= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on Cultural norms in choice of mate - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
Or: Such asymmetric relationships worked well in farmer economies, where more established men had the resources to support (often several) wives, while younger men simply hadn't had the time and success yet to do so. In forager economies individuals couldn't accumulate so much private property as to make that difference. Farmer societies that developed an ideology that would support their economic success would outcompete those that didn't.
(This approach is somewhat Marxian, I'll admit: expecting that societies will develop an ideology that matches their economy. But it makes more sense to me than the opposite: expecting that cultural norms drive the creation of particular economic institutions.)
I don't see this as being contrary to what I said. I agree that large power differences made sense for the economies of farming cultures, and that is why cultural norms shifted toward justifying such power differences. But I think the reason things shifted back is that rich industry-era people decided to move back toward the more egalitarian relationships was because it felt more natural (we may have evolved some adaptations that made us more successful farmers, but the primitive egalitarian urges are still strong, and we feel better having switched back).
I tend to agree with the Base/Superstructure concept from Marxian theory, although I'm generally skeptical about Marx's methods of deriving his theories.