Jump to content

Why did Humans create States?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

On 2017-12-28 at 11:31 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Rippounet,

That is where I'd like this discussion to go.  Can human's move past the State?

I met my wife in a class my third year in Law School called "Law and Cultural Evolution".  The professor, an attorney who was teaching as an ad junct, had an interesting thesis.  He tied human cultural evolution to caloric production and expenditure.  He postulated that Hunter/Gatherer societies had a 1-1 caloric production and expenditure ratio.  Those societies were governed by tradition and custom, to our knowledge nothing was particularly formalized ("Phase I"). 

He then talks about the agricultural revolution and the creation of a surplus he assigned agricultural societies a ration of 10-1.  He noted that this surplus was created by exploiting human and animal labor in rather difficult conditions.  He postulated that this is where law comes from.  The need to keep people in particular roles in life (roles that they may not particularly enjoy) and as such fairly harsh measures were required to keep people working the land.  Thus, States and law arises ("Phase II"). 

Finally, he talks about the mechanical revolution and postulates a ratio of 100-1 for production and caloric intake.  The surplus has increased by an order of magnitude and doesn't require human or animal work to maintain that ratio.  

The question he asked of the class was if we have Phase I governed by tradition and custom.  Phase II governed by States and Law.  What was coming for Phase III?  I really don't know.  One student of his called Phase III "the Artificial Garden" and speculated a return to tradition and custom.  I doubt that.  There are far too many people for that to work and the State will fight to preserve its own power.  It is a fascinating question. 

Well, if you assume that history has some sort of end with necessary progress and "phases", perhaps this would be relevant. 

But such teleologies are human ideas not realities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 3:59 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But States destroy equitable distribution.  Every State will always have a class with more control than others (your leisure class) that exists based upon the labor of others.  Why would people consent to being those who aren’t the “leisure class”?

There were almost  certainly unequal distributions that preceded any formal states.  In fact, since states imply some sort of collectivism trumping a most threat of violence takes all brutish and short settlement, almost every state is somewhat socialist in practice.  Though too much is certainly a bad thing.  I wouldn't want a cannoli with the sugar and salt dosages swapped, for example.

10 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Humanity has always been looking for new and interesting ways of breaking our own necks

My girlfriends neice got a hoverboard for Christmas.  Still feeling it a week later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 8:50 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

For Christmas I received the book Against the Grain by James C. Scott. It’s initially question is interesting: recent evidence suggests that humans were healthier, more equitable, and had more leasure time living as hunter/gatherer bands than they did in sedantary communities that were the precursors to the earliest States.  Epidemic was rife in early States and famine more likely when people were subject to The vagaries of climate in one locale.  States had harsh laws and rulers that demanded people give of their production to keep the State functionality and the rulers living as they wanted to live.  That being the case why did States form in the first place?

I have no clue.  Anyone want to hazard a discussion of this question?

My guess would be that what we call States came into being when humans began to practise agriculture.  Agriculture enabled any given area of land to support a much bigger population than hunting/gathering;  that in turn gave the agriculturalists a military advantage over the hunter/gatherers. States were needed to organise the population for war on a much bigger scale than fights between bands of hunter/gatherers.

My understanding of hunter/gatherer societies is that they tend to be very violent, so the agriculturalists might have seen increased security as another advantage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

My guess would be that what we call States came into being when humans began to practise agriculture.  Agriculture enabled any given area of land to support a much bigger population than hunting/gathering;  that in turn gave the agriculturalists a military advantage over the hunter/gatherers. States were needed to organise the population for war on a much bigger scale than fights between bands of hunter/gatherers.

My understanding of hunter/gatherer societies is that they tend to be very violent, so the agriculturalists might have seen increased security as another advantage.

 

Here's the problem.  Why is there a 4000 year gap between the rise of agriculture and the earliest known States?  That's a lot of time with agriculture and without States for Agriculture to be the causal factor in the rise of States.  I agree agriculture appears to be a necessary precursor to the development of the State.  However, I suspect there is another causal factor in the growth of the State with that 4000 year gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's the problem.  Why is there a 4000 year gap between the rise of agriculture and the earliest known States?  That's a lot of time with agriculture and without States for Agriculture to be the causal factor in the rise of States.  I agree agriculture appears to be a necessary precursor to the development of the State.  However, I suspect there is another causal factor in the growth of the State with that 4000 year gap.

I haven't gone over the whole thread, but what do you think that other reason is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A state in some way could be said to be a mutually agreed monopoly on violence I guess. Everyone basically feels like its ok for one body to act to control everyone else for the greater good. This would make sense in a more anarchic world where you'd have numerous groups vying for power, often with violent ends. 

But I could also imagine the resistance to suddenly getting a lot of people to agree to let group take control would be huge. It would need a number of persuasive factors, maybe religion and an already existing monopoly of power and wealth to establish it. 

