The Relationship between Hunting and Solidarity: The Case of the Bushmen - Essay Example

The Relationship between Hunting and Solidarity: The Case of the Bushmen Introduction In their indigenous state, Bushmen are hunters and gatherers, wandering about on the lookout for game and undomesticated plants upon which they rely for survival. The circumstances of their survival essentially prevent them from building lasting solidarity. Wherever they were able to preserve to any discernible level their native form of subsistence and social organization they are discovered dispersed throughout the land in small separate tribes. However, within a tribe or hunting band, members talk to one another regularly, work together, share a common way of life, and they are generally sociable and on quite personal ties. This paper argues that, in terms of Durkheim’s theory of solidarity, the Bushmen utilize hunting not just for obtaining food, but also for deeper domains of their life, specifically marital, religious, and economic customs and rites. A Mechanical and Organic Social Solidarity: The Bushmen Society Hunting in the Bushmen society influences social status, determines the rituals of religious traditions, and forms duty within extended family units, uniting the people in what Emile Durkheim refers to as ‘social solidarity’. As stated by Peter Kropotkin (Hann 1993, 27): But still we know that when the Europeans came, the Bushmen lived in small tribes (or clans), sometimes federated together; that they used to hunt in common, and divided the spoil without quarrelling; that they never abandoned their wounded, and displayed strong affection to their comrades. Each scholar’s presentation of the Bushmen is reconciled through a need to characterize them within a general social theory. The Bushmen society comprises both mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechanical Solidarity Emile Durkheim claims that traditional societies are bonded together by a type of social cohesion that is rooted in the commonalities of the members, or referred to as ‘mechanical solidarity’ (Komter 2004). The common values within these traditional societies, which are mostly religious in character, create a ‘collective consciousness’ for the society, a group of ideas, beliefs, and norms common to everybody (Komter 2004). There is modest individuality because individuals view themselves mainly in connection with their membership in the group. Hunting is still deeply embedded in the culture of Bushmen, even in instances where bands take care of their own cattle and grow their own food. The Bushmen are essentially hunters on the peripheries of the bigger non-Bushman culture. Bushmen are hunters in numerous ways. Gift-giving and kin relations include social ‘hunting’, for family connections and for bonds of exchange. Their spiritual or religious principle is distinguished as ‘hunting’ for knowledge (Hann 1993). It is factual that personal ties and hunting in Bushmen culture are practically joined at the hip. Several anthropologists argue against the theory of mechanical solidarity among these African hunters. They claim that occasions of stinginess and complaining over space, belongings, and food show that the Bushmen do not value their personal relations, yet endure the measures to acquire wealth and prestige for themselves (Hann 1993). The fierce vocal and at times physical brawls that transpire among the Bushmen appear to substantiate an unstable communal agreement that has no profound relevance (Komter 2004), for no really profound ties could ever be sacrificed merely for the desire of a property or a sack of nuts. In order to identify the mechanical solidarity inherent in the function of hunting among the Bushmen, it is important to start with the family, which commences with marital ties. The capacity of a male to forage establishes his marital attractiveness. Primarily, his capability to get married depends entirely on foraging (Hann 1993). As Elizabeth Marshall Thomas (1989) described in her very influential book The Harmless People: “He was the only Bushmen… we had ever met… who had never been married, this because Bushmen men must shoot a buck and undergo initiation before they can marry, which he had never done” (Thomas 1989, 147). Hunting builds personal ties not merely through food sharing or provision, a bodily gratification, but also through the exercise of religious influence, a gratification of the spirit. The males possess religious influence or spiritual authority to carry out religious rites. Ties in the Bushmen culture are usually built as an outcome of males carrying out the obligations assigned to them because they are foragers. The people are aware that these obligations are therapeutic, although they are more concerned with the healing of the people’s hearts and minds than the physical being. When healing is needed, a ritual-similar affair occurs. This activity is hosted by singing women and dancing men. The affair is valued by everybody and is also a chance for people to intermingle with each other, affairs that build personal ties between the people (Thomas 1989). Majority of the people