• What is an immediate-return society?
  • By  formal definition, hunter-gatherers are those who obtain less than 5% of their subsistence from   farming   and/or   herding   (Murdock,   1981).   Immediate-return   hunter-gatherers are those who engage in the lowest amounts of farming and/or herding(e.g., 0%) and who engage in no significant storage.
  • Immediate-return societies represent an extreme minority in the world today.They are scattered across the world (e.g., Africa, India, South America, Asia), but their combined population can be counted only in the tens of thousands
  • Why do IR HGs matter?
  • IR hunter-gatherers are the best  approximation  of  what  life  was  like  for  our evolutionary ancestors
  • When  researchers  study  their  phenomena  within  a  narrow  range  of participants  (e.g.,  similar  age,  same  culture),  they  cannot  be  sure  if their  results  generalize  to  anyone  outside  of  that  range.  This  means they cannot be sure if their findings reflect context-free principles of behavior, or descriptive regularities bound to given local and historical contexts. For example, they have compared Eastern and Western cultures
  • Although important insights can be gained from such research, we believe that this research is, of all things, culturally limited. It compares groups that, although different  along  some  dimensions,  are  very  similar  along  other  dimensions.
  • To  the  extent  that  common  cultural  influences  contribute  to behavioral  similarities,  comparisons  among  cultures  that  are  dominant  in  the world  today  may  fail  to  reveal  important  cultural  influences  even  though  these influences are present. To  be  especially  informative,  comparisons  would  have  to  be  among  cultures that share as few features as possible.
  • immediate-return  societies  is  that  these  societies  allow  for  the  most  dramatic comparisons. Immediate-return societies differ in more ways from all other exist-ing  societies  than  any  of  the  other  existing  societies  differ  from  one  another.
  • the   characteristics   of   immediate-return   societies   we describe in this chapter are not a matter of politically biased theorizing or wishful romantic  thinking.  They  are  based  on  the  ethnographic  experiences  of  many researchers.
  • What are the main features of IRHGs?
  • Small, Nomadic, Ever-Changing Camps
  • it is very easy for individuals to leave and join different camps. This so-called fission and fusion is simply a part of their life.
  • Intentional Avoidance of Formal Long-Term Binding Commitments
  • individuals generally choose which relationships to pursue or abandon. They do so through visits, meal sharing, cooperative work, and even through the positioning of the openings of their huts.
  • By  avoiding  such  commitments,  individuals  in  immediate-return  societies also  avoid  the  claims,  debts,  and  future  orientation  that  they  find  extremely undesirable.
  • With a binding contract, the first party holds power over the second party until the latter delivers on his or her end of the deal. In immediate-return societies, individuals are not allowed to assert dominion over one another.
  • individuals  in these societies have few possessions and can generally get what they want through free  and  direct  access  to  the  natural  resources.
  • Relational Autonomy--autonomous, egalitarian social relationships.
  • immediate-return autonomy grows out of repeated, mutually trusting social interactions. As a result, the autonomy expressed in immediate-return societies incorporates significant degrees of relatedness.
  • It is a view that differs from that in both individualist and collectivist  societies
  • Like  those  in  individualist  societies, members of immediate-return societies put a premium on autonomy. Their autonomy, however, does not contrast the individual with the society as it does in individualist cultures.
  • On  the  other  hand,  individuals  in  immediate-return  societies,  like  those  in collectivist societies, develop aspects of their selves in relation to their group. In immediate-return societies, however, the social group is ad hoc in nature and does not  promote  formal  long-term  binding  social  commitments.  As  a  result,  there  is little  chance  for  individuals  in  immediate-return  societies  to  lose  themselves  in their  duty  to  the  group. In  other  words,  the  relatedness  individuals  obtain  in immediate-return societies does not come at the expense of autonomy.
  • Sharing
  • In each camp, the number of individuals is likely to be quite small (e.g., 25), the individuals are likely to be related to one another, and they are likely to have face-to-face  interactions  with  one  another  on  a  daily  basis.  These  features  make  it possible  for  direct  person-to-person  sharing  to  be  the  main  source  of  economic distribution.
  • Because  individuals  in  immediate-return  societies  are  not  allowed  to  attain dominion  over  one  another,  their  society  has  no  clear  mechanisms  in  place  to sanction  slackers  or  refuse  scroungers.  Doing  so  would  place  one  person  above another. Moreover, because the membership of the camps changes so frequently, it would be extremely difficult for individuals to keep an accurate record of who contributed and who did not. The end result is a high degree of non-contingent sharing.
  • Highly and Intentionally Egalitarian
  • Because  of  the  high  degree  of  non-contingent  sharing,  differences  in  resources rarely occur in immediate-return societies. When they do occur, active steps are taken to eliminate them.
