutiny by others. Some of the 'circumstances', as described by L&W, under which Goody's 'laboratory' operated are visible in his text. The circumstances included all of the variables and 'turbulences' from which Goody extracted his facts: the interplay of the variables of culture and technology; and the complex environment in which the subject societies function(ed) (land availability, soil type, rainfall, political considerations, societal wealth, presence of religious or social regulating organizations). Through the use of his tools, Goody was able to differentiate meaningful data from the background of 'equally probable events' (L&W, Laboratory Life, p. 240); he attempted to differentiate order from noise and tried to define order out of all of the circumstances documented in earlier literature and the data in the Ethnographic Atlas. He notes: 'Hypotheses ... are not hard to come by; it is selecting from among the alternatives that is a major stumbling block.' Based on the above analysis I think that Goody made significant efforts to function as a scientist in a 'laboratory.'

Wittfogel's book on irrigation technology, like Goody's analyses of plowing, can be seen as similar to Goody's except for an emphasis on the macro/societal level. Wittfogel's view of hydraulic societies, like Goody's plowing, are similar in that the scope of the environments investigated are diverse ranging from Asia, Europe, Meso-America, and Egypt. Both authors showed how the technology of man's subsistence and his cultural interrelationships interact to form the overall society in which he lives. Wittefogel especially emphasized the importance of cooperation and that during the process of production to meet society's needs, new needs are created. Since these topics were also addressed by K. Marx, it is of interest to compare the works of these authors with Marx's writings, for many a benchmark for societal economic commentary.

The writings of Goody, Wittfogel, and K. Marx show some parallels albeit with differences in perspective. Goody and Wittfogel point out that the use of the plow and irrigation impacted man's local and societal organization. They proposed that as man's technology changed and improved, the needs and the nature of the society also changed - new needs were produced, new tools were developed, and new ways of 'doing things' were required. The changes were in turn reflected in man's day to day family life and at the macro 'national' level. Although primarily discussing industrial societies, Marx in the First Premises also offered insights in to production and society. Marx stated that as the productive forces are extended there is more specialization and division of labor and that the division of labor determines the relations of individuals to each other. He pointed out that as needs are met new needs are produced; as a society evolves its characteristics change ("the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the stage of development reached by it production..."); the social structure and the state evolve as life conditions change ("The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals..."); and as life changes, man's consciousness changes. I found it of interest that Marx also states that man's interrelations and co-operation (at least, in industrial economies) is in itself a 'productive force', that 'productive forces' determine the nature of our society, and that man's history should be examined in that context. --GeorgeB 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

References [updated --GeorgeB 01:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)]:

Bell, Duran in 'Kinship, networks, and exchange' compiled by Thomas Schweizer, Douglas R. White, 1998, Cambridge University Press.

Goody, Jack (1977). Production and Reproduction - A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wittfogel, Karl A. (1981). Oriental Despotism - a Comparative Study of Total Power. Vintage Books/Random House.

Lauren Click

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/journeys_feature.html?c=y&page=1

Through these readings I was reminded of an article from Smithsonian Magazine about the Shakers of New England, an offshoot of the in English Quaker church, named for their vigorous style of ritual dancing. The link above is for the article. Here there is not enough space for a large description here, but while explaining my readings of the two works I will reflect on the community’s practices as a means to ground the theories in an example.

Goody presents an argument in which different forms of kin terminology, marriage and family life (including constraints on sex, etc.) are dependent upon the forms of transmission of property between kinship and, ultimately, the control of land and property. Like Marx, he follows a large-scale, comparative method to address his argument and ends with a deterministic formula based on the modes of production (though slightly less decisive than Marx’s argument). He describes that the emergence of intensive agriculture, allowed for by the use of the plow in appropriate environments, prompts the population to grow and need a system of dowry and/or inheritance to retain the valuable land and property. The Shaker example can add some contours to this causational formula. Beginning in the 1700s the Shakers lived in small communities, surviving on communal gardens, orchards, and livestock. Goody’s hypothesis here is inconsistent: where there is communal land and property there are strict marriage and sex rules, including separation of the sexes at meals, in living quarters, and even tabooing their entrance into a room through the same door. While they are rooted in Biblical references, I wonder if the rules arose precisely to withstand the community’s need to address the problem of inheritance. As Varenne and McDurmott might suggest, without an inheritance system there are no disinherited nor devolution. On the other hand, the Shaker’s use of brother and sister for all members of the community follows Goody’s assertion (with L. H. Morgan) that in a society less hampered by direct inheritance there would be fewer ‘descriptive’ kinship terms (we all share, so why distinguish?).

