The Darker Side of the "Original Affluent Society"

25 Pages·2007·0.69 MB·English

The Darker Side of the "Original Affluent Society"
Author(s): David Kaplan
Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 301-324
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631086
Accessed: 26/02/2009 19:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Anthropological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
THE DARKERS IDE OF THE
"ORIGINALA FFLUENTS OCIETY"
DavidK aplan
AnthropologDy epartmenBt, randeisU niversityW, althamM, A 02254-9110
Hunter-gatherers emergedfrom the "Man the Hunter" conference in 1966 as the
"original affluent society." The main features of this thesis now seem to be widely
accepted by anthropologists, despite the strong reservations expressed by certain
specialists inf oraging societies concerning the data advancedto support the claim. This
essay brings together aportion ofthe data and argumentation in the literature that raise
a number of questions about hunter-gatherer affluence. Three topics are addressed.
How "hard"d oforagers work?How well-fedare members offoraging societies?And
what do we mean by "work," leisure, " and "affluence" in the context offoraging
societies? Finally, this essay offers some thoughts about why,g iven the reservations and
critical observations expressed by anthropologists who work withf oragers, the thesis
seems to have been enthusiastically embraced by most anthropologists.
Hunter-gatherers are the quintessential anthropological topic. They
constitute the subject matter that, in the last instance, separates
anthropology from its sister social science disciplines: psychology,
sociology, economics, and political science. In thatc entralp osition, hunter-
gatherers are the acid test to which any reasonably comprehensive
anthropologicalt heory must be applied.
-Robert L. Bettinger, Hunter-Gatherers.
Archeological and Evolutionary Theory (1991:v)
Rousseau was not the first, nor even, probably,t he most naive. But he was
the most famous in a long line of credulousp eople, stretchinga s far back as
thought and as far forward,p erhaps,a s our precariouss pecies manages to
survive, who seem to believe that we have left something behind that is
better in every way than what we have now and that the most apt way to
solve our problems is to go backwarda s quickly as possible. Inevitably,
what is past is viewed as natural,w hat is presenti s unnaturala; s if the march
of history, with its spreadingp lague of gadgets, had somehow distancedu s
from the bodies we inhabit,f rom the functionsw e performe very day. This
nostalgia is characteristicallyu ndiscriminatingT. he naive romanticso f an
era often look backj ust a few decades to find theirE den, little realizingt hat
the romanticso f that era also looked back, and so on, and so on.
-Melvin Konner, The Tangled Wing (1983:3)
Journal of AnthropologicalR esearch, vol. 56, 2000
Copyrigh?t by TheU niversityo f New Mexico
301
302 JOURNALO F ANTHROPOLOGICALR ESEARCH
THE FORAGER'S JOURNEY FROM PENURY TO AFFLUENCE
IN THISE SSAY I DISCUSSa chapter in the recent intellectual history of anthropology.'
The chapter I have in mind concerns certain contemporaryi nterpretationso f
hunter-gatherers--ora, s they are often called, foraging societies-interpretations
which have gained a wide currencyw ithin as well as outside of anthropology( see,
e.g., Gowdy 1994, 1997). Severalc ompellingr easonsm ake an explorationo f these
issues worthyo f our time and attention.F or one thing, puttingt ogethera s accurate
a pictureo f hunter-gathererass possible can, I believe, tell us somethings ignificant
about the range of humana daptations,a s well as fill in an importantp iece of the
puzzle aboutt he naturea nd limits of humann ature.M oreover,t he recenta ccounts
that are the focus of this essay providea n illustrationo f how ideological yearnings
can exert a powerful influence on how we handle ethnographicd ata. As Ernest
Gellner( 1988:23) has remarkedr, eferringt o our preagrariana ncestors," Primitive
man has lived twice: once in and for himself, and the second time for us, in our
reconstruction."
