Firefly as a New Tribal Enterprise
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2003 05:27
VIEWED: 11276
PAGE 1 of 4
I don't know how many of you are familiar with the works of Daniel Quinn, but I've just finished his books "Ishmael" and "Beyond Civilization". The former being a novel centered around a presentation of Quinn's observations and conclusions concerning the fate of modern civilization, the latter a collection of essays pertaining to the ideas presented in "Ishmael" with ideas and suggestions for ways we might avoid the doom predicted by the author.
A consistent theme of these books is the idea that agricultural, community based civilization is fundamentally flawed, setting man up as forever in conflict with all other life forms and in a sense himself. He offers as an alternative a return to the social organization model that existed before the current paradigm, namely 'Tribalism'. I should be clear here that he's not suggesting a return to primitive hunter/gatherer modes of subsistence, but rather a change in focus away from large scale communities as the basic unit of society and toward the small tribal enterprise centered around making a living for its members.
I'm not sure I completely buy into Quinn's rather gloomy outlook on the fate of modern civilization, but I was very intrigued by his ideas about people gradually turning away from their standard roles as employees and 'productive members of the community' - he call's them 'pyramid builders' - and towards a fringe where people band together, taking whatever work they can find, doing whatever they can to keep the 'tribe' going. He thinks people will eventually come to see this not as a sacrifice, but as a net gain, preferring the freedom and independence and security found in a group of like minded people who take a personal stake in the success of the group. Now, if you're still with me, is any of this starting to sound familiar?
As I read more and more about what the author called the 'New Tribal Enterprise' I simply couldn't quit thinking about Firefly and our favorite crew of space farers. They really are the perfect example of Quinn's idea. I'm thinking of writing him to see if he'd agree. I'd also be interested to hear what you all think, especially if you've read either of these books.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting post, Sergeant. I see the Firefly connection, too. I haven't read the books, but I read an article in a college anthro. class called something like "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race." That being agriculture.
It talked about how people have traditionally had much more free time and even a healthier (varied, unrefined grains) diet as hunter-gatherers than as farmers. The only reason farming got started seems to be that human numbers got too big to support in several regions, so they had to settle down. Then the numbers exploded, and there was no turning back.
Bringing it closer to YOUR "tribe" idea, how often do you hear people complain about their lazy and/or moron bosses and coworkers? How would the Dilbert comic survive otherwise? The idea of being in a small group of people that you know you can count on would probably be popular. It certainly leads many youths into gangs. But those are people whose lives are usually very uncertain, and the gangs provide the only stability.
I think the uncertainty of going job to job would be too much to bear for most developed-world people. People crave stability and "comfortableness." Maybe with the continuing uncertainty in the world economy, more people will look to "tribal enterprises" for stability.
I'm curious what others will say.
Ying/
Firefly Funsite
NEW URL - http://fireflyfunsite.home.att.net
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I havent read these books. They do sound like an interesting read but I can see myself being easily pissed off..at least disgruntled.
Reason being? I am an agriculturalist. So far 3 secondary years of study and 5 post-secondary years (being college) and a BS and probably a masters coming sometime in the future. General agriculture IS my specialty (heh).
<
This is exactly the reason why agricultural practices started in the first place. The population was already growing at a near-exponential rate and the only solution was to start cultivating wild grains and animals.
And I see nothing wrong with that. In fact I see it as if no agricultural practices were ever implemented, this world would be a much different place. Either the human race would be much smaller and fragmented, but most likely without all the advances in technology, sciences, philosophies, etc. That or the population growth trend would still have happened (albeit much slower than now), even in a hunter-gatherer society, and being hunters and gatherers and not replenishing what we take for food (as in agriculture) we would literally have eaten ourselves out of house and home or be near it...nearer it than we are now (but thats another debate).
In a nutshell, I think agriculture is the best thing that could have happened to the human race.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Howdy, back from vacation and this looked like an interesting article.
HAve not read or even heard of Quinn's books, but the idea sounds intriguing. At first glance, it is fundamentally flawed however.
Its the problem of big glasses again. Is the glass half empty, or half full. If you look at only that part of it, (argicultural communities that set man in conflict with all other life forms) then civilization is flawed. But one has to ignore the great leaps in technology and economics that is derived from that form of civilization, and is the direct cause for there being so many people alive to begin with.
Large groups allow for divisions of labor, which in turn allows for creation of more goods for more people at lower costs. More people are able to exist now, because of the technical advances and social infrastructure provided by that very civilization he appears to be railing against.
Plus, one of the problems with traditional alternatives, such as tribalism, is it appears to foster a "us against the the world" attitude among its members. For the tribe, everything. For those outside the tribe....?
And there will always be more of them than there are of you, and unless you want to end up like Custer, you have to be careful of who you are at war with, and how you resolve conflicts with other tribes.
People will move to the bigger better deal, to whatever they think will make them happier and healthier. The problem is whether a new paradigm is better at providing for the lives and welfare of its members than the old one. If it isn't, you'll see a mass re-integration going on, and the new solution will die out. I am not sure if tribalism is an effective answer. Even Serenity would cease to exist without the industrial infrastructure of factories making parts for it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In a nutshell, I think agriculture is the best thing that could have happened to the human race."
I have to agree, even though I don't have your education on the issue. Agriculture is key. Getting people to settle down and stay put, requires the solving of several problems that in turn are required for constructing technically advanced civilizations. It is at least a nursery for such.
If you stay in one place, you will quickly deplete the food source. Farming solves that problems right from the beginning. It also raises questions of whose actions accomplished the raising of food, and what rewards should be administered to encourage such endevours. Then you get into property rights, governments, irrigation and other infrastructure components, all as a result of farming initially, but have applications far beyond the local farming village. Trade, economics, mathematics and geometry, all spring from the fertile valleys of the cradles of civilization.
