The scarcity myth The scarcity myth - Radical Anthropology Group

Editorial
Anthropology is for everyone
In the editorial for our first issue, we
said we were proud to feature
representatives of the most exciting
and important trends in anthropology.
Which left us with a difficulty. How
were we to top our initial achievement
There was an obvious answer, if
one that seemed doomed to disappointment:
just contact all the very best
and most important names in the field,
and ask them to contribute too. That’s
what we did. Amazingly, unbelievably,
they all said yes. Even better, they all
delivered on their promise, and you
can read what they have to say in these
pages. If we may be so immodest to
say so, that makes the first two issues
of our journal an essential – if not, of
course, definitive – guide for anyone
interested in creating a future fit for
our species and the planet.
For the present, however, what we
seem to need as much as anything is
inspiration and the confidence that
things could be changed and improved.
Because if the prospects for radical
change are as gloomy as most people
insist, there would seem to be little
point doing anything but console
ourselves as the economy tanks and the
planet burns. Where better to find such
inspiration than Jerome Lewis’s work
with African hunter-gatherers on page
11 Lewis pursues a classic anthropological
strategy – to learn something
about ourselves by paying close and
sympathetic attention to how others see
us. In his article for Radical
Anthropology, Lewis considers what
the Yaka hunter-gatherers of Congo-
Brazzaville make of Western
‘conservation’ efforts. The clue to the
truth of what ‘conservation’ is all about
is to be found in a simple but puzzling
fact: the Yaka do not discriminate
between the activities of the loggers
cutting down their forest for private
gain – supposedly the main villains of
the piece – and conservationists.
This is not because the Yaka have
made a stupid mistake. It’s because
both loggers and well-meaning
conservationists do in fact work hand
in hand. They both come from a
culture that has already destroyed its
forests and put a safety fence around
the charred ruins that remain. Conservationists
pursue a strategy that makes
sense if what you want is to accept
defeat and preserve the ruins. If, on the
other hand, we truly want a future for
the forests, maybe we should turn for
advice to those who have been its
custodians for millennia. From their
point of view, the forest is not a scarce
resource to be protected, but an
abundant resource to be shared.
As Lewis puts it, the onus is on us to
change our point of view from “one
that endlessly chases and protects
scarce natural resources to one that
sees natural resources as adequate,
even abundant. Seeing that there is
enough for everybody, but it just
needs to be shared properly, is the
lesson that we can learn from the
Yaka”. How the Yaka achieve this
sharing way of life is also touched
upon in Lewis’s brilliant article.
That they have achieved it is not in
any serious doubt, which may come
as a surprise to those who insist that
human nature must militate against
such communist arrangements. This
confidence about what human nature
is and must be is another dominant
feature of Western thought – if you
like, our inherited common sense.
Common sense can be a reliable guide
in our lives – how could we account
for its existence otherwise But sometimes
it is so disastrously wrong that
we need a way to think beyond it.
We need to know the truth behind
appearances because better knowledge
of our human nature will allow us to
make living arrangements that are in
accord with that nature. We also need
to know the truth if our moral codes
are to be anything more than hot air –
what kind of behaviour can we expect
from human animals And if that
leaves something to be desired,
what social arrangements can we
make so that the darker sides of
our inherited behavioural strategies
can be better managed in the interests
of all The first question, though,
must be, how are we to acquire the
truth about human nature if common
sense is no guide
It is scarcely possible to consider what
a science of human nature could tell us
without engaging with the work of
Noam Chomsky. More than anyone
else, he has changed the way we think
about what it means to be human,
gaining a position in the history of
ideas arguably comparable with that of
Darwin or Descartes. As if that wasn’t
enough for one lifetime, he is also
essential reading for anyone critical of
US militarism and imperialism, and
global capitalism. Here, we limit
ourselves to an area of his thought not
so often discussed, the evolution of
language. See our interview on page 19.
(We in the Radical Anthropology
Group have our differences with
Chomsky, which we hope come out in
the interview. In the next issue, we’ll be
talking to anthropologist Chris Knight,
where an alternative view on the
evolution of language will be spelled
out. In the meantime, see
www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/
class_text_070.pdf.) We continue the
human nature theme later in the
journal by considering under what
conditions we can expect humans to
trust each other. See our interview with
Marek Kohn on page 29.
We are delighted to have such
eminent names onboard.
But our journal must ultimately
be judged a failure if all we end
up creating is yet one more forum for
that small minority of people lucky
enough to make their living from the
production of new knowledge. Such
knowledge is useful – as Lionel Sims
puts it on page 24, it strengthens our
resolve by arming us intellectually. But
it can be more than that: it can help us
decide what we can and should make
of our lives – it is “the practical arm of
moral philosophy”, as Keith Hart says
in a guest editorial starting on page 4,
and must be popular, not academic.
That means anthropology is for
everyone. With the appointment of
activists to our new editorial board
(see left), as well as the development of
a Radical Anthropology Network (see
page 31), we hope we have taken a
small step towards making these
worthy aspirations a reality. ■
Radical Anthropology 3