Throughoutm uch of the history of anthropology,t he way of life of hunter-
gatherersh as been depicteda s an unenviableo ne: toiling from dawn to duskj ust to
make ends meet; coping with a hostile and unyielding environment;h aving no
leisure time to devote to cultureb uilding. M.J. Herskovits( 1952:15-16) probably
spoke for most anthropologistsw hen he observed:" Thusf ood, to a South African
Bushmano r a native of Tierrad el Fuego, who lives always in a state of potential
hunger,i s always of maximumv alue, since it is essentialt o the maintenanceo f life
itself ... there is little surpluso f energy or resourcesa vailablef or other activities
than the food quest." Clearly this was a world well lost, and the transitiont o
farmingw as seen by most scholars as a progressives tep in humanh istory.
All this began to change in the 1960s-the timing here, as we shall see, is
significant-when anthropologistss howed a renewedi nteresti n hunter-gatherers,
an interest rekindled by the changing cultural milieu in which anthropologists
worked as well as several quantitativelyi nformede thnographics tudies conducted
in such places as ArnhemL andi n Australiaa nd amongt he foragerso f the Kalahari
Desert in southern Africa. These enquiries culminated in the now well-known
"Mant he Hunter"c onferencei n 1966 (Lee and DeVore 1968), from which hunter-
gathererse merged as the "originala ffluent society."
This was not the first time that hunter-gatherersw ere characterized as
"affluent."A ccordingt o the demographerst, he Caldwells, the demographerA .M.
Carr-Saunderws as the fathero f the concepto f "StoneA ge affluence."I n 1922, they
claim, he "expresseds cornf or the belief thatp rimitivep eople are always miserable
and ill-nourished and drew evidence, as his successors were to do, from the
condition of the pre-contact Australian Aborigines, calling attention to the
descriptionb y Spencer and Gillen" (Caldwell, Caldwell, and Caldwell 1987:26).
Then again in the 1950s, Elman Service, in courses taught at the University of
Michigan and later in various of his writings (Service 1963:9, 1966:12-13), took
strongi ssue with the idea thatt he life of hunter-gathererws as so dominatedb y the
rigorso f sheers urvivalt hatt hey had little leisuret ime in which to engage in culture
THED ARKERS IDEO FT HE" ORIGINAALF FLUENTSO CIETY" 303
building. Many hunter-gatherersh, e went on to point out (Service 1966:13), are
"quite literally, among the most leisured peoples in the world." Murphy
(1970:153), commenting on Service's argument, recalled that the hunting-
horticulturalM undurucuo ften had to endure periods of torrentialr ain, making
hunting impossible; duringt hese times they had lots of leisure, but it was leisure
bought at the expense of gnawing hunger. (Is there an importantd istinctiont o be
made between "leisure"a nd "enforcedi dleness"?) Service's observationsm ade
one thing clear: culturald evelopmentr equiresa great deal more than idle hands.
But the idea of "primitivea ffluence"i s most closely identifiedi n the literature
with MarshallS ahlins, who came up with the catchy characterizationth ats eems to
have stucki n people's minds;a nd it was he who marshalledt he evidence and wove
it into a persuasivea rgumenti n supporto f that characterization.T2 he "affluence"
thesis first appeareda s some abbreviatedc omments offered by Sahlins duringt he
"Man the Hunter"c onference (Sahlins 1968a); it later appearedi n the French
journal Les TempsM odernes in a somewhat longer version (Sahlins 1968b); and
finally in a considerablye xpandedv ersion,i t appeareda s the openingc hapteri n the
collection, StoneAge Economics( Sahlins 1972). This latterr endition,i f one judges
by the frequency of citations within and outside of anthropology,s eems to have
carriedt he day andh as come to representt he new enlighteneda nthropologicavl iew
of hunting-gatherings ocieties. In this essay Sahlins (1972:1) arguedt hat "by the
common understandinga n affluent society is one in which all people's wants are
easily satisfied."( One would like to ask: By whose common understanding?A re
wants the same as needs? Does Sahlins have any direct evidence of what the
"wants"a re of the people he is writing about?)U nlike our own industrials ociety
where wants expand indefinitely and means are limited, thereby creating a
perpetual condition of scarcity, hunting-gatherings ocieties, he argues, are
characterizedb y ends that are limited and means that are modest but adequate.
Paradoxically,S ahlinsg oes on to assert,t his Zen strategye nables a people to enjoy
"materiapl lenty"w ith what can objectively be considereda ratherl ow standardo f
living.
Drawingo n dataf rom a varietyo f foragings ocieties, but leaningm ost heavily
on quantitatives urveysd one amongt he Arhem Landerso f Australiaa s well as the
quantitativem aterialsc ollected by RichardL ee among the Dobe Bushmen of the
Kalahari,S ahlins arguedt hatt hese people are able to meet theirn eeds by working
at subsistence roughly 15-20 hours per week. Moreover, in some ethnographic
examples, the average" workw eek" appearst o be even less thant hat.F or example,
Sahlins (1972:27) quotes Woodbur on the foragingH adzao f Tanzania:" Overt he
year as a whole probablya n averageo f less thant wo hoursa day is spent obtaining
food." When he put together all the societal variations in work times, Sahlins
(1972:34) drew the following conclusion:" Reportso n huntersa nd gathererso f the
ethnological present-specifically on those in marginale nvironments-suggest a
mean of three to five hours per adult worker per day in food production."A ny
calculation of the time spent by hunter-gathererisn gaining a living should also
include the relevanto bservationt hat these people do not work continuously;q uite
the contrary,t heir efforts are "highly intermittent."W hatevert he variationi n the
304 JOURNALO F ANTHROPOLOGICALR ESEARCH
number of hours per day or per week that occupy these people in subsistence
activities, the fact seems to be, as Sahlins makes clear, it is considerablyl ess than
the average workdayi n industrials ocieties. Hunters,w e are told, keep "bankers'
hours."W hat is more, when they do work, the work that they do is not terribly
taxing or demandinga nd "theirw anderings,r athert han anxious, take on all the
qualities of a picnic outing on the Thames"( Sahlins 1972:30).
A shortw orkw eek takenu p with not very taxingt asks means thatt hese people
have a great deal of leisure time which they spend lounging about, sleeping, and
sometimes visiting kin in other camps. Faced with a choice, these people have
opted for leisure and rejectedt he work ethic. The Hadza,a pparentlyr epresentative
of all huntersa nd gatherers,w e learn," tutoredb y life and not anthropology,r eject
the neolithic revolution in order to keep their leisure" (Sahlins 1972:27). Hence,
Sahlins concludes, contraryt o what is usually thought,w ith culturald evelopment,
the amounto f workp er capitaa ctuallyi ncreasesa ndt he amounto f leisured ecreases.
These, then, are the main elements of the original affluent society thesis.
Bettinger( 1991:48), looking back on the warmr eceptiong iven the idea of hunter-
gatherer affluence in anthropology, expresses surprise at how rapidly
anthropologistse mbracedt he thesis, since, as he notes, the data supportingi t were
"not overwhelming" (for a similar observation, see Winterhalder1 993:333).
Indeed,t his essay has been prompted,i n large part,b y what can only be construed
as a certain level of cognitive dissonance in the literature.O n the one hand, one
frequentlyc omes across statementsc laiming that contraryt o what was formerly
thought,a nthropologistsh ave now shown thath unter-gathererasr e able to achieve
a life of relative abundancea nd ease with not much effort. At the same time, a
number of anthropologists, especially those who are specialists in foraging
societies, have expressed rathers trong reservationsa bout the sweeping natureo f
the "hunter-gatherearf fluence"c laim, as well as criticized majorp ortions of the
data used to supporti t.
