Back to week in and gym. And strangely quiet today. The holiday – bastard that it is – must be wider ranging than I thought. Even the educationalists were in scant density.
The podcast was an episode of the CBC’s “Best of Ideas”, an interview – first part – with an old style anthropologist of the female plumbing type. She related a visit to Canadian/Alaskan native people – a LONG visit – that occurred about the time I entered high shule.[Link] The stories of her educational travels through college were instructive, being in many ways parallel to my own, and giving me further insight into how today’s educational (sic) process has become over regularized and uneducational. No wonder he GEN Y thing a diploma is an education! I also got some insight into the aversion, even then, of anthropologists for theory and theory making.
I have to admit that I find such views foolish to nauseating for a science. Perhaps this does indicate why the anthropologists are now saying they are not a science? Perhaps they have the integrity and honesty to admit that if they cannot bring themselves to transcend individual atoms of data they are not actually a science but just a scholarly pursuit? If so, this gives us new perspectives on what is stamp collection science.
The people she lived with, arctic circle band size or so, do not display anger beyond a certain point in childhood. They evidently greatly fear it, or at least the killing that it leads to. And she talked about her own anger and the heavily hidden anger of those she lived with. And how the group kills people who do not “fit in”.
It then occurred to me, despite the taboo on theory, that the group lives much closer to a survival cusp (maths catastrophe theory) than does our society. This would seem to be due to an interplay of (small) size of society, its strong social interdependence, and geographic location. But what resounded from this was that these people limit their violence to stay away from that cusp. And this might apply to other peoples.
This brought me to consider all the grrr brrrr these days with gun ownership as a means of controlling violence. I have held previously that such will not work, that the advantage of widespread gun ownership is that it keeps violence to a simple, containable form. Take away the guns and tomorrow it will be IEDs in Amerika. But this is a new wrinkle. If accurate, it indicates that the members of society tolerate violence to the extent that it does not move them too close to that cusp. And since we are far from the cusp – all the arguments are not about violence, they are about death – any efforts to control violence by restricting gun ownership will be ineffective and wasteful, if not propagators of worse forms.
Who sez froo-froo podcasts aren’t useful?