Week 6 Blog post
Conflict or rivalry is common among the Yanomamö. Feuds are self-perpetuating because the Yanomamö lack any formal mechanisms to stop aggrieved parties from exacting the amount of vengeance or counter-vengeance they deem sufficient once a conflict has started, even though the initial cause of a conflict is frequently traced to a sexual or marital issue. The lineage is the basic unit of retribution, but non-kin co-residents are also obligated to help because coexistence with a feuding faction is considered as implied support by that faction's adversaries. More aggressive warriors have poorer indices of reproductive success than their more subdued brethren, according to an examination of the raiding histories, marriage trajectories, and reproductive histories of these individuals. This outcome conflicts with Chagnon's conclusions regarding the Yanomamo. The spacing of retribution raids may play a role in explaining why these two warlike lowland South American peoples experience different outcomes from aggression. Unokais had more spouses and children than non-unokais did at every age. Men who were warriors had great social status, which made them more desirable as spouses and father figures. Violence and warfare are "adaptive" actions that promote human evolution. The Yanomami are staunch advocates of human equality. Each group is autonomous from the others and does not acknowledge "chiefs." Consensus is reached on decisions, typically following protracted discussions in which everyone has a voice. The village headman, who comes from the strongest patrilineage in the area, is the preeminent political figure. A village may have numerous headmen if it is large or if the sizes of the two local descent groups are about equal. The headman's ability to lead hinges on his track record of successfully resolving conflicts, advocating for the lineage, and negotiating with both allies and foes. Yanomamö marriage laws specify that prospective spouses must be distant cousins. Due to the custom of exchanging sisters, double cross cousins are the ideal match for partners. Typically, women marry males in their early twenties shortly after their first period. Marriage is patrilocal, although the bride service requires the groom to spend a number of years living with the bride's parents. High ranking males may be exempt from this restriction. Every Yanomamö village has its own independent government and is able to declare war or peace with other communities. Although coalitions between communities are crucial, they can break down quickly. Though their ability for cruelty and manipulation can have disastrous effects on those around them and include anti-social behavior, psychopaths and sociopaths frequently control their condition and masquerade as "normal" individuals. Laws are needed in the case that citizens may act out and know that their are consequences for their actions. This applies to the ideology of drinking and driving because there is a consequence for the actions the person is committing and proving that this should not be right for any person.
Yikes! That is one long paragraph!
ReplyDeleteWhile this isn't a writing class, you should still use correct formatting, complete with paragraphs for each topic, in your posts, if only to present your work in a way that will be easy to read. As is, I will struggle to figure out when your response to one prompt ends and another begins. You help yourself by formatting your assignments correctly.
1. "Yanomamö lack any formal mechanisms to stop aggrieved parties from exacting the amount of vengeance"
The system of revenge killing IS the formal mechanism designed to deter killings and allow families to exact punishment on those who have killed their kin. Their mechanisms/rules may not resemble our laws, but that doesn't mean they aren't "formalized", i.e., an established set of rules that mirror our system of justice.
2. You dive right into the comparison of the unokais to non-unokais benefits and don't actually explain this practice, as requested in the second prompt.
3. You offer a lot of discussion here, but I'm confused by this statement:
"More aggressive warriors have poorer indices of reproductive success than their more subdued brethren, according to an examination of the raiding histories, marriage trajectories, and reproductive histories of these individuals."
The data in the article doesn't support your point here, and it also contradicts your later statements in your post. Check the article again, specifically Table 2 on page 7. Those men who are unokais have on average nearly 5 children each, compared to non-unokais who have less than two. That confirms Chagnon's point that there is reproductive benefits to opting to be an unokais. They are also more likely to marry and marry polygnously (Table 3 also on page 7).
What is the possible benefit of being a non-unokais? Missing that point.
4. Political structure: You discuss the function/role of headmen but you don't explain how the choice of leadership is connected with the revenge killings practice. You reference a headman's ability to "successfully resolving conflicts" but how is he chosen in the first place? Who is more likely to be a headman, a unokais or a non-unokais?
Social structure: "Men who were warriors had great social status, which made them more desirable as spouses and father figures."
Good. But how can women use the unokais system to increase their social status?
Kinship: You discuss kinship but you don't make the connection between revenge killings and kinship. Who is more likely to possess a high number of kin? Unokais or non-unokais?
Marriage and reproduction: "Unokais had more spouses and children than non-unokais did at every age."
That sentence was the closest I found to addressing the prompt. So taking part in the revenge killings increased a man's likelihood of marriage (even multiple marriages) and producing offspring. You discuss marriage practices (such as cross-cousin marriages) but that wasn't the focus here.
"Violence and warfare are "adaptive" actions that promote human evolution."
Careful... nothing "promotes" human evolution. That's not how it works. It can certainly impact and shape how humans evolve but it doesn't encourage or "promote it". And it's important to recognize that Chagnon was curious about the interaction of biology and culture. This research supports the recognition that human cultural practices can be seen as 'adaptive', in that they can enhance a person's ability to reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation. But unlike physical traits, it is more difficult to understand how cultural traits evolve given that they are not directly controlled by genetics.
Google limited my comment length so I will finish it here:
ReplyDelete__________________________________________________________
5. Are murders/killings only committed by "psychopaths and sociopaths"? Can they be committed by psychologically "normal" individuals for understandable reasons? How about in self-defense? Defense of your family? Defense of property? Even killings of passion, such as killing a person who hurt a family member or is a sexual competitor, while not excusable, is at least understandable, wouldn't you think?
So step away from the idea that killings are only explained by something being mentally wrong with a person, because that is not accurate. Why do normal, average people kill?
Both Western cultures and the Yanomamo have laws against these behaviors, not because they are bad but because people may gain some benefit from engaging in those laws to the detriment of those around them.
We are creatures of biology, regardless of how "civilized" we might want to think we are. Killing can benefit an organism if they gain resources or a mate or defend their offspring in the process, correct? So that benefit is still there in humans, whether we like it or not. Killing is an instinctive, biological reaction to a threat of some sort, to our lives, to our family (genes) or to our resources, but it can also be a strategy to advance your survival, such as (for example) killing off a rival. Understand that this isn't excusing the behavior. It just explains it. But we need laws against this behavior, not because no one wants to do it but because sometimes people can benefit from this behavior... i.e., they DO want to kill because it benefits them. Laws protect us from selfish actions of others, acting to their own benefit and the harm of others.