Sunday, June 5, 2011

Agriculture; means to an end

So what was the impact of agriculture upon the "and" in human relations?  Well, for one, it separated people, in the same way it separated plots of land.  Fences were built.  People were expected to stay clear of each other's property.  Whereas, the men and women of hunter gatherer societies functioned in a cooperative relations, where men would work together while hunting, and tribes would gather around the campfire, agriculture gave rise to competitive relationships. Thus, we can say that the development of agriculture resulted in the augmentation of the "or", without any substantial benefit to the "and".  To some extent, the "or" largely drained and stretched the "and", as will be described below.

 Property arguably became the prism through which family members were viewed.  It has been speculated by some that in certain "primitive" socieities, men and women were not fully conscious of the fact that the sexual act was responsible for procreation.  Clelarly, agriculture, specifically the breeding of animals, dispelled any doubt in this regard.  It is thought that prior to the advent of agriculture, socieities were largely matriarchal, and children would remain part of the mother's clan.  The awareness of the man's role in reproduction also bred the realization that a man's children were his.  And since everyone knows how labor intensive agriculture is, the children, and the wife were needed to work the property.  Thus, and to assure that the children in a household were truly the husband's, the wife and children came be be seen as property rather than as partners.

To a very limited extent, the "and" benefited, as agricultural socieity made room for more people, and more relationships. Since people were no longer hunter gatherers, there was a need for more stable structures.  Which meant more builders, more tools, and more advanced tools.  And a need for people who would perform services for those who worked the land; more trades, a division of labor.  This division of labor, of course, also strengthened the "or".  To the extent these socieities included more  T people, and a greater web of relationships, the "and" benefited.  But these relationships were by and large superficial, based solely upon commerce or citizenship.

With the division of labor, and the creation of new tools,  man's relationship to nature became even more attenuated, as his relationship became focused on extracting a tool, or a garment from nature.  Nature, again, was simply a means to an end. When we work with tools, we do not focus on their shape, smell, beauty etc.  Rather, as Heidegger said, they are experienced as simply "ready at hand".  Thus, over the years, as people became lost in their activities, their relationship with nature suffered.

No comments:

Post a Comment