Wittfogel then turns to the power and class differentiation within societies as they adapt new technologies or to new environments. While the theory is rooted in the material concerns of the society, Wittfogel allows for a more diverse development of forms of governance, religion, societal norms than Marx or Goody and a less formulaic development of societal organizations. Also, he brings in the vital elements of temporality and change, that no environment nor culture is homeostatic and that over time any organization will change. While Marx and Goody acknowledge these elements, Wittfogel adds that once a population has adapted a form of technology that they will unlikely return to a previous form (they will become dependent on the technology to sustain the population). Also, he folds in the element of choice and decision making to the actors in his theory; in each step there are many patterns that can arise and there are people deliberately deciding what elements to adapt.

Latour would favor a look to the Shakers for detail. Through their history they were renowned for adapting and even inventing the latest technologies (the flat boom for more efficient cleaning, adjustable water temperature, an agitating washing machine, to name a few). While, again, based on scripture (Matthew 5:16: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.") the Shakers tried to live so that all of their actions were the most simple and efficient. Indeed, they never returned to a previous technology but strove to adapt the most efficient means of saving time for God, though Wittfogel would here suggest that it is to sustain the enlarged population. Interestingly, and following Wittfogel, they adopted children until they consciously decided in the 1920s that they could take in no more - the population maximum on which they would benefit and could survive with their means of production. Also, the highest leaders of the group were theocratic, rooting their power in their personal spiritual connections. The most confounding element of Shaker society to Wittfogel’s theory is that the Shakers were, in documentation, egalitarian. God is considered both male and female, and at all levels of governance in the community there were women and men in equal numbers. Outside of governance, though, the community returned to typical gender roles at the time (the females in the kitchen and laundering, and the males in the fields and with the livestock). Similarly, there were divisions of labor in the community - printers, craftsmen, farmers - enough to require a child to be trained in a trade before they were considered fully ‘educated’. It would be fascinating to study the group in their heyday to see the “communism” in practice. While there was open share of property, the power structures (both formal and informal) were still in place to run a tight society and withstand/work with the forces out side of their community (they paid taxes to the US government). Finally, and interestingly, the reason given by the Shakers for the end of their community is religious, political and historical: in the 1960s they feared that people would join for the communal living and disregard the religious roots, and the development of mass production undercut their sales of handmade goods. Also, legal constraints disallowed adoption by religious groups in the 1960s cutting off a vital means of recruitment. Indeed, the neighboring community overran the Shakers with a culmination of cultural and political conflict.

- Lauren

Michele Giorlando

It’s obvious that throughout time technology and culture have influenced each other and both Jack Goody and Karl Wittfogel explore specific technological developments that have played a role in social organization. Goody and Wittfogel both take a liberal deterministic approach to this relationship. Although their research typically focuses on examples of the past, it’s interesting to apply such realizations to our modern world, one where culture is very much influenced by the ever increasing technologies.

Goody examines inheritance and devolution in different societies and recognized that this aspect of culture is directly related to technology in terms of agriculture. It is shown that when a society can produce a surplus, through the use of ploughs or irrigation that they produce a more complex inheritance system, radically changing the social structure.

In such plough agriculture Goody explores the possibilities of inheritance, which therefore shaped considerations of marriage. Today it seems hard to make such a relation in our society; marriage is not arranged based on dowries and inheritance. Still, dowries and inheritance exist, but are no longer a result of agriculture, but now, in my opinion, a result of familial values.