What has been the fate of the idea of hunter-gatherearf fluence since its early
pronouncements ome thirtyy ears ago? As noted above, althougha nthropologists
have voiced reservationsa boutt he thesis, few seem to have rejectedt he core claims
contained in its formulation.O ne gets the impression that for many-perhaps
most-anthropologists, the vision of hunter-gatherera ffluence contains some
profoundi nsight into the humanc ondition,a ndt hey thereforev ery much want that
vision to be true. Here are some views of specialists in hunter-gatheresro cieties
concerning the staying power of the central features of the hunter-gatherer
affluence idea. In an essay on the "affluents ociety" thesis, Bird-David( 1992:27)
has written that "Sahlins's argument,d uly updated and reconceptualized,d oes
indeed hold." In an introductorye ssay to a collection of papersf rom a conference
on hunter-gatherersB, arnarda nd Woodbur (1988:11) observe that althought he
"affluents ociety" thesis has come in for certainc riticisms and althought hey too
have reservations,b y and large, the "cruxo f the theory has, we believe, stood up
well to twenty years of additionalr esearch."F inally, Cashdan( 1989:22-23), in a
review of economic researcho n hunter-gathererws ithint he last couple of decades,
offers the following appraisal:
THED ARKERS IDEO FT HE" ORIGINAALF FLUENTSO CIETY" 305
Hunter-gathererse,v en those living in seemingly harshe nvironmentss uch
as the Kalaharia nd Australiand eserts, are able to live very well indeed by
devoting only some 20 or 30 hours per week to the food quest. These
findings led one participantt o dub hunter-gatherertsh e "originala ffluent
society," affluent not because they are wealthy in material things, but
because they are able to satisfy theirn eeds andw antsw ith comparativee ase.
Although later researchh as shown this to be an overstatement,i t remains
true that among many hunter-gathererss ubsistence work is intermittent,
leisure time is abundanta nd nutritionals tatus excellent.
Indeed, it seems then that the former anthropological stereotype of the
miserable hunter-gathererc ondemned to the most meager existence has been
replaced in the literatureb y the image of the "happy-go-lucky,"a ffluent hunter-
gatherer. As one anthropologist (Kelly 1995:346) noted, virtually every
introductoryt extbook written since the late '60s conveys the impression that
hunter-gathererlsi ve "near-perfeclti ves."
In the following discussion I address three issues bearing upon the original
affluent society thesis. First, how hard do hunters and gatherersw ork, or, more
accurately,h ow much time do they spend in making a living? (These are separate
questions;t hey are often conflatedi n the literature.)S econd, how adequatei s their
effort in meeting their nutritionala nd health needs? And third, I discuss some
issues which have not received the attentiont hey deserve, namely, what do we
mean by concepts such as "work,"" affluence,"a nd "leisure"i n the context of
hunter-gatheringso cieties? I suggest that when variouse thnographico bservations
andc riticalr emarkss catteredt hrought he literaturea reb roughtt ogetheri nto a more
comprehensivep icture,t hen both on empiricala s well as conceptualg rounds,t he
originala ffluents ociety thesis does not fare as well as the previouslyq uotedw riters
would have us believe. If I am right in this assessment,t hen how are we to account
for the remarkables taying power of the thesis? In this connection, I offer some
thoughtsa boutt he continuinga ppealo f the affluent society thesis both within and
outside of anthropology.3
FORAGERS KEP '"BANKERS' HOURS"
The original formulation of hunter-gatherera ffluence leaned heavily for
empiricals upporto n two time allocations tudies:o ne conductedb y F.D. McCarthy
and M. McArthuri n 1948 (laterp ublishedi n 1960) among four groupsi n Arhem
Land,A ustralia,a nd a second survey by RichardL ee conducteda mong the !Kung
Bushmeni n 1964. As a numbero f writersh ave indicated,h owever, whethert hese
investigationsc an bear the empiricalb urdenS ahlins and othersw ish to place upon
them is questionable.