There was an earlier statement that agriculture puts us at war with all other life forms. I hate to tell Quinn this, but out very existence puts us at war with all other life forms. Life feeds on life, and whether that is directed via farming and ranching, or not as in a hunter gatherer situation, its still an "eat or be eaten" world out there. Not just for people, but lions, rabbits, cats, wildebeasts, whales, etc. That is the nature of life.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oohh... an idea that coresponds to my plans for world domination... um.. ignore that last thought.
I always had a weird thought in my head about trying to set up a global society that is much less likely to piss other countries off... Sortof like a United Nations sponsored locality that is placed in an area where there are no people to displace and the people understand that they are there to be friendly, and the place isn't going to attack others... Kinda like the ultimate hippy community... that isn't filled with hippies (I'm rambling, I apologize)
Anyway, in a recent thought storm of how to go about that, I thought of separating the nation/city into separate communities. Those who work in the technology sector would live together, researches, etc, to combine those with similar ambitions/thoughts together, to limit clashing civilizations and to encourage higher quality products through communication with like minded individuals...
I think that this concept works well as a modern application to the topic at hand.
LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?
Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think that this concept works well as a modern application to the topic at hand."
Have to disagree. First off, how are you going to segregate folks? By force? The second you use force to keep people from interacting, you are going to have troubles.
Second, or perhaps an extension of the first, it is not the communication between like minded individuals who produce technical innovations, it is communications between people who DON'T think alike that produce the truly novel and unique technical innovations.
And again, how do you prevent people from talking to each other, or any other form of interaction they may choose? Force? Ain't gonna work. PErsuasion requires you offer something, a benefit, and I don't see one there.
The fundamental aspects of humanity is that it is individuals who live, are free, and who will pursue their own happiness, come hell or high water. Trying to prevent folks from doing things you don't like is risky at best.
Besides why would anyone want to dominate the world? Sounds like a paperwork hassle to me.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, trust me, I never meant to suggest locking people up and keeping them in little cages apart from each other.
My idea is a city locality that is built purely for the advancement of humanity. No declarations of war, only defensive armies if any, using the most advanced technology, and pushing advancements in medicine, science, and humanity.
For example: We could grow foods (plants and meats) in labs in buildings today. But we don't because its cheaper to pay some cowboy shit to herd cattle around.
We have so much technology that we could use to make this world a better place, but we focus way too much on corporations and making money to do anything with it... I figure we should give the whole "Star Trek Democratic Communism" idea a chance with all the freedoms and the like. The only reason I said areas would be separated, would to try and encourage like minded individuals to share and spread ideas that they had from the others. I encourage interaction between all peoples, but I think coming home to an area with like minded individuals would produce more effective mindsets for the work that they are creating, and less social problems in the homestead.
The idea is still very flawed, and I hope to discuss it more with others later, once I start getting more thoughts behind it, but generally, I think it would be a society where the government actually takes care of the people (Excellent Food, Medicine, Infrastructure, Education, Etc, which would be free) where people are free to choose their lifestyles. All the standard freedoms (Speech, Religion, Truthful Press, Life, Liberty, Etc).
Its a nice dream anyway...
LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?
Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"My idea is a city locality that is built purely for the advancement of humanity. No declarations of war, only defensive armies if any, using the most advanced technology, and pushing advancements in medicine, science, and humanity.
For example: We could grow foods (plants and meats) in labs in buildings today. But we don't because its cheaper to pay some cowboy shit to herd cattle around. "
First question: In that last sentance, were you meaning that the cowboy in question was paid shittily as in badly and not enough money? Or did you mean something else because I'm not sure if I am reading that right.
Yes, we COULD grow everything we might need for food in a lab, or many things but maybe not everything at the moment. But, if you do grow everything in a lab, you will find much backlash from animal rights organizations saying that animals stuck in some lab is no way to treat a living creature. You would also have backlash from people who would believe that all plants would be Genetically Modified (though it wouldnt be necessary in a lab) and are against that. Locally, I have noticed a growing trend for people to buy "natural" and "organic" and "free range" products. This is not to say that I agree or disagree with animal rights activists, "organic" buyers and those against GM foods, there would just be a large problem with them, much larger than there is now.
Do you also realize that not all discoveries (major and minor) in science are not made in a laboratory? In biological, agricultural, botanical, entomological, oceanographical, and many others, discoveries are made when "out in the field" by initially making observations in situ. And in the case of agricultural sciences, one can only go so far in a lab...you really need to have some experiments done literally in the field to a large acerage or small plots in a whole control of the larger acerage to see what a truer result may be.
This hypothetical society (and I can see the merits) would be for the advancement of humanity, yet what about those lifestyles and cultures that live off the land? A whole other debate would have to address the issue that these cultures and lifestyles are slowly dying out as it is. But while it probably is cheaper to pay a rancher to raise cattle and a farmer to cultivate wheat, one has to remember that most of these ranchers and farmers do not get paid enough for all the money and hard work they put into growing a product you want. Note that I am not talking about corporate farming, that also would need another debate. Ranching and farming is a whole lifestyle. There is no vacations from it and families stay in debt for a very very long time just to keep the farm running.
Then there are those few semi-nomadic cultures still left such as small tribes still living on the Mongolian steppe, or any of the people still living in the rainforest or on African plains or in the Australian outback. I think its more valuable to learn what we can while we can from these cultures and lifestyles as they are rather than having a small representation of each living in a commune setting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME