are hunter/gatherers closer to nature than culture?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pinkfreud-ga on 01 Mar 2005 13:49 PST

I don't understand the question. Can you tell us what you mean by
"closer to nature than culture"?

---

Clarification of Question by mazza1-ga on 04 Mar 2005 03:15 PST

I think it means are hunter/gatherers influenced more by the
environment they live in rather than the influence of culture.Hope
this clarifys the question.

I think the poster is speaking to the 'nature vs. nurture' discussion.  
Prehaps asking if the state of being a hunter/gatherer is closer to
the 'natural instincts' model.  As oppossed perhaps to the agrarian
model which might be considered to be more enculturated - due to
statified roles, yadda yadda yadda.  I'm not presenting the argument
either way.  I am just speculating that the poster might be addressing
this discussion.
regards - synapse666b

Hunter/getherers vs herder/farmers seems to be the question, a
comparison of their lifestyles.  The former live in nature with
minimal influence on their environment (eg. the Aborignes back when in
Australia, African bushmen), whereas the latter breed and herd animals
and cultivate the land.
Key word, cultivate: the root of the word culture, which has a lot of
meanings, justifying Pinkfreud's request for clarification.

Every society has a culture in the meaning (Webster's no 4):  Sociol.
the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings
and transmitted from one generation to another.
That is, the hunter/gatherers have a culture in this meaning, albeit
they live closer to nature than the others  (Don't get picky about
"closer to nature", you know what I - and Mazza1 - mean, I hope.), a
culture that in this meaning is not better/worse/lower/higher than
that of the others.
But the herder/farmers definitely are closer to "culture" by
definitions 6 and 7:  "the act or practice of cultivating the soil,
tillage; the raising of plants or animals, esp. with a view to their
improvement".  (And I'll throw in here a reference to Jacob, 1 Moses
30.)
These definitions do not apply to hunter/gatherers, so in these
meanings such people are far removed from that kind of "culture."

BUT, all this doesn't have anything to do with the most common use of
the word, no.1:  "the quality in a person or society that arises from
an interest in and acquintance with what is generally regards as
excellent in arts, letters ...":
What we mean when we speak of "a cultured lady"  versus "a primitive boor."

In anthropology these days, I think it is not PC to speak of primitive
cultures, that is, that Webster's def. no. 1 has no application in
anthropoligical discussions.

Well, that may help Mazza1 define his/her clarification for Pinkfreud,
who then will knock us all down with an erudite answer :-).
Greetings, Myoarin

Given mazza1's clarification ("I think it means are hunter/gatherers
influenced more by the environment they live in rather than the
influence of culture"), I'd say that their environment-vs-culture
ratio is no higher than ours, because human beings are capable of
developing extremely complex cultures no matter how little technology
they have. For example, they can have:
   -huge oral traditions (imagine memorizing the Bible---how many
characters, subplots, philosophical subtleties you'd have to master)
   -amazingly elaborate rules about the "right" way to do their
activities of daily living ("if you don't mentally recite special
prayer number 22 as you chip the 49th chip from your obsidian
arrowhead, it won't fly straight")
   -social rules that overpower etically logical behavioral
changes("sure a 2-day funeral feast would be cheaper than a 4-day
feast, but the deceased's spirit would wreak mischief in retaliation
for your stinginess, so stick with the 4-day version, which, if it was
good enough for your great-grandpa, is good enough for you")

Thus ends a thumbnail essay from an armchair commentator.
I am,
IndexTurret