You need to read your Azar Gat more closely! (It is, by the by, the best actually scholarly argument for the evolved-for-war position, as opposed to the rubbish 'evolutionary psychologist' peddling one finds online).
-
This is me being not a political scientist: it is? I would have thought that very low level co-ordinated action would be pre-political or something. Like, I would have thought me and my brothers killing somebody in retaliation for an insult would be not a political act
A definition of politics that holds out until the polity has a state are going to be excessively restricted when applied to the past. The consensus of medievalists, for instance, is that much of medieval Europe was a non-state society. Did 1150 France not have politics?
-
-
Certainly, the warfare - especially small scale local warfare - of the Middle Ages was often not much more complex than a man getting his near family and their retainers together to go fight. Defining that as 'pre-political' seems silly to me.
-
Of course, most of the sort of warfare we have evidence for, even in the pre-historic period, involves groups larger than a single nuclear family. I'd say the decision of a 100-person tribal unit with c. 30 warriors to go cattle-raiding is political in nature.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.