Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 10:10:07 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers-AT-state.ut.us>
Subject:  Why Men Hunt


Re: Why Men Hunt

This question is part of an attempt to get right inside the "original
division of labor" and understand it in an, evolutionary way, from an
individual's point of view.  ["Evolutionary" requires/implies
self-interested individuals, in my view and that of this TREE paper.]

In several well-observed foraging populations, men who don't hunt
have been shown to eat just as well as those who do, because meat,
especially from large kills, is equally available to all.  This type
of situation raises "free rider" problems.  If one can enjoy all the
benefits without paying any cost, then why bother?  I know this view
is considered controversial by some, but I believe it is the only one
that is seriously supported by evolutionary theory.

I do not accept that "the basic unit of production" is "the group". 
I need to hear some more explanation in order to know what exactly
that means.  Including - what is "the group" ?  Why do "we have to
start with the group" ?

A more specific question is why do men hunt _big_ game, when they
could get just as much meat per hour, on a more regular schedule, by
hunting small game?  This has been shown to be exactly what is
happening in at least one case I know.  Hawkes' answer is that the
social rewards for the provider of a big bonanza outweigh those for
the steady single family provider, in certain circumstances.  [Not
all foragers do this.]  This is because the big feast goes to many
people, while bringing home rabbits only for a nuclear family may
actually feed the kids better, but foregoes the chance of a bigger
social reward to the hunter.

Adam, the idea that this behavior gets men social rewards is exactly
part of my argument!  However, it is not the homogenous, abstract
"group" that rewards one, it is various individuals that may be more
likely to treat your kids well, share her gathered berries with you,
take your side in a fight, want you to father her children, think
you're really cool, listen more to you in any discussion, stay away
>from one's wife, etc.  Not everybody has to treat you better to give
you a material/reproductive advantage, just enough people have to, in
order to give a net advantage for your extra efforts.

>From this individual, evolutionary point of view, each one may prefer
to hang with a good hunter, or better yet, a few good hunters, not
because it benefits "the group", but because it benefits each one.  

Also, part of the question of why men hunt is why don't women hunt
more?  esp. hunt big game, that is.  Perhaps because they do not have
as much to gain from the same kind of social attention that men do. 
They transfer gathered food mostly with very close female relatives
and their kids, aside from what the husband scoops up.  It is the
cooperation between related women in providing everyday food and care
for children that [under certain circumstances] is most likely to be
individually adaptive for each of them.  [Still plenty of room for
conflict of interest between all these 'cooperators' at the same
time.]

BTW, foragers have _more_ opportunity than most people to easily just
get up and leave a group any time, without losing any crops or
property, and they frequently do so.  Usually, it is to go join
another group, because each one has friends and relatives in several
places.  This kind of fission / fusion of social groups is very
common.  So, if there was ever a "voluntary association of
individuals" . . .  foragers may be it.  [And maybe some mailing
lists.]

I think we might be agreeing again, in a way!

Lisa

>>> Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>  4/9/96, 05:36am >>>
... it is not starting with what I see to be  the basic unit of
production, the group, and working to the individual, but the other
way round.
[snip]
Surely, for hunter gathers, we have to start with the group ?
[snip]
I would hazard a guess that without hunting, the basic diet can stop
the group starving, but in the long term, it would lead to
unacceptably high levels of disease and malnutrition.

LR:  Unacceptable to whom?

[snip]
Any status individual men got from this flows from this function 
within the group.
[snip]



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---