The McCarthy-McArthurs tudy recorded hunting and gathering activity
among four groups over a two-week period. However, the usefulness of the data
collected variedf rom groupt o group.F or example, the dataf rom the Hemple Bay
and Port Bradshawg roups, both found on the eastern Arhem Land coast, were
306 JOURNALO FA NTHROPOLOGICRAELS EARCH
collected over a four-dayp eriod and were not as informativea s data on the Fish
Creek group (located in the stony country near Oenpelli), which were collected
over an eleven-dayp eriod.S everali nvestigatorsh ave commentedo n the "artificial
circumstances"u nderw hich the data in the entire study were collected, and they
have raised certainc autionaryf lags about drawinga ny general conclusions from
this experiment. McArthur herself noted (1960:1-26) that all the Australian
foragersh ave, in varyingd egrees,m ade the foodstuffs availablea t mission stations
(e.g., flour, rice, sugar) a normalp arto f their diet and thus the participantsi n the
experimenth ad to be cajoledi nto avoiding such nontraditionaflo ods. For instance,
Bird-David( 1992:28) points out thatt he nine adultsw ho comprisedt he Fish Creek
group were picked up at a mission station and persuadedt o participatei n the
experiment.T hey became so tiredo f the "traditionald"i et thato n the fifth day of the
study severalo f the men threatenedt o defect and walkedi nto Oenpellit o purchase
some flour and rice. Apparentlyt hey were talked out of consuming these store-
boughtf oods anda greedt o continuei n the experiment.T he pointh erei s thatw e are
hardly talking about "pristine"h unter-gathererisn this study.
According to the Australiana nthropologistJ .C. Altman (1984:185; see also
Jones 1980:135; Caldwell, Caldwell, and Caldwell 1987:32), this study has
additionald rawbacks.F irst, it was conductedo ver a shortp eriod of time making
any extrapolationt o the full seasonalc ycle highly questionable.W hat is more, the
demographicc omposition of the groups in the study was atypical-e.g., the Fish
Creek group consisted only of adults, which means that there was no need to
provide for young dependents.
Whate mergedf rom this studyw as the following: at Fish Creek,t he men spent
3 hours and 44 minutesp er day in subsistencea ctivities and women spent 3 hours
and 50 minutes,w hile at Hemple Bay, the comparablef igures were 5 hours and 9
minutesf or men and 5 hoursa nd 7 minutesf or women (see Altman 1984:185;a lso
Sahlins 1972:14-20). Commentingo n these findings, Altman( 1984:185) observes
that "by acceptingt hese data, Sahlins grossly overestimatedt he amounto f leisure
time available to Aborigines in the past and that in Arhem Land at any rate
affluencei s more a modem thana n originalp henomenon."E4 lsewhere,A ltmana nd
Nieuwenhuysen( 1979:88-89) lay out the salient elements of the economic pattern
imposed on the wanderingso f the AustralianA borigines in times past:
In the traditionals etting clans were nomadic and subsistence output was
eitherp erishableo r immobile.... there was a clearly defined ceiling to the
demand for output. During "normal"t imes, it might . . . be possible to
expendo nly a limited labouri nputa ndl eave othert ime availablef or leisure;
while during abnormaly ears . . . when floods or droughts occurred the
maximum available labour input would be insufficient to generate the
"ceiling"o utput.O n these occasions, there would be a productions hortfall
below the ceiling which might mean starvationo r a need to forage on
territoriesn ormallya ssociatedw ith other clans.
THE DARKER SIDE OF THE "ORIGINALA FFLUENTS OCIETY" 307
To returnt o Altman's assertiont hatt he "affluence"f ound amongt he ArnhemL and
foragersi s attributableto moder conditions,K ohen (1995:119-23) reportst hati n
contemporaryA ustralia,e ven so-called traditionahl unter-gatherernso w use motor
vehicles, hunt with shotguns,a nd rely to some degree on store-boughtg oods such
as flour and sugar.
Given the above reservations,w hat are we to makeo f the McCarthy-McArthur
experiment?A t the very least, one ought to be extremely cautious in basing any
general conclusions on it. Sahlins, too, has "seriousr eservations"a bout drawing
generalc onclusions from the ArnhemL and survey.T he artificialc onditionsu nder
which the surveyw as done, the brief length of the study, and modernf eatures( e.g.,
metal tools) which may have influencedt he outcome of the survey,h e remindsu s,
shouldm ake us wary aboutr elying too heavily or exclusively on the ArnhemL and
data.H aving advancedt hese admonitions,S ahlins (1972:17) goes on to say: "The
most obvious, immediate conclusion is that the people do not work hard. The
averagel ength of time per personp er day put into the appropriationa ndp reparation
of food was four or five hours. . . . these Australians seem to underuse their
objective economic possibilities."