  • The group accomplishes this through a variety of leveling mechanisms. For  example,  individuals  in  immediate-return  societies  meet  boasting  and other forms of self-aggrandizement with scorn or ridicule
  • One sure way for individuals to lose esteem in an immediate-return society is to attempt to claim that esteem for themselves.
  • Reverse Dominance Hierarchy
  • The  emphasis  on  autonomy  and  egalitarianism  is  so  strong  in  immediate-return societies that it produces a society with no formal leaders.
  • Individuals with certain skills (e.g., hunting, food collecting, communication) may have more influence on a group’s decisions than other individuals, but these individuals have no coercive power.  Moreover,  the  group  seeks  advice  from  different  individuals  in  different situations. As a result, what passes for leadership in immediate-return societies is very transient and constrained.
  • Because  members  of  immediate-return  societies  tend  to  believe  that  one individual should not dominate another, attempts on the part of one individual to become dominant are perceived by the group as a common problem.
  • Distributed Decision Making
  • Camps are very unstable units with constant movement of people in and out. Movement of a whole camp depends on a series of ad  hoc  individual  decisions  not  on  the  decision  of  a  leader  or  on  consensus reached in discussion.
  • Cultural Instability
  • individuals in immediate-return societies have few verbalized  rules  of  behavior,  their  rituals  are  highly  variable  (and  may  even  be dispensed  with  altogether),  and  the  individuals  have  no  single,  clear  idea  of  a moral  order  (Brunton,  1989).
  • Knowledge  in  immediate-return  societies  is  idiosyncratic and gained by personal experience. It is not handed down by others.
  • Benign View of Nature
  • immediate-return societies view the relationship between humans and  nature  in  much  the  same  way  that  they  view  relationships  between  humans(Ingold,  1980;  Turnbull,  1962).  Both  involve  the  sharing  of  resources  and  affection.
  • they believe that the forest, like any  good  parent,  is  morally  bound  to  share  food  and  other  material  resources.They  also  believe  that  the  forest  shares  equally  to  everyone  regardless  of  prior reciprocal  obligations.
  • Present-Oriented
  • individuals  usually  obtain  a  relatively  immediate yield for their labor and use this yield with minimal delay
  • This  relatively  immediate  feedback  allows  members  of  immediate-return societies to maintain an extreme focus on the present
  • What is a delayed-return society?
  • there  is  often  a  delay  between  the  effort  individuals  exert  and  the feedback they receive regarding its outcome. As a result, individuals may experience long stretches of uncertainty between their efforts and their payoff
  • most societies today are delayed-return  societies
  • They  have  developed  mechanisms designed to give them confidence that their efforts will pay off.

  • What are the key differences between IR and DR societies?
  • A fairly accurate description of the general features of most societies in the world today can be produced simply by listing features that are the opposite of those we described for immediate-return societies.
  • delayed-return societies focus more on the future and past
  • DRs have formal  long-term  binding  commitments, a social mechanism  that  demands  the  cooperation  of  specific  others.
  • DRs have adherence  to  ideologies that justify their efforts (e.g., work ethic, just world beliefs).
  • some delayed-return ideologies (e.g., just world, work  ethic,  capitalism)  allow  individuals  to  see  the  unequal  distribution  of resources as appropriate and perhaps even desirable.
  • motivation to uphold one’s  end  of  a  deal  is  strengthened  in  delayed-return  societies  by  the  societal sanctioning  of  a  power  hierarchy.
  • Because  some  individuals  in  delayed-return  societies  have  more  power  and resources than others, status and prestige become resources in themselves. They facilitate  access  to other  resources.
  • Competition  is  also  valued.
  • the  child-rearing  in  these [immediate-return]  societies  places  an  emphasis  on  personal initiative and skill.
  • In herding  and  farming  societies,  on  the  other  hand,  established  social  rules prescribe  the  best  known  way  to  bring  in  the  resources.
  • the  child-rearing  in  these  [delayed-return] societies  emphasizes  obedience  and  rule following.
  • What are the consequences for DRSs?
  • One  result  of  this  more  rigid  social  structure  is  that  individuals  in  delayed-return societies experience less fluidity in their social relationships.
  • The more general effect of living in a delayed-return society is that individuals may come to see the world as generally as hostile and competitive.
  • Gender  equality, on  the  other  hand,  is  decreased  relative  to  immediate-return  societies.  This  is because  in  delayed-return  economies,  there  is  increased  competition  and  an increased need to protect resources. This places a premium on the larger sex (i.e.,males).
  • When factions develop within the larger society, they cannot fission into more harmonious subgroups. The factions are compelled to cope with one another and often develop more polarized ingroup–outgroup attitudes.