present in the occasion attend without cause, not to be treated but to participate in the affair as part of a social activity and to take part in the bonds they have with other people in the group. Everyone who is able to come will attend, and these rituals are carried out for the sake of smoothing and strengthening personal and communal ties within the society and embedding mechanical solidarity. In particular, the most appropriate assumption about social solidarity in the society of Bushmen stems from the core of the debate: does hunting and personal ties relate to each other? Hunting not merely requires familial ties within a community and is the basis for religious influence, but is the source of social status and the relationship of the people to one another (Thomas 1989). Due to the fact that the Bushmen inhabit an unfriendly environment, where food is a very valuable good, the level of standing a man gains has a direct connection to his hunting performance. Apparently, the more successful his hunt is, the higher the standing he gains in the band. Mechanical solidarity among the Bushmen remains intact in the twentieth-century. As stated by Tanaka (Hann 1993, 29): The integrating and governing principles of egalitarian San society are the principles of sharing and cooperation… For outsiders, the San ideology of equal sharing is very difficult to comprehend, and its practice is even more difficult. It was this point that gave me the most trouble when I began living among the San. Likewise, Marshall (1961) described (Hann 1993, 29): They lived in a kind of material plenty… They borrow what they do not own. With this ease, they have not hoarded, and the accumulation of objects has not become associated with status. Other types of social membership, either non-kinship or kinship based, characterize the social controls of certain areas of distribution. For example, Marshall puts emphasis on the importance of sharing and kinship for sustaining cooperation within the tribe, and among tribes (Hann 1993). Specifically, the Bushmen society is distinguished by rigid meat-sharing norms. Hunters let other hunters use their tools, and vice versa, and the ‘hunter’ of the killed game is the holder of the killing arrow although it will have been thrown by another forager. The winning ‘hunter’ shares his kill with the other foragers, with his relatives, with the people of his tribe, and usually with members of other tribes (Hann 1993). Members who receive a share of the hunt then share it out to other people, to their kin, and families: a perfect practice of mechanical solidarity. Organic Solidarity Organic solidarity, according to Durkheim, is a type of social solidarity rooted in the dissimilarities or differences among the people, which oblige them to become mutually dependent. Contrary to mechanical solidarity, organic solidarity fosters high level of individuality (Komter 2004). However, because people are now mutually dependent, they should depend on one another if their culture and society is to work healthily. The foundation for social solidarity is not similarities anymore but differences. And the Bushmen society exhibits organic solidarity with their social organization and social status. It is usual to consider hunter-and-gatherer societies as having unique economic and political forms of organization, and distributing goods from hunting is usually viewed as particularly vital in these societies. In Bushman society, traditional meat-sharing and gift-giving are essential (Komter 2004). Similarly, marital trades concerning the transfer of products, usually mentioned as a common attribute of pastoralist cultures, are discovered among Bushmen. The notion of hunting can help in determining the core features of Bushmen culture, which in a sense signifies indifference toward the outcome of the task (Hann 1993). When a Bushman hunts, he will definitely stop to gather nuts or berries. He may even carry them home, particularly if the hunt failed. In turn, the wife will gather some roots to cook. This is a simple division of labor which demonstrates the interconnectedness of individual skills within a family, tribe, or hunting band. The concept of ‘hunting’ is valuable as an explanation of these sorts of task, and even more valuable in identifying the beliefs and culture of Bushman society. Similarly, social status, as a concept, indicates that there is a distinction in standing or value from one member of the band to the next. However, a Bushman does not desire status and want instead to be equal to others, even to the most skillful hunters, because they depend on each other for subsistence: an exact premise of organic solidarity (Thomas 1989). The ethos of Bushmen involves the belief that all belongings should be shared for equal utilization among all the members and that all foodstuffs should be distributed evenly among the members of the band because, according to Thomas (1989), Bushmen work together and support each other. This has twofold function: it is not just for expediency, but also to thwart negative thoughts and feelings among them. Organic solidarity is attested by the fact that the