Among contemporaryh unter-gatherersn, o group has been more investigated
and more writtena boutt han the variousB ushmen groupst hat live in the Kalahari
Desert of southernA frica. One anthropologist( Cashdan 1989:23) referredt o the
!KungB ushmena s "them ost compelling example of a leisuredb and society."N ot
surprisinglyt, herefore,t he literatureo n the Bushmenh as figuredp rominentlyi n all
discussions of hunter-gatherera ffluence, and one of the centerpieces of that
literaturei s the time allocation study by RichardL ee of the work patternsi n an
encampmento f Dobe Bushmen over a four-week period in 1964 (see Lee 1968,
1969, 1979:254-65, 1984). Although carriedo ut under less contrived conditions
thant he McCarthy-McArthusru rveyi n Australia,L ee's investigations uffersf rom
some of the same shortcomings:f or example, to buttressh is argumentc oncerning
Bushmen well-being, Lee would like to extrapolateh is findings from one portion
of the seasonal cycle to the entirec ycle, even thoughh e is awareo f the significant
difference between the dry season and the wet season (Lee 1979:254). Between
August and October,w ateri s limited and food scarce (Lee's surveyw as done from
July 6 to August 1). In his doctorald issertationc ompletedi n 1965, Lee (quotedb y
Truswell and Hansen 1976:190) wrote that duringt his dry season, "the San must
resort to increasingly arduous tactics in order to maintain a good diet, or,
alternativelyt hey must content themselves with foods of less desirabilityi n terms
of abundance,e ase of collecting, or nutritive value. It is during the three lean
monthso f the year thatt he San life approachest he precariousc onditionst hath ave
come to be associatedw ith the huntinga nd gatheringw ay of life." As the medical
researchers from which the above quote is taken add (Truswell and Hansen
1976:190), during the lean months referred to above, people are forced to eat
mostly roots and bulbs which have a high water content but a low caloric value.
During a four-week period in the winter of 1964 (July to August), Lee kept a
recordo f the time spent in subsistencea ctivity by each person in a camp of Dobe
Bushmen( the encampmentd uringt he four weeks variedf rom twenty-threet o forty
308 JOURNALO FA NTHROPOLOGICRAELS EARCH
people) as well as a recordo f the weight of all meat and vegetables broughtb ack
into camp. To make the !Kungs ubsistencee fforts comparablet o those of persons
in industrials ocieties, Lee recordedt he times thate ach person left and returnedt o
the camp-sort of comparablet o leaving for the office or shop in the morninga nd
returningl ater in the day. His purpose was to discover how hard people were
workingb y gettinga broadp ictureo f the ratioo f subsistencew orkd ays to days not
spent in subsistence (Lee 1979:255).5( In later publications,a s we shall see, Lee
enlarged his subsistence category by adding other life-sustaining activities to
subsistence.) Lee's investigation revealed that what he defined as subsistence
activities occupied adult !Kungf or about2 .4 days per week on the average,o r for
about2 0 hours.T his ratherl eisurelyw ork schedule,i t is claimed,m anagedt o yield
an abundanta nd nutritionallyw ell-balancedd iet.
These findings were somewhat puzzling to some anthropologistsw ho have
conducted similar investigations in similar societies. Hawkes and O'Connell
(1981) observed that the Bushmen figures were one-half to one-fifth of the time
requiredb y the Alyawarra,a central Australianf oraging group. They expressed
some surpriseb ecause the !Kunga nd Alyawarraa re very similari n habitata s well
as technology. The difference, it turned out, was explainable by Hawkes and
O'Connell's definition of work: in their calculationso f work, they included time
spent in processing food as well as huntinga nd gatheringi t.