  • Because the larger society is composed of subgroups with different attitudes and values, the society asa  whole  may  find  it  difficult  to  keep  would-be  dominators  in  line  (i.e.,  reverse dominance hierarchy). The different members of a delayed-return society may not even agree on who needs to be brought back into line.
  • the  belief  that  the  world  is  just  is  especially important  to  individuals  who  are  committed  to  the  pursuit  of  long-term  goals.
  • The suffering of innocent people, however, challenges that belief, so individuals committed to the pursuit of long-term goals maybe especially likely to blame innocent victims for their unpleasant fates.
  • Individuals in delayed-return societies, on the other hand, enter into long-term, formal, binding commitments (e.g., legal marriage) and often receive delayed  feedback  regarding  the  outcomes  of  their  efforts.  As  a  result,  they  may experience more pressure to stay in relationships in which they are not satisfied.
  • Well-being benefits that stem from IRS features
  • Their sharing is relatively non-contingent and individuals are not allowed to profit personally from any superior skills they might possess. Thus self-esteem per se is not a commodity and there are no  social  status  hierarchies.
  • in  immediate-return  societies one’s  performance  relative  to  others  may  not  be  associated  strongly  with  one’s self-evaluation.
  • hunting has a low probability of success even for the better  hunters,  so  it  is  difficult  to  base  one’s  self-esteem  on  such  an  unstable performance domain.
  • distancing is less likely  to  happen  if  the  superior  performance  of  the  other  benefits  the  group,  as with a successful hunt or reflected glory.
  • behaviors  that  have  been  interpreted  as  being  in  the  service  of  self-esteem may  actually  be  in  the  service  of  maintaining  equality  and  harmony  within  the group.
  • From  this  perspective,  any  positive  self-evaluation  that  accompanies  the behaviors  is  a  by-product,  not  the  goal.
  • relationships  in immediate-return  societies  may  be  influenced  more  by  satisfaction  than  by investments.
  • Evolutionary implications
  • individuals who reacted empathically to the plight of others  were  likely  to  be  favored  by  other  members  of  the  group.
  • the  evolutionary  mechanism  that  gave  rise  to  the  social exclusion/self-esteem link may have been more social than individual.
  • if our species really did evolve in the context of social relationships approximating those in current immediate-return societies, then our current delayed-return societies  may  be  requiring  us  to  behave  in  ways  that  are  discordant  with  our natural tendencies—or that at least overemphasize our individualistic side of the self–other dynamic.
  • Evolution-independent insights
  • distinguished  between  communal  relationships  and exchange relationships.
  • [communal] individuals provide benefits to address the needs of their relationship partner. They also provide these benefits in a relatively non-contingent  manner  and  they  show  little  concern  about  the  evenness  or  balance of each transaction.
  • In exchange relationships, on the other hand, individuals provide  benefits  as  a  way  to  ensure  future  benefits  or  as  a  way  to  return  past benefits received. The individuals in these relationships keep careful track of their costs and benefits and are aware that the receipt of a benefit incurs an obligation to return a comparable benefit.
  • interpersonal  relationships  in  any  society reflect   the   dynamic   interplay   between   self-interest   and   societal   norms.
  • In immediate-return  societies,  the  dynamics  have  settled  in a  range  to  communal relationships,
  • whereas in delayed-return societies the dynamics have settled closer to exchange relationships.
  • Quotes
  • He observed that the Mbuti were  more  than  curiosities  to  be  filmed,  and  their  music  was  more  than  a quaint sound to be put on records. They were a people who had found in the forest something that made their life more than just worth living, something that  made  it,  with  all  its  hardships  and  problems  and  tragedies,  a  wonderful thing full of joy and happiness and free of care. (pp. 25–26)
  • As  Burch  (1994)  noted,  “immediate-return  or  generalized  hunter-gather societies are so unlike all others that . . . it is difficult even for anthropologists who have  not  personally  experienced  one  to  conceive  how  they  can  exist;  it  is  almost impossible  for  non-anthropologists  to  do  so”  (p.  453).
  • As one  individual  put  it,  “None  of  us  are  quite  sure  of  anything  except  of  who  and where we are at that particular moment” (quoted in Brunton, 1989).
  • Bird-David  (1992)  has  described  these  beliefs  as  “the cosmic economy of sharing” (p. 122).
  • Turnbull (1962). He observed a Mbuti hunter  singing  to  his  young  son.  The  words  of  the  song,  Turnbull  noted,  “like the words of most molimo songs, were few. They simply said, ‘The forest is good’ ”(p. 83).
  • “If it is not here and now what does it matter where (or when) it is?” (Turnbull, 1983, p. 122).