In Oriental Despotism Wittfogel argues that one large change, specifically the manipulation of water, will begin a dominos affect, putting things in motion. From one action, other things therefore become possible. He describes in great details how the manipulation of water into irrigation systems consequently influenced social organization, with the need for leaders and workers. It seems obvious that with any organized systems leaders would immerge, but Wittfogel shows how the leaders of hydraulic power in turn because leaders of political power, a connection far beyond the obvious. Thus, those who controlled this great technology controlled the society. Wittfogel continues to explain how as a result of hydraulic power, advancements in time keeping and calendars arose. Even further he argues that because of irrigation and farming a need for defense arises, as well as specialized labor. He admits that these connections are indirect, but emphasizes their significance nonetheless, proving his initial argument that once things happens, others things will too happen

Wittfogel’s arguments can be put into today’s society. In the beginning of Oriental Despotism Wittfogel discusses the relationship between man and nature. He points out that humans chose

to manipulate the power of a waterfall after years of simply observing it. Thus, the capabilities were there but humans needed a necessity and ability to develop it. What then are humans failing to recognize the great potential in today? To use Wittfogel’s example of mail, only a few decades ago the postal systems in the United States was supremely advanced and had developed from the more simple systems of the past that Wittfogel had discussed. Currently however, the postal system as we know it is on the decline. It has been replaced by e-mail and even more surprisingly a lack of necessity. With internet advancements, online blogging, twitter, etc. communication has become instantaneous and no longer has a need for a postal system, that, in comparison, seems appalling slow.

But just as primitive man was, for the most part, uninterested in waterfalls, is there something today that humans seem uninterested in, but, as the waterfall prove, could have great potential? And, once we discover, once we continue to manipulate our environment and technologies, what further changes will that make to our present social organization?

Zhaodan Huang

This week we talked about how plowing, hoeing and irrigation evolved overtime and its impact on the formation of different parts of human history and culture. In this paper, I would like to focus on Wittfogel’s takes on controlling irrigation as power and the formation of social structure with specific reference to China.

According to Wittfogel (1957), man constantly transforms natural environment and actualizes new forces when opportunities are right. After man learned to utilize the reproductive processes of plan life, he moved on to the next level of exploration and operation by using sources of water supply to irrigate dry yet possible fertile area. Only until that realization did the opportunity for despotic patterns of government and society arise. Derived from Marx and Max Weber, Wittfogel argued that bureaucracy arose to manage irrigation systems. Despotism was formed to drive the people into building canals, dikes, and waterways to increase agriculture and produce wealth. I have never thought of the relationship between water and power, now that I think of it and look back at the Chinese history, it makes sense. Control of water was related to power and rule in Chinese mythology. Yu the Great, one of China's legendary founders, is mostly known for his control of the Great Flood. He carried on his father’s unfulfilled mission to fight against the flood by devoting fourteen years of his life traveling everywhere investigating the situation. Drawing lessons from his father’s failure, Yu the Great used methods of channeling and dredging water instead of dumping bags full of dirt and rocks to stop water from flowing. He finally succeeded in subduing the Great Flood. His great success in curtailing the flood won him the throne after. His son Qi became the second emperor of the first hereditary dynasty, the Xia. There were a few famous sayings started in Tang Dynasty referring to government's control over civic people's freedom of speech or suggestions. It goes as "to prevent people from talking is like preventing water from flowing", "the water (refer to people) can hold up a boat (leaders), but can also overthrow a boat".

According to Wittfogel's analysis, control over the vital resource of water gave rise to the emergence of social classes. The ruling class reined its power of life and death over its population by dominating water control, which moved the society toward a specific hydraulic order of life. Thus a particularly extreme despotism is typical of hydraulic empires. However, also mentioned in Wittfogel’s Oriental Despotism, there are many examples of water control creating no hydraulic order. Too little or too much water does not necessarily lead to government control and government control does not necessarily lead to despotic rulership. With hydraulic hierarchies, an impersonal government as a dominant institution was established. In China’s case, family kinship was the main stream for throne inheritance, if without foreign invaders. In other words, a dynasty is a family or extended family which retains political power across generations. China was ruled by a family for centuries or be overthrown by force, but the new regime would differ very little from the old one. Dynasties may change, but the structure remains intact until destroyed by modern powers. Hydraulic empires were only ever destroyed by foreign conquerors. I wonder why some nations did not form hydraulic order of life and what the reasons are of Wittfogel’s claim that dynasties may change but the structure remained the same.

