Politics and Violence
The Yanomamo people have a different set of rules when it comes to killing than the people of the US. The Yanomamo see killing as a seemingly normal part of life that comes with its own special social structure and importance. They take a more "eye for an eye" approach to resolving these killings where they will seek out members of the opposing group and conduct a raid, in the US that is not the case at all. Killings in the US are not seen as normal life and those who've had a close friend or family member killed are not allowed to simply gather their people and seek revenge. There is a system in place that is nothing like that of the Yanomamos which doesn't allow the US people to retaliate. The process of revenge killings within the Yanomamos community can be seen as ritualistic and organized. This is because the kin of whoever was killed all gather up and decide to strike back. Planning trips that can take days to reach their destination. Besides this, the women who stay back consume the ashes of the dead to give strength and courage to their men. Revenge killings are dangerous not only while in the act but also after the fact seeing as they can become targets of retaliation. But they also can give men a certain status that allows them to have a higher status. This title of "unokais" shows that someone has killed another. This status symbol can show their strength and resolve proving that they and their group are not ones to be messed with. This allows them more protection as those who may think about attacking them would have to think twice in fear of their fierce response. In contrast, those who do not hold the "unokais" title may be taken advantage of because of their small chance of retaliation. Revenge killings and the title of "unokais" can come with many benefits politically, reproductively, and socially, and increases connection with kin. Those who kill not only strengthen their ties with their community and more often than not they share kinship but their reputation carries through other communities. They have easier times finding wives and protecting their wives with their achieved reputations. The leader of groups who are unokai also tends to be closely related kin with many of the members of their society. With their title they hold and mold power dynamics within their own community and those around them. Laws against killing are normal in the US and many other countries around the world but for the Yanomoto they are very different. Although it is a common want to stay alive and so one would come to the conclusion that killing is bad other factors may push people to the edge which makes having laws against killing worthwhile. We are all human and the same reasons that the Yanomoto have for killing are often the same reasons people are killed within the US. This can range from frustration with potential mates to revenge, to simple spats taken too far. Without the laws that give us consequences for these actions retaliation would be a source of order which is exactly what these laws are put in place for; to stop the chaos and never-ending cycles of violence.
Your comparison between the Yanomamo and US approaches toward killing and revenge is interesting and full of insight. The Yanomamo had a tradition of revenge killing, with killers thereafter enjoying "unokai" status, indicating just how different the structure of society and culture was compared to that within the US justice system. This ritualistic and organized nature of revenge killing places much importance on kinship, social status, and group cohesion in Yanomamo society. In contrast, the US legal system tries to break this violent cycle by having structured laws and consequences in place, favoring order and safety over personal retribution.
ReplyDeleteWhat actually struck me the most about your lecture was the assertion that killings seemed very much alike across cultures, but the responses and legal framework differed. That suggests that at some deep level, emotions and core human conflicts are common, though cultural norms and societal structures reflect how those matters get resolved.
A good follow-up question that could really get a better understanding of this would be: How exactly do the Yanomamo and US cultures differ by their ideas of justice and social order, and from these differences, what are the lessons to be learned about the effect of cultural norms on conflict resolution and social cohesion more generally?
All of your points are crammed into one giant paragraph and this makes it very difficult for me to parse out your individual responses. Take the extra time to format your post to match the format of the guidelines. You help yourself when you make it easier for others (including those grading your work) to read what you have presented.
ReplyDelete1. "The Yanomamo see killing as a seemingly normal part of life that comes with its own special social structure and importance."
Do they? "Normal" is culturally subjective. I would avoid the word. They actually differentiate what are considered "acceptable" and "non-acceptable", with "acceptable" killings used to punish the "non-acceptable" ones. Don't we do the same? Don't we differentiate between acceptable killings (self-defense, death penalty, and war) from unacceptable ones?
2. Okay on the description of the process, but can you describe what actually happens in a revenge killing itself? Who takes part? Who doesn't?
3. Are there no benefits being a non-unokais? And are their detriments to the status of unokais? Explore the costs/benefits on both sides.
4.
Political structure: "The leader of groups who are unokai also tends to be closely related kin with many of the members of their society. With their title they hold and mold power dynamics within their own community and those around them."
Okay, but doesn't the unokais system determine who can actually be the leader and possess that political power?
Social status/organization: I can't see where you respond to this prompt.
Kinship: "Those who kill not only strengthen their ties with their community and more often than not they share kinship but their reputation carries through other communities. "
This was the only place you mention "kinship". This system of killings works to give high status unokais a larger system of kin, through marriage, tying the population together. From the other perspective, kinship determines who are expected to kill and who they can kill.
Marriage and reproduction: "They have easier times finding wives and protecting their wives with their achieved reputations."
Okay. Expand. Don't they also have a lot more offspring, opening the door to greater kin connections?
5. "We are all human and the same reasons that the Yanomoto have for killing are often the same reasons people are killed within the US."
This is a very good point and I'm glad you recognize it. Do you see that when people kill, it is usually to benefit themselves in some way?
But you aren't actually answering the key question here: If killing is recognized to be socially/morally bad, why do we need laws against it? Shouldn't people just not kill? The point here is to recognize that there is killing in all cultures, including both the Yanomamo and Western societies. Both cultures have systems of dealing with it. But the question remains... why do people kill if this behavior is so universally recognized as "bad"?
Both Western cultures and the Yanomamo have laws against these behaviors, not because they are bad but because people may gain some benefit from engaging in those laws to the detriment of those around them.
We are creatures of biology, regardless of how "civilized" we might want to think we are. Killing can benefit an organism if they gain resources or a mate or defend their offspring in the process, correct? So that benefit is still there in humans, whether we like it or not. Killing is an instinctive, biological reaction to a threat of some sort, to our lives, to our family (genes) or to our resources, but it can also be a strategy to advance your survival, such as (for example) killing off a rival. Understand that this isn't excusing the behavior. It just explains it. But we need laws against this behavior, not because no one wants to do it but because sometimes people can benefit from this behavior... i.e., they DO want to kill because it benefits them. Laws protect us from selfish actions of others, acting to their own benefit and the harm of others.
ReplyDeleteI understand the purposes for our laws and I agree with why we have them. But as we have observed in our culture the respect and the legitimacy for these laws is being questioned; without enforcement and consequences do our laws really stop crime, specifically killing, from occurring? Is this causing our society to evolve into something similar to the Yanomamo as revenge killings may become more common with the destruction for the rule of law?