Politics & Violence


Rules or laws against killing are essentially a cultural universal, meaning all cultures have rules regarding the killing other people and the punishments for breaking these rules.  How do the Yanomamo rules regarding killing and the consequences for breaking these rules differ from the rules in Western cultures in general?


  The Yanomamo culture does not necessarily view the killing of another human being as a bad thing.  If anything, fierceness and aggression are encouraged and rewarded; however, this does not mean that murder per se is allowed.  Still, the consequences of the intentional killing of a Yanomamo by another Yanamamo is reciprocated with swift reprisal from the community of the person who was killed.  Because there are no court or legal systems within the Yanomamo culture, a swift and violent reprisal acts as a form of justice and a deterrent to future attacks by either the community that was just retaliated against or other communities seeking to amplify their status or the procurement of females.    


Describe the process of revenge killings as it is expressed in Yanomamo populations. 


  A revenge killing will involve a party of kinsmen from the same community.  The revenge killing, as stated before, is usually in reprisal for the killing of one of their own by a member of another Yanomamo community.  The death of the Yanomamo in question may not necessarily be the result of an actual physical attack, but the death was perpetrated by magic or a curse.  Effigies may be made of the person being sought, but often, the first member(s) of the other community they may find will be attacked as a target of opportunity.  Most attacks are conducted ambush style.  

  

  While revenge killings are one form of Yanomamo warfare, they will also conduct raids of neighboring communities, usually for attaining females.      


Revenge killings are dangerous for those who take part.  What are the benefits of obtaining the status of unokais?  How do they compare to the benefits of being a non-unokais?  Why would a man choose to become an unokais instead of being a non-unokais? 


  The Yanomamo culture thrives on fierceness and aggression, a term called 'waiteri.'  It is embedded in their culture, and those participating are elevated with the title of unokais.  unokais, either through the accumulation of females via raids or marriage desirability, have a significant reproductive advantage than non-unokais.  Status and wealth are also benefits of being unokais.  Non-unokais are considered 'mohode;' timid/stupid.  Because of that, their access to women may be lessened because their status is lower in Yanomamo society.      



Identify and describe the relationship between revenge killings and these aspects of the Yanomamo culture.  How do they influence and affect each other?


Political structure 

All leaders within Yanomamo society are unokais.   Being a leader within the Yanomamo culture means you get to decide if a revenge killing or raid may take place.  Revenge killings and raids are often politically contemplated to determine whether they will elevate the status of a Yanomamo leader.  


Social Status/Social Organization


  As stated before, the Yanomamo places heavy emphasis on being waiteri.  The manifestation of waiteri is becoming unokais.  This, in turn, elevates one's social status within the community and, with it, greater access to women, wealth, and reproductive success.  


Kinship 


  Many Yanomamo men are related within their communities via cross-cousin relationships.  Because of this, I believe that it manifests a greater bond and expectation that the men will participate in a revenge killing of one of their own.  This is very similar to what is experienced in Western cultures as it relates to soldiers of a military organization and the expectation that they will be there for their fellow soldiers in combat.     


Marriage & Reproduction 


Behaviors that are usually labeled as "anti-social," such as killing other people, are generally thought to be a bad thing to do under most circumstances, other than defense.  Why do we need laws against something no one should want to do?  Use your reading of the article to help you explain your answer.  (10 pts)


  Western culture, specifically in the United States of America, is established on the rule of law.  This rule of law is established to prevent chaos and anarchy within our society, with the expectation that those who are harmed will be able to seek reprisal against those who harm them or one of their kin via the courts and judicial punishment.  The Yanomamo culture is its own form of judicial system, complete with correlating punishments. 

  

  In theory, our laws prohibiting the unlawful killing of one person by another (murder) are developed to prevent further potential death and chaos.  This sentiment was expressed by the young Yanomamo man discussed at the end of Chagnon's paper; "There he discovered police and laws.  He excitedly told me that he had visited the town's largest pata (the territorial governor) and urged him to make law and police available to his people so that they would not have to engage any longer in their wars of revenge and have to live in constant fear.  Many of his close kinsmen had died violently and had, in turn, exacted lethal revenge; he worried about being a potential target of retaliations and made it known to all that he would have nothing to do with raiding."

    

Comments

  1. Sofia's Cultural Anthropology blogJune 27, 2024 at 1:48 PM

    Hey Mike!
    Your analysis of the Yanomamo culture with respect to killing provides an interesting comparison to Western legal systems. In these aspects, the Yanomamo incorporate revenge killings as a form of justice and deterrence, which drastically departs from Western cultural norms.

    Killing can raise one's status and political advantage in Yanomamo society. Their revenge killing process, whereby a party of kinsmen commonly conducts an ambush, works to hold social order in their society. This is in contrast to Western cultures, who have formal legal systems that avoid these cycles of violence.