Critics of Wittfogel's oriental despotism theory point out that water management was not a high priority when compared to taxes, rituals, and fighting off bandits in Chinese history. The theory also has a false assumption that deems all Asian countries are generally the same, which is highly doubtful.

Wittfogel's ideas about China were also harshly criticized by scholars such as Joseph Needham, who was a British biochemist and pre-eminent authority on science and civilization in China. Needham argued that Wittfogel was operating from ignorance of basic Chinese history, because the Chinese government was not despotic, and that Wittfogel fails to realize the necessity and presence of bureaucracy in modern Western civilization. After reading Wittfogel’s book, I actually lean more toward the idea that China has experienced despotic governance at certain period of history, but not throughout the whole history. The current situation in China is that the northern area of Yangtze River is dryer than the southern area. To fight off drought, the government has been funding projects to build cannels and underground tubes to ship water from the south to the north. My understanding is that the government is not using water control a means to rule, rather as means to balance the development of economy in different areas in China.

Zh2113 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Lewis

One of the things that I found the most striking as I read both Goody and Wittfogel was the unintended consequences of the introduction of a new technology into a society. Plowing and irrigation brought about fundamental changes in the social structure for cultures that adopted them. But when early farmers first thought to divert local water sources into their fields those changes were unimaginable. Those farmers merely thought about harvesting more food.

In line with Marx, Goody argues that changing the means of production will, by increasing the population and altering the demands of property, alter the nature of even something so intimate as familial relations. With increased production fewer people hold more and more land. With less land to go around and an increasing population, the rules of marriage and inheritance become vital for sustaining prosperity within a family group. Societies must now deal with relationships that were of little consequence before. Goody describes that non-plowing cultures often do not have words to describe ideas like “mother-in-law” or “concubine.”

The path of the changes wrought by the introduction of irrigation outlined by Wittfogel is one of constant interplay between man and his environment. The increased production of irrigation leads to a population growth, which leads to the need for increased irrigation. This, in turn, leads to division of labor and a society starts down a route that leads to the necessity of not only structural changes, the introduction of leaders for example, but also to more and more profound changes to the landscape such as roads, defensive structures and cites. These changes themselves open the door to further changes in culture, and on and on. Starting down this path, that is employing irrigation, is not a requisite step for agricultural societies, as in the sub-Saharan cultures of Africa outlined by Goody, but once a society starts down this path, Wittfogel presents what follows, in one form or another, as practically inevitable.

The chain of events leading from the introduction of new technology to deep and structural changes in society presented by Goody and Wittfogel make me wonder about our own society. Through the lens of history and statistical analysis, the changes seem swift and absolute, but in real time these changes were imperceptibly gradual. To be sure, there may have been noticeable implications from production from a hoed farm one year to a ploughed farm the next, but the move to monogamy and changes in the devolution of property did not happen over a single year, or even over a single generation. And to those farmers that first ploughed their fields, these changes were impossible to predict.

Today we are introducing new technologies at an astounding rate. We like to think that we have a handle on where things are going and what a new technology will do for us. The changes that befell cultures that started irrigating their fields reveal that this is folly. Wittfogel ties even the development of religious temples and priesthood to hydraulic agriculture. A culture, as Marx suggests, is a product of its history and its production, but when a new technology is introduced, computer communication for example, structures in society do not instantly adapt. We use this new technology in a way that tries to fit it into operating in line with what we already do, only more so. But technology pushes back in unexpected ways. Problems that were previously inconceivable arise. This suggests that cultures should not waste energy trying to fend off changes, but should instead concentrate on grappling with changes as they arise.

