“The probability is close to zero that any contemporary anthropologist will have the opportunity to be the first representative of his or her culture to contact tribal peoples who have never seen outsiders before or who have had fleeting encounters with outsiders. In the Amazon Basin, for example, remaining uncontacted tribes consist of a few families who are hiding out in the remaining hidden pockets of unexplored difficult-to-reach areas. The Yanomamö were the last large, multivillage tribe left in the mid-1960s when I went there. At that time they were about 25,000 people living in 250 or more separate villages.
"Fewer anthropologists study tribesmen anymore. The very mention of the word tribe in anthropology has, in the past fifteen or twenty years, become an embarrassment to politically correct cultural anthropologists.”
I've read this author before, or rather more precisely I've skimmed one of his books (most likely Yanomamö: The Fierce People) before, in a long-ago undergrad class at Purdue. It was one of those rapid-fire summer courses, some 200-level survey course taught by a neophyte, long-haired, twenty-something, wannabe-hippie grad student to fulfill a requirement for my arts degree, and that book was accompanied by a typical inch-and-a-half thick textbook that we had to devour in four weeks' time. I'm glad I discovered this on Oyster, and gave it the proper reading it deserves. This is a fundamentally important text, centered on a fundamentally important "academic schism," and I now understand why the grad student tried hard to cram it into our young minds without standing on soapbox. The seeds were planted, and my own observations, experiences, and research regarding humanity embrace Chagnon's work well.
For those still stuck in romantic delusions of ancient peoples and the inherent benevolence of mankind, Chagnon destroyed the myth of the "noble savage" and tore a rift through the field of cultural anthropology (later to be encapsulated as sociobiology), beginning in the 1960s (when most all native peoples were already conquered, subjugated, enslaved, or destroyed), by leading through example by long immersion amongst the people he was studying, and imprinting his findings on the history of mankind. As he discovered, we--Homo sapiens--are predominantly violent, selfish, and lustful creatures. Placing this distinction at the forefront of understanding the human condition, to me, is better than hopeful wishes hemmed in by crafted religions, imposed morality, and "the rule of law." In fact one can easily view such "civilizing forces" as directly combating the inherent nature of our being. Like domesticated dogs tossed back into the wild, humans too will either revert to a feral state or be consumed by better predators. Yes, we are capable of extreme kindness, cooperation, mirth, and humorous mischief (which Chagnon illustrates as well), but these traits don't destroy lives and livelihoods like the others do. Most importantly as Chagnon shows, these aforementioned traits are actually beneficial to humans on individual and kin-group levels. Guided by the two pillars of Darwin and Levi-Strauss, Chagnon fundamentally encapsulates the human condition within this work and illustrates our species as the complex "animal" it is.
“There were two things I learned that first day that would dominate much of my field research life for the next thirty-five years.
"The first discovery was that 'native warfare' was not simply some neutral item on an anthropological trait list, equivalent to other traits like 'they make baskets with vines' or 'the kinship system is the bifurcate-merging type.' Among the Yanomamö native warfare was not just occasional or sporadic but was a chronic threat, lurking and threatening to disrupt communities at any moment. The larger the community of people, the more one could sense its foreboding presence.
"Warfare and the threat of warfare permeated almost all aspects of Yanomamö social life: politics, visits between villages, tensions among people, feasts, trading, daily routines, village size, and even where new villages were established when larger communities subdivided, a process I called village fissioning. This martial condition is not often discussed in the anthropological literature because there were few places in the world where populations of tribesmen were still growing by reproducing offspring faster than people were dying and were fighting with each other in complete independence of nation states that surrounded them. Yanomamö history is a history of wars, as Karl Marx claimed of the history of all peoples.
The second discovery I made that first day was that most Yanomamö arguments and fights started over women. This straightforward ethnographic observation would cause me a great deal of academic grief because in the 1960s 'fighting over women' was considered a controversial explanation in 'scientific' anthropology. The most scientific anthropological theory of primitive war of the 1960s held that tribesmen, just like members of industrialized nations, fought only over scarce material resources—food, oil, land, water supplies, seaports, wealth, etc. For an anthropologist to suggest that fighting had something to do with women, that is, with sex and reproductive competition, was tantamount to blasphemy, or at best ludicrous. Biologists, on the other hand, found this observation not only unsurprising, but normal for a sexually reproducing species. What they did find surprising was that anthropologists regarded fighting over reproductive competition as ludicrous when applied to humans. Competition among males vying for females was, after all, widespread in the animal world.”
“This is why there is so much club fighting and why villages split into two or more groups so easily. Conflicts over the possession of nubile females have probably been the main reason for fights and killings throughout most of human history: the original human societal rules emerged, in all probability, to regulate male access to females and prevent the social chaos attendant on fighting over women. Males in this persistent kind of social environment sought the help of other related males—brothers, sons, cousins, uncles, nephews—and formed male coalitions to pursue their selfish reproductive goals as well as to minimize lethal conflicts within their own groups. Male access to females—usually 'heroes' attempting to secure the love, affection, and proprietary reproductive potential of heroines—is the constant theme of myths, legends, and historical accounts of just about all cultures and societies known to historians and anthropologists.”
“I suggest that conflicts over the means of reproduction—women—dominated the political machinations of men during a vast span of human history and shaped human male psychology. It was only after polygyny became 'expensive' that these conflicts shifted to material resources—the 'gold and diamonds' my incredulous colleagues alluded to—and the material means of production. By that time, after the agricultural revolution, the accumulation of wealth—and its consequence, power—had become a prerequisite to having multiple mates.”
The quotes above are just slivers to the whole, but you get an impression of the theories Chagnon's decades of work have produced with empirical evidence. He spends the last sections of this book highlighting the academic-political-religious firestorm his work (and the work of others) has ignited, and convincingly details the lies and slander heaped upon his research and theoretical positions, with aplomb. For anyone seeking to better understand humanity and human behavior, especially writers of fiction, this book would be an indispensable resource.