So what he's saying is that initially tribal societies were egalitarian in that there was no subordination complex entrenched in societal norms, but with the evolution of society entered this idea of domination, whereby humans could dominate over one another (gerontocracy, patriarchy etc...) which eventually lead to the idea that nature could be dominated over?
I love Bookchin, but I strongly disagree with him that you can't dominate an animal because animals are not conscious that they're being dominated. On the contrary, if that were the case then there would be no reason why humans would need to do things like 'break' them (e.g. to 'break in a horse'), tame them and domesticate them in order to dominate them. I'm also shocked to hear him deny the subjectivity of non-human animals, given that in 'The Ecology of Freedom' he actually appears to acknowledge that even nature itself has subjectivity, and may in fact be consciously controlling its own evolution. As far as I'm concerned, he is partially right that the human domination of nature stems from human domination of fellow humans, but I also think the reverse is very true--human domination of other humans stems from our domination of nature--including, *very significantly*, our domination of other animals.
@Knobcore , read 'An Unnatural Order' by James Mason and 'Animal Oppression, Human Violence; Capitalism, Domesecration and Global Conflict' by Dr. David Niebert, and then you can get back to me about that.
Interestingly from what we have learnt in the intervening time, the origin of the idea of domination might have to be moved back well before pre-agricultural societies, to pre- human times. Domination might have been already rooted in the apes we and chimps descend from. Both chimps ( but not so much the bonobos) and humans have societies where the politics of domination is central. This would mean that the idea has evolved before us and is therefore deeply in us.
+Aleg09aleg G To entertain your claim with a counter argument that Bookchin also somewhat alludes to using the example of killer instinct in some animals such as wild cats, i.e, Lions, as cubs are incapable of killing their prey, instead they learn to do so through being taught how to by their mothers. I would say that human beings once conceding of the idea they are capable of understanding the world through shamanism became adapt in dominating it and thus turning their attention on to other human beings. Primates while have the aptitude for learning are not similar to human beings. Where as humans have the capability to reason which can also be seen in primates are far superior in their ability to understand the nuances of life and thus produce cultures to describe such nuance. A example of this according to Murray is the Athenian life that developed a fairly democratic and cultural Polis based in becoming well rounded individuals that saw limitations of ones self as superior to excess of anyone virtue.
+Sirvan Ghazi What you say about the cognitive abilities of humans is true. I am not claiming that from an is a ought should follow.( E.g. our ape nature, so to speak is omnivorous, but we are quite capable of being vegetarian.) But i do think that we need to understand how deeply rooted are some behaviours to better design the institutions needed to change them or control them. I just want to draw attention to the ,IMO, fallacy that our ( humans) ' state of nature' was good and then some how we corrupted ourselves...the rot might have started before us, when the first ape killed to become the leader of a troop.
+Aleg09aleg G ..my point is,also, that apes are not any animal to observe and compare to ( like lions etc..): they have a lot of genes and therefore evolutionary history in common with us so they are much more relevant. Looking at them is consistent with an historical approach, but the human non human border blurs as we regress in time.
+Aleg09aleg G I totally agree with you on that point, the romanticized image of the savage man before sin is definitely rooted in an European conception of biblical tales of Adam and Eve and the Rousseauian conception of the savage man's fall from grace.
The comparison wouldn't be valid...one is a cooperative social species of omnivores and the other is a carnivorous predatory group... If lions were to revert from domination, then the ecosphere would be imbalanced. It immediately summons thoughts about 'thinking like a mountain' by leopold
He was such a genius, and not enough people even know his name, but without knowing they preach the same ideas.
BIG THOUGHTS THX UNCLE MURRAY
I came across this thanks to Steven West and Philosophise This..highly recommended
So what he's saying is that initially tribal societies were egalitarian in that there was no subordination complex entrenched in societal norms, but with the evolution of society entered this idea of domination, whereby humans could dominate over one another (gerontocracy, patriarchy etc...) which eventually lead to the idea that nature could be dominated over?
I wish he lived to know how his ideas are, currently, helping the kurds live and be free even under terrible oppression.
Animals know what domination is,the strong dominate the weak.
Where does he argue "in a very lengthy book" that "the domination of nature" stems from "human by human?" Anyone know?
The Ecology Of Freedom
@@spookyhomeless4631, Thank you!
I love Bookchin, but I strongly disagree with him that you can't dominate an animal because animals are not conscious that they're being dominated. On the contrary, if that were the case then there would be no reason why humans would need to do things like 'break' them (e.g. to 'break in a horse'), tame them and domesticate them in order to dominate them. I'm also shocked to hear him deny the subjectivity of non-human animals, given that in 'The Ecology of Freedom' he actually appears to acknowledge that even nature itself has subjectivity, and may in fact be consciously controlling its own evolution. As far as I'm concerned, he is partially right that the human domination of nature stems from human domination of fellow humans, but I also think the reverse is very true--human domination of other humans stems from our domination of nature--including, *very significantly*, our domination of other animals.
@Knobcore , read 'An Unnatural Order' by James Mason and 'Animal Oppression, Human Violence; Capitalism, Domesecration and Global Conflict' by Dr. David Niebert, and then you can get back to me about that.
Great
Interestingly from what we have learnt in the intervening time, the origin of the idea of domination might have to be moved back well before pre-agricultural societies, to pre- human times. Domination might have been already rooted in the apes we and chimps descend from. Both chimps ( but not so much the bonobos) and humans have societies where the politics of domination is central. This would mean that the idea has evolved before us and is therefore deeply in us.
+Aleg09aleg G To entertain your claim with a counter argument that Bookchin also somewhat alludes to using the example of killer instinct in some animals such as wild cats, i.e, Lions, as cubs are incapable of killing their prey, instead they learn to do so through being taught how to by their mothers. I would say that human beings once conceding of the idea they are capable of understanding the world through shamanism became adapt in dominating it and thus turning their attention on to other human beings. Primates while have the aptitude for learning are not similar to human beings. Where as humans have the capability to reason which can also be seen in primates are far superior in their ability to understand the nuances of life and thus produce cultures to describe such nuance. A example of this according to Murray is the Athenian life that developed a fairly democratic and cultural Polis based in becoming well rounded individuals that saw limitations of ones self as superior to excess of anyone virtue.
+Sirvan Ghazi What you say about the cognitive abilities of humans is true. I am not claiming that from an is a ought should follow.( E.g. our ape nature, so to speak is omnivorous, but we are quite capable of being vegetarian.) But i do think that we need to understand how deeply rooted are some behaviours to better design the institutions needed to change them or control them.
I just want to draw attention to the ,IMO, fallacy that our ( humans) ' state of nature' was good and then some how we corrupted ourselves...the rot might have started before us, when the first ape killed to become the leader of a troop.
+Aleg09aleg G ..my point is,also, that apes are not any animal to observe and compare to ( like lions etc..): they have a lot of genes and therefore evolutionary history in common with us so they are much more relevant. Looking at them is consistent with an historical approach, but the human non human border blurs as we regress in time.
+Aleg09aleg G I totally agree with you on that point, the romanticized image of the savage man before sin is definitely rooted in an European conception of biblical tales of Adam and Eve and the Rousseauian conception of the savage man's fall from grace.
The comparison wouldn't be valid...one is a cooperative social species of omnivores and the other is a carnivorous predatory group...
If lions were to revert from domination, then the ecosphere would be imbalanced.
It immediately summons thoughts about 'thinking like a mountain' by leopold
fuckyeah