Plus you are essentially inventing a brand new way of life. Not that easy, it would take time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's the problem.  Why is there a 4000 year gap between the rise of agriculture and the earliest known States?  That's a lot of time with agriculture and without States for Agriculture to be the causal factor in the rise of States.  I agree agriculture appears to be a necessary precursor to the development of the State.  However, I suspect there is another causal factor in the growth of the State with that 4000 year gap.

Where does this 4,000 year old gap come from?
I think the keyword there is "earliest known". Sumer is the earliest known because we are judging a 'civilization' by writing. But sites in Anatolia like Aşıklı Höyük & Göbekli Tepe all date to the 9th - 10th milleniums BCE, and certainly required some form of mass organization to construct. From what I remember from school, the earliest known agriculture also dates to this time.

Obviously we don't know how these late neolithic societies were organized, as they did not leave us any writing to deceipher. So I suppose it depends on your definition of 'state' - does it require a king-figure? writing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord of Oop North said:

Where does this 4,000 year old gap come from?
I think the keyword there is "earliest known". Sumer is the earliest known because we are judging a 'civilization' by writing. But sites in Anatolia like Aşıklı Höyük & Göbekli Tepe all date to the 9th - 10th milleniums BCE, and certainly required some form of mass organization to construct. From what I remember from school, the earliest known agriculture also dates to this time.

Obviously we don't know how these late neolithic societies were organized, as they did not leave us any writing to deceipher. So I suppose it depends on your definition of 'state' - does it require a king-figure? writing? 

Great questions.  I do wonder if some sort of State like organizations existed much longer than we have evidence for simply because they weren’t building or working in stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2018 at 0:16 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's the problem.  Why is there a 4000 year gap between the rise of agriculture and the earliest known States?  That's a lot of time with agriculture and without States for Agriculture to be the causal factor in the rise of States.  I agree agriculture appears to be a necessary precursor to the development of the State.  However, I suspect there is another causal factor in the growth of the State with that 4000 year gap.

My knowledge of this era is pretty spotty. But, about the time first city states came around, wasn't this about the time the bronze age started? Could the rise of metallurgy technology have something to do with it?

ETA:

Supposing a society produces basic survival stuff and it produces horseshit. And let’s say producing horseshit has high opportunity cost. For every unit of horseshit that gets produced, it cost a lot in terms of basic survival stuff, that doesn’t get made. And then somebody invents bronze, and it gets cheaper to produce basic survival stuff. And the opportunity cost of making horseshit falls. So more horseshit gets produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just imagining the first groups that would have been able to achieve large crop fields. They likely wouldve formed some security to protect the crops from "outgroup" raiders who likely wouldve coveted those crops. Furthermore these early, sucessful growers wouldve began teaching and spreading the knowledge of how they created these crops.

So I think "teaching" and "security" would go hand in hand with the advancement of agriculture. Agriculture, Security, Education would be my guess towards the 3 frontrunners leading to more organised societies. And I see them rising together in a short span, they each necessitate the other as interrelated building blocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2018 at 0:16 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's the problem.  Why is there a 4000 year gap between the rise of agriculture and the earliest known States?  That's a lot of time with agriculture and without States for Agriculture to be the causal factor in the rise of States.  I agree agriculture appears to be a necessary precursor to the development of the State.  However, I suspect there is another causal factor in the growth of the State with that 4000 year gap.

Domestication of the horse, and other draft animals would be the causal factor you are looking for. It is really hard to carry warfare onto other groups without the ability to actually get to the other groups. Again, look to the Mongols as they went from stateless pastoralists to empire builders within a lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-01-02 at 6:16 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's the problem.  Why is there a 4000 year gap between the rise of agriculture and the earliest known States?  That's a lot of time with agriculture and without States for Agriculture to be the causal factor in the rise of States.  I agree agriculture appears to be a necessary precursor to the development of the State.  However, I suspect there is another causal factor in the growth of the State with that 4000 year gap.

The problem here is "earliest known". (and for that matter, the issue of what counts as a state) we "see" states in the archeological record when they start to a) Keep records (IE: With the development of writing) and B) Monumental architecture. However, other sources show that these aren't neccessary for state-like structures. (or at least, in the fairly simplistic developmental model, "chieftainships") eg. plenty of polynesian societies had fairly developed state-like structures without either of these things. (though others, eg. Easter Islands, certainly had the latter)

It is also notable that when we *do* get written records: States are already, so to speak, "fully formed". We don't see the development but rather states already in existence starts utilizing writing. (for either recordeekping, like in the middle-east, or oracular functions, like in China)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-01-03 at 7:12 PM, maarsen said:

Domestication of the horse, and other draft animals would be the causal factor you are looking for. It is really hard to carry warfare onto other groups without the ability to actually get to the other groups. Again, look to the Mongols as they went from stateless pastoralists to empire builders within a lifetime.

This one though, is completely wrong: For the simple reason that we have plenty of states without large domesticated beasts of burden. (See for instance: All of the Americas) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Galactus said:

This one though, is completely wrong: For the simple reason that we have plenty of states without large domesticated beasts of burden. (See for instance: All of the Americas) 

Llamas don't count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...