Jonathanwlewis 17:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Lim

Both Goody and Wittfogel provide a deterministic view of how technology and technological developments in man’s attempts to adapt to his ecology has invariably determined the way societies organize themselves. Both writers make grand scale cultural comparisons (for Goody it is how the plow has impacted marriage and inheritance while Wittfogel looks at the birth of irrigation techniques determining a whole host of social structures). This essay argues that Goody’s and Wittfogel’s cultural and anthropological perspectives help us better understand the codification of our social practices and even physical surroundings but their ideas ultimately leave us with little in terms of comprehending the underlying motivations of humanity in terms of shifting from limited production to surplus production. However, in arguing for the growth of these sophisticated social practices and impressive infrastructure (stemming from changing production), they enable us to better appreciate the various ways in which society and social powers organize themselves to “coerce” people towards specific ends. For Goody, societal power stems from the creation of agricultural surplus, which in turn was made possible through the development of a new agricultural technology – the plow. As suggested by the title of his book (“Production and Reproduction”), Goody draws a convincing link between the modes of agricultural production and the social mores that surround human reproduction. He argues that “the scarcer productive resources become and the more intensively they are used, then the greater the tendency towards the retention of these resources within the basic productive and reproductive unit” (Goody, 1976, p. 20). Hence, the evolution of a new technology (as well as methodology) and the creation of a surplus economy lend power to various individuals or communities. This power ultimately incentivizes these individuals and communities to engage in various social practices that protect this ability to create surplus. Wealth, material ownership, inheritance laws and social status are all by-products of this surplus creation. While Goody strikes the link between ecology and the various “factors to do with the polity, with stratification, with system of communication”, particularly via “the means of the system of inheritance”; Wittfogel hinges on environment and ecology to show how our systems our government have been created. The connection between the birth of the hydraulic system and emergence of despotic governance functions on the basis that “man pursues recognized advantage” (Wittfogel, 1957, p. 16). Wittfogel points out that when “the sum total of the accruing benefits clearly and convincingly exceeds the required sacrifices, man is willing to make the change” (Wittfogel, 1957, p. 16). In this grand case that culminates in governments, religious hierarchies and massive infrastructure, the change (based on the pursuit of a “recognized advantage”) is “hydraulic agriculture” and “institutional development which led far beyond the starting point” (Wittfogel, 1957, p. 19). Both Goody and Wittfogel, although it seems more explicit in Wittfogel, theorize that the astounding levels of sophistication and complexities arise from a singular change in the agricultural mode of production – plow or hydraulic irrigation respectively.

However, we are left speculating on the motivations that led to this shift in mode of production. Was it an inherent human instinct for more (surplus), which can be crudely deemed as greed? Or was there a shared consciousness amongst men to see that surplus would entail more power? The concept of motivation does not seem to be directly addressed in both writings apart from the acknowledgement that at some point, humanity decided to move from a state of production for self sufficiency to a state of production that would entail greater complexities ranging from inheritance to status to political domination. Despite the impressive body of research and postulations, both Goody and Wittfogel do not really explore possible reasons for how man came to a point of “recognized advantage”. And in terms of “advantage”, was this a collective conclusion derived over a specific period of time? The issue of temporality with regards to this shift in production modes is also unclear.

Perhaps these are mere quibbles against two very extensive works that explain a great deal about the origins and the current state of our social lives. Both hypotheses provide a useful understanding of power and the movement of people, reminding us about a statement from an earlier Varenne essay that posits: “social life is not about storing knowledge, but about getting others to act” (Verenne, 2007, p. 1574). For Goody and Wittfogel, the intersections of ecology and technology have resulted in large social mores and institutions that move and coerce people into different states of mind, behaviors and actions. These would include marriage, courtship, movement of personal wealth and the emergence of hyper-despotic governments. In better understanding their origins and the historical processes that contribute to how the continue to get people to act, we can hopefully generate more relevant and effective social research and policies.

Brian McNamara

In Wittfogel and Goody we find two explorations of the effects of technological development on society. In the former, we see the evolution of government and bureaucracy as tied to the needs of a large community working together. In the latter, we see the development of patterns of devolution and the importance of kin and martial relations. Both authors deftly handle their topics and present strong historical data to support their suppositions. In reading both there is a definite sense of a Marxian influence, that is an influence based on Marx’s theory that technology exists because man as shapes and reshapes his environment throughout time.

Indeed, Marx talked about how technology arises due to the presence of another – one person, living alone, presumably does not need more than what is present to survive. Obviously, both writers agree and the presence of and communication with others is a direct impetus for the development of the plow and its associated social practices. For Goody, there is a direct correlation between the type of technology one polity has and its need to share resources, and to keep those resources in the family.