    The status of being an "unokais" and the institution of "waiteri" institutionalize the idea that, among the Yanomamo, aggression and fierceness are endogenous rewarded values. In fact, to be an unokais means to acquire more mates, accumulate wealth, and increase one's prestige, all of which are top reasons why men engage in revenge killings. Participation expectations are therefore perpetuated in this system, similar to solder camaraderie in Western military organizations.

    Chagnon's account shows that some Yanomamo themselves may want a formal legal system to avoid perpetual violence and fear, in rapport with the human need for stability and security.What do you think about this, How does a Yanomamo notion of justice, property, retribution, and so on tally against that of other traditional societies? accordingly, what similarities or differences one can discover in conflict resolution and social order?

    ReplyDelete
  2. L RodriguezJune 28, 2024 at 9:30 AM

    1. "The Yanomamo culture does not necessarily view the killing of another human being as a bad thing."

    I would argue this point. If they didn't think it was "bad", then why would there be consequences against the behavior? But they define which killings are "bad" and "acceptable"... but don't we do that as well? Isn't killing someone in self-defense or even in war considered "acceptable" in our own culture?

    "...there are no court or legal systems..."

    None that mirror our own, certainly, but don't they have their own versions? Watch your bias!

    2. Okay on the description of the process, but can you describe what actually happens in a revenge killing itself? Who takes part? Who doesn't? What role do women play in this system?

    3. Is there no benefit to the non-unokais status? Any risk/detriment to the unokais status?

    4.
    Political structure: Good.

    Social status/organization: Okay, but you are leaving out 50% of the population. How does this system influence their status?

    Kinship: Okay. Just to hit some key points, this system of killings works to give high status unokais a larger system of kin, through marriage, tying the population together. From the other perspective, kinship determines who are expected to kill and who they can kill.

    Marriage and reproduction: Missing this response?

    5. You aren't actually answering the key question here: If killing is recognized to be socially/morally bad, why do we need laws against it? Shouldn't people just not kill? The point here is to recognize that there is killing in all cultures, including both the Yanomamo and Western societies. Both cultures have systems of dealing with it. But the question remains... why do people kill if this behavior is so universally recognized as "bad"?

    Both Western cultures and the Yanomamo have laws against these behaviors, not because they are bad but because people may gain some benefit from engaging in those laws to the detriment of those around them.

    We are creatures of biology, regardless of how "civilized" we might want to think we are. Killing can benefit an organism if they gain resources or a mate or defend their offspring in the process, correct? So that benefit is still there in humans, whether we like it or not. Killing is an instinctive, biological reaction to a threat of some sort, to our lives, to our family (genes) or to our resources, but it can also be a strategy to advance your survival, such as (for example) killing off a rival. Understand that this isn't excusing the behavior. It just explains it. But we need laws against this behavior, not because no one wants to do it but because sometimes people can benefit from this behavior... i.e., they DO want to kill because it benefits them. Laws protect us from selfish actions of others, acting to their own benefit and the harm of others.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
   Functions of Early Art:     What were the cave artists trying to say?   My first inclination is that the cave artists were making these paintings to show reverence for their natural environment and as a way of documenting who they were and how they lived. However, upon further research, these paintings may have been an early writing system, acted as a lunar calendar, and a means of capturing and calculating herd migrations and even the reproductive cycles of the animals depicted.     Why do you think that there were so many animals and not as many people in the paintings?     As stated above, these paintings were centric on the migrations of the animals depicted and were possibly more critical to hunting than a form of human documentation. Though reindeer may have been the primary animal they hunted, no reindeer are depicted in the paintings.     What can the paintings tell us about other aspects of the ...
Read more

Five words to describe the Nacirema culture.

 Sadistic: Sadistic because their culture and rituals revolve around the infliction of pain as a means to purify themselves and their bodily imperfections via ritual.  These rituals are embraced despite the extreme pain the individual experiences but there also appears to possibly be a level of pleasure given to the person performing the ritual upon the receiver of the purification. Fringe: While I am not an anthropologist, I would say that there are very few people and/or cultures that would allow themselves to voluntarily allow themselves to be subjected to such torture.  While I am aware that the Satere-Mawe people perform a ritual lining gloves with fire ants that they then put their hands into, and other cultures will use self-flagellation as a form of religious ritual the rituals of the Nacirema must be to the extreme of this. Dysmorphic: The Nacirema people by their own admission believe that the human body is imperfect and must be perfected by ritual means.  ...
Read more
    Language Experiment Over the weekend, I ventured into a partnered experiment where I had two 15-minute conversations.  The first conversation would consist of my partner being allowed to speak normally, while I, in turn, would only be able to respond using body gestures.  The second part of the experiment would again enable my partner to speak normally.  However, while I could also talk, I would not be allowed to use vocal inflection or body gestures for exaggeration (no speaking, writing, or ASL).   This is how the experiment went.       My partner for this experiment was my wife.  We discussed baseball-related topics, specifically the Dodgers.     Converting what I wanted to add to the conversation was extremely difficult, considering much of the discussion required in-depth terminology that was almost impossible to convey without using spoken language.   From my wife's perspectiv...
Read more