Bushmen should aim to be generous with their material belongings because their subsistence or survival rely on it. If a hunter in the band were to resentfully refuse to give food he had successfully gained, it may imply hunger for another (Thomas 1989). It may be claimed that if a hunter is valued for his ability, it forms an organic solidarity because at that time the people he feeds have a dependence on him formed simply on the presence of his skill. Thomas (1989) witnessed this fact herself. She narrates the tale of Short Kwi, a forager who suffered from gangrene because of a snake bite and was forced to abandon hunting altogether due to his difficult condition. Even though his people are saddened when chatting about it because their consumption of meat decreased since then, their concern and care for him shows that they really respected and valued him. It even came to the point that the people thought that his wife would abandon him, but she dispelled their worries by declaring that she would never do such a thing. The statements and actions of Short Kwi’s wife illustrate that her attachment to her husband has went beyond her reliance on him for meat; she developed a genuine and strong attachment to Short Kwi. Since he retained his social standing, or, more precisely in the point of view of the Bushmen society, his valued status among his people when he became unfit to hunt, it is apparent that the admiration of the people for him emanates from their personal attachment to him not from their reliance on his hunting skills. Because he retained the respect and admiration of his people, the ties become attributable to mechanical solidarity. The story shows that relationships among Bushmen are independent from hunting. A minor proof of this is the fact that it is not the youthful, skillful foragers who control representation and possess power within the community, but the elders. The elders are normally unable to hunt and do not contribute much to their tribe (Hann 1993). Yet, the elders represent or speak for their band. As narrated by Thomas (1989), when she and her group are looking for the Bushmen, the elder Ukwane and the hunter Gai appeared to welcome them; yet, it was “the old man who answered our questions… he seemed very old” (Thomas 1989, 35). Ukwane showed fear when answering their questions. Gai seemed more confident to answer but he just “held his hand in front of his mouth… so that only Ukwane could understand them” (Thomas 1989, 37). The respected people in a tribe are declared by the person selected to represent it (Thomas 1989). Ukwane was revered by the Bushmen not for his remarkable skill in hunting, as would be in organic solidarity, but for his attachment to them, the respect and confidence developed over time. Another proof stays in a particular principle which is present among the Bushmen presiding over hunting activities. It is largely accepted that the meat of a slaughtered game is not owned by the hunter who managed to kill it but by the hunter who owned the arrow that killed it (Thomas 1989). Due to the fact that the exercise of this rule demonstrates that ties dominate hunting, in relation to those correctly recognized, mechanical solidarity is operating. Thomas realized this. Hence, when she and her team were making preparations for departure, they pampered the community with gifts: “presents of pipes, of knives, of beads, of clothing, of cornmeal, and tobacco” (Thomas 1989, 260). Nevertheless, relationships express themselves quite visibly in dismal situations. For the Bushmen, survival is routinely a grim situation. As expressed by the wife of Short Kwi and by all the people who attend the healing ritual, the ties of the Bushmen are enduring, not irrelevant (Thomas 1989). In any case, she had lived with these South African people, documenting their routines and characteristic. Conclusions Based on the discussion and review of several works on the subject, it seems that social solidarity within the Bushmen society is apparent but misunderstood. Different authors like Kropotkin, Marshall, and Thomas support Durkheim’s theory of solidarity, particularly his premises about traditional societies and mechanical solidarity. However, organic solidarity has not been much substantiated by these authors because this type of solidarity is faintly present in traditional societies, like Bushmen. Although it has been shown that there are some indications of organic solidarity present in Bushmen society, the proofs are still quite insubstantial and inadequate: this is where assumptions diverge. The debate about the nature of social interdependence among Bushmen, whether their relationships are rooted in personal ties or dependence upon one’s hunting skills, is quite complex. But for now, the answer to this issue rests at the hands of ethnographers like Thomas. References Hann, C.M. Socialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Local Practice. London: Routledge, 1993. Komter, A. Social Solidarity and the Gift. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Thomas, E.M. The harmless people. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Read More