In reading Goody, I was reminded of the article “The Original Affluent Society” by Marshall Sahlins. Sahlins argues that today’s readers should not consider hunter-gatherer societies impoverished because they were easily able to care for the needed of everyone in their group. The idea becomes that hunter-gatherers did not have excess or that they lived lavishly, but rather that all their basic needs were met – for everyone in the community – and what little extra did they gain was spread equally amongst them. Sahlins later argues that by his definition, modern societies seem less affluent because they are willing to let some people starve or go without. It offers an interesting counterpoint to our understanding of the topic as well as offering an interesting model for Goody.

As Goody goes on, the reader discovers that marriage can often be used to manipulate how resources are distributed in a polity. This is a curious development in that it potentially keeps one family, through in-marriage, in control of a profitable parcel of land indefinitely. Indeed, it would seem that in-marriage is one way in which the total power Wittfogel introduces is brought about. If various farmers practice in-marriage, and devolve their possessions thusly, a series of small, rich and powerful farms will develop. In competition with each other, new plowing and agricultural techniques will develop. However, the broad need of something like irrigation will prompt their need to work together. It is in this working together that Wittfogel sees the beginnings of despotic power. Necessarily, the loose affiliation of farmers for a common goal will slowly develop into something larger: schedules for water usage, gates to keep farms separate, practices of tithing to ensure the irrigation systems are maintained, the training of skilled repairmen, etc. The presence of one new form of technology creates dozens of smaller technological advancements as well as the need for new skilled labor and governance.

As Wittfogel progresses through the description of hydraulic society, I was struck by the similarity to that of McDermott and Varenne’s discussion of culture as disabling. In the despotic power described by Wittfogel, cultural institutions such as schools, churches and even roads become ways in which the prevailing authority sets the order for a polity. Schools are told to begin instruction in specified topics, without deviation, from a young age. They become an easy way for the authority to set the status quo and make it a fact of life. If one learns this is how it always way, there is little chance of them thinking it can be otherwise. Even the road is disabling, in an abstract way, while it opens up trade and exploration, it also sets finite bounds on a polity. In forming a line between two points, one decides there is a difference, subtle or otherwise, between the points.

I found both authors to have interesting points. As well, I thought the points were well established by our previous readings and that the clear effect of technology on culture presented here was quite compelling. Cultures are an organic system that is constantly evolving as social practices and technologies change - often times as they change together.

Harshita Pant

In trying to condense the readings by Goody and Wittfogel, I will begin by reintroducing the notion of humans impacting their environment rather than the other way round. I will then shed light on devolution and marriage in relation to current gender discrimination practices in Indian tradition. With the impact of technology (in the form of social class) I question whether we are growing our interpersonal skills for the better as a culture?

“Man never stops affecting his natural environment. He constantly transforms it and he actualizes new forces whenever his efforts carry him to a new level of operation” (Wittfogel).

Plowing and irrigation are two examples suggested by Goody and Wittfogel that are constantly transforming with the use of technology, which ultimately leads to population growth because one needs many pairs of hands to work on the fields. Perhaps because I never perceived plowing and irrigation as forms of technology before, I find it interesting to find its cause and effect relationship among cultural decisions/setting. As discussed in class, during the times of the Romans, when water was scarce it was consumed in multiple recycled ways- this demonstates another means of technology or innovation. As time progressed so did human interaction with its environment leading to human desires and curiosity. As evident from historical context, a division of labor is prevalent is all cultures as a product of human need to grow as a group competing with one another for power (leaving the other group disabled). These groups may be within the same culture or inter cultural but the goal seems to be the same- have a group of people that share a common mission, select a leader, select the type of technology and transform what currently exists.

