The Original Affluent Society - Rethinking Primitive Economics (Part-I)

Summary

The video discusses Marshall Sahlins' concept of the 'original affluent society,' challenging the traditional view of hunter-gatherer societies as impoverished. Sahlins argues that these societies were affluent due to their ability to satisfy their basic needs with minimal effort, in contrast to capitalist societies driven by constant desire and accumulation. By examining examples like the Kung Bushmen and Aboriginal societies, the video explores how these cultures thrived through limited wants, communal sharing, and sustainable use of resources, offering a new perspective on affluence beyond material wealth.

Takeaways

• 😀 The concept of 'affluent society' challenges the traditional view that primitive societies lacked material prosperity and were always in scarcity.
• 😀 Marshall Sahlins' work 'Stone Age Economics' rejects the idea that hunting and gathering societies were in constant struggle for survival, offering a re-evaluation of their economic sophistication.
• 😀 The 'original affluent society' refers to societies where material needs were easily satisfied, and people lived with abundance, leisure, and a deep sense of community.
• 😀 According to Sahlins, affluent societies can be characterized by the way people either produce more or desire less to meet their needs.
• 😀 Sahlins contrasts two approaches to affluence: the Galbraith way (unlimited human desires satisfied through increased production) and the Zen way (satisfaction through limited wants and resources).
• 😀 In hunting-gathering societies, people practiced limited consumption and enjoyed material plenty, as their desires were smaller and matched available resources.
• 😀 The capitalist model, driven by endless accumulation, contrasts with the hunter-gatherer model, where satisfaction comes from meeting basic needs without excess production.
• 😀 Sahlins critiques anthropological biases that framed hunter-gatherers as 'underdeveloped' and 'materially poor', pointing out these misconceptions stemmed from ethnocentric viewpoints.
• 😀 The study of hunting and gathering societies, like the Kung Bushmen and Aboriginal groups, provides empirical evidence of material plenty and leisure, contradicting the myth of constant survival struggles.
• 😀 By examining various anthropological case studies, Sahlins shows that the traditional capitalist view of 'scarcity' doesn't apply to hunter-gatherer societies, where the standard of living was different but still affluent in its own context.

Q & A

What is the primary argument of Marshall Sahlins in his work on the 'Original Affluent Society'?

Marshall Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer societies were affluent in their own way, challenging the conventional view that they were impoverished and struggling with scarcity. He suggests that these societies were affluent due to their limited desires and ability to satisfy material needs using available resources, in contrast to capitalist societies that constantly pursue accumulation and consumption.

How does Marshall Sahlins challenge the traditional anthropological view of hunter-gatherer societies?

Sahlins challenges the traditional view by rejecting the idea that hunter-gatherer societies were always at the brink of starvation. Instead, he argues that these societies were characterized by abundance, leisure, and community, and that their material needs were limited and easily satisfied.

What does Sahlins mean by the 'Zen Road to Affluence'?

The 'Zen Road to Affluence' refers to the way hunter-gatherer societies achieved affluence by desiring little and meeting their material needs with what was available to them. This is contrasted with the 'Galan Way,' where human wants are infinite, and societies attempt to satisfy them by producing more.

What is the difference between the 'Galan Way' and the 'Zen Road to Affluence'?

The 'Galan Way' is a theory where human wants are large and are satisfied by producing more or desiring less. In contrast, the 'Zen Road to Affluence' focuses on limited desires and the satisfaction of material needs with available resources, a characteristic of hunter-gatherer societies.

How does Sahlins' view of affluence differ from the capitalist understanding?

In capitalist societies, affluence is often associated with endless accumulation and consumption to satisfy an increasing number of desires. Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer societies achieved affluence by controlling desires and living within the limits of available resources, without the need for excessive production or consumption.

What role does the concept of 'scarcity' play in Sahlins' argument?

Sahlins argues that the concept of scarcity is a judgment made by market-based societies, where everything is measured through prices, leading to a constant sense of deprivation. In contrast, hunter-gatherer societies did not experience the same type of scarcity because they had a more balanced approach to satisfying their material needs.

How does Sahlins use the example of the Bushmen in the Kalahari to support his argument?

Sahlins uses the example of the Bushmen to demonstrate that even in environments considered harsh, hunter-gatherer societies can enjoy material plenty. He highlights that their lifestyle, which is adapted to local resources, provides them with sufficient material goods, even though they are not driven by accumulation like in capitalist societies.

What misconceptions about hunter-gatherer societies does Sahlins aim to correct?

Sahlins aims to correct the misconception that hunter-gatherer societies were always struggling for survival, facing starvation and scarcity. He argues that these societies had sufficient resources, leisure, and a sense of community, and their material prosperity was not based on excessive accumulation.

How does Sahlins differentiate between 'material plenty' and 'material goods'?

Sahlins distinguishes between 'material plenty' as the abundance of resources needed for survival and cultural well-being, and 'material goods' as those typically measured in capitalist terms, like wealth and accumulation. For hunter-gatherer societies, material plenty was more about having enough for daily needs and cultural fulfillment rather than the pursuit of excessive goods.

What role does technology play in Sahlins' understanding of affluence in hunter-gatherer societies?

Sahlins emphasizes that hunter-gatherer societies, with simple technologies like the bow and arrow, were able to meet their material needs efficiently without over-exploiting nature. He contrasts this with capitalist societies, where technological advances are often used to meet an ever-growing number of desires and demands.