To further illustrate this point, I would like to draw a parallel to my experience as an educator for underprivileged children in India. I noticed the absence of communication as a key factor for undelivered performances. This is a status-based society where someone holding a higher social status or authoritative official is given higher privileges than some who is younger or less influential. I view such a social class distinction in India as a form or technology in itself, where unlike the United States, the nation does not encourage the freedom to question a higher authority. This reminds me of a documentary movie called Water (2005) directed by Deepa Mehta that is a true story about severe oppression of all class and caste of women in India. The story dates back to the colonial British regime when women were cast off as mere objects rather than participating in the society as equals. The gist of the movie tells the story of the mistreatment and prejudices of society against women. The revelation of sacrificial practices of sati, child marriage and prostitution in the name of tradition are a few common themes. The controversial subject matter rejected the movie to be filmed in India; therefore Mehta was forced to shoot in Sri Lanka. This part of the culture and tradition that we call society still exists in India today. Superstition, religion and tradition act as a massive obstacle towards achieving the understanding of gender equality and women’s human rights. Therefore, if something like irrigation and plowing (as technology) can bring in such division or labor where devolution strategy by marriage or by tradition, I wonder if people in the remote villages in India are even slightly aware of how politics and socio-economics influence their everyday, and if they were aware and were allowed to voice their opinion, what would they say?

Sarah Usmani

Julie Warner

Goody (1976) traces the relationship between modes of production and social institutions and focuses on the change from ho to plow to do so. Specifically, he focuses on the link between the surplus of production made possible by the plow and inheritance given from one generation to another in families or as he calls “direct vertical transmission” (p. 20) in these societies. He cites the effects of these kinds of structures on society at large by way of examples such as that of the position of women. Goody asserts that in plow agricultural society with dowry, the position of women solidified through property. Another such example of social structures deals with the division of labor; Goody posits that in a ho society women play “major productive roles” and thus tend to have more power whereas in the plow agricultural society men employ the plow and are thus socially dominant (p. 35).

Wittfogel (1957) explores the interactive relationship between culture and location. He describes his claim that irrigation-based agricultural societies around rivers in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China gave rise to despotic social structures. He claims that in a pre-industrial economy, geographical and ecological conditions dictate what kind of government is formed, among other social conditions. Wittfogel’s argument, loosely restated, is that hydro- or hydraulic-based agriculture requires large amounts of manpower in order to work. This kind of work is not attractive, so unattractive in fact that people must be forced to carry it out. Thus, a despotic government is catalyzed. Once it is in place, it keeps growing and affects the culture. Freedom and individualism wane while obedience is valued. The despot no longer uses power just to keep the agricultural structures in motion but uses manpower on large scales to erect structures such as the Great Wall of China and the pyramids.

Goody and Wittfogel both examine the ways in which the structures on which economies are based influence society and culture, but Goody’s examination traces a more direct lineage between production and culture whereas Wittfogel focuses on government and power as a mediator.

In light of my own interests, I can’t help but wonder if Wittfogel’s hypothesis stands up in a post-industrial, information economy. In an information economy, how will the relationship between geography with its particular ecology and climate, production, government and culture change? An information economy in a sense detaches itself from geography and ecology. With the dawn of Web 1.0, which engendered the ability for the layman to publish on the web more easily and quickly than ever before, communication practices taken online changed, growing larger and crossing both temporal and spatial boundaries (Leander & McKim, 2003). Geography and ecology wane in prominence.

Goody posits that the conditions of life in a society change with the switch from ho to plow. Indeed, the see the social structures and our culture at large change as they come to revolve around information technology. We are now in the perceived era of Web 2.0, a new generation of the web which is more interconnected and interactive than its forerunner. Thus, with Web 2.0 is fostered the increased potential for interactivity. According to Thomas (2008), “Web 2.0 is truly a dialectical process between the individual and the collective“.

Recent tech news focuses on the ways in which the free flow of information in modern information economies threaten institutions. Some institutions, such as the U.S. and U.K. government respond by becoming a surveillance state. Others, like Iran, use force to subdue the populace.

Wittfogel gives mention to the role of human nature in solidifying the structure of a governments’ organization. I might call upon the same phenomenon to show how human nature might undo governing structures with a spotlight on Iran. Human nature is to find a means to communicate despite censorship, which is what we are seeing happen in Iran. The number one “trending topics” (what Twitter calls a topic that many people are tweeting about) for the past couple of days has been “#IranElection”. Protestors in Iran have been using Twitter to spread news of protests and gatherings as well as to spread information related to election fraud. As we have seen in the case of China’s internet obstruction (known to some as the “Great Firewall of China”) , people have found ways of averting oppressive measures taken to stop the free flow of information in China, specifically by inventing and using tools like proxies and anonymizers. Julesw 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Archived discussions