In his 1984 survey of life among the Dobe !Kung,L ee himself took notice of
this difference.H e first notes that "thea bundancea nd varietyo f plantf ood makes
it possible for the !Kung to feed themselves by an average of about 20 hours of
subsistencew orkp er adultp er week, a far lower figuret hant he 40-hourw ork week
we have come to accept in the industrializedc ountries.I n this chapterw e explore
how this 'affluent' way of life is achieved by the !Kung in their harsh, semiarid
desert environment"( Lee 1984:37). But then he reminds us that it would be
misleadingt o leave the impressiont hat subsistencee xhausts the kind of work the
!Kung do: "In addition there are the important tasks of manufacturinga nd
maintainingt heir tool kit and, of course, housework-for the !Kungt his involves
food preparation,b utchery, drawing water and gathering firewood, washing
utensils, and cleaning the living space. These tasks take many hours a week" (Lee
1984:51-52).6W hen these tasks are addedt o "subsistencew ork,"t he estimatep er
week is 44.5 hoursf or men and4 0.1 hoursf or women. Lee is quickt o addt hatt hese
figures are well below the 40 or so hoursp er week that people in our own society
spend above theirw age-paidj ob doing housework,s hopping,a nd otherh ousehold
chores.W hats eems to be at issue herei s whatw e meanb y termss uch as "work"a nd
"leisure"i n the context of hunting-gatherings ocieties-or, indeed, in the context
of any society. But more about this shortly.
One final observation concerning how "work" is handled in the
anthropologicall iterature:s tatements about the effort put out by foragers will
invariablye mphasizet he "time"s pent at this or that activity, usually huntinga nd
gathering.B ut people in nonmarkets ocieties tend to be more task orientedt han
time oriented( see Applebaum1 984:16-20);n or does the time spentf oragingt ell us
very much about the danger,d ifficulty, or health hazardsi nvolved in subsistence
THED ARKERS IDEO FT HE" ORIGINAALF FLUENTSO CIETY" 309
activities-all of which one supposes would have a marked influence on the
undertakingo f this or thatt ask (Hawkes [1993] has arguedt hatH adza, !Kung,a nd
Ache hunters will actively engage in risky endeavors as a means of gaining
recognitiona nd status;s ee Silberbauer[ 1981:274-77] and note 5 in this essay for
the health hazardst hat can accompanys ubsistencea ctivities).
THE WELL-FED FORAGER
Not only do the members of the "originala ffluent society" work at a short
leisurely schedule, not only is theirw ork when they do work not especially taxing,
but with this minimale ffort they are able to achieve an abundanta nd well-balanced
diet. This somewhat rosy picture, however, has been questioned by a host of
investigators,b oth anthropologistsa nd medical researchers.T he issue here has to
do with the quantity, quality, and predictabilityo f the food resources hunter-
gatherersr ely upon. Again we focus on the Bushmend atab ecause the literaturei s
extensive.
Truswell and Hansen (1976:189-90) cite a string of biomedical researchers
who have raisedd oubtsa boutt he nutritionala dequacyo f the !Kungd iet, one going
so far as to characterizeo ne Bushmen group as being a "clear case of semi-
starvation."T ruswell and Hansen (1976:190-91) themselves have concluded that
the data suggest "chronico r seasonal calorie insufficiency may be a majorr eason
why San do not reach the same adult staturea s most other people."
Lee has always disagreed with these findings, although he softened his
opposition somewhat by conceding that the smallness of the !Kung might have
something to do with underutrition during childhood and adolescence, and he
went on to note that !Kungr aisedo n cattle posts on a Bantu diet of milk and grain
grow significantly taller (Lee 1979:291). But at the same time, Lee (1979:289)
reassertst he adequacyo f the !Kung diet and claims questions about their height,
weight, and fatness stem from inappropriateW esterns tandardsO. n the nutritional
status of the Bushmen diet, Lee is contradictedb y many of his anthropological
colleagues who have also done field researcha mong the peoples of the Kalahari.
For example, duringt he "Mant he Hunter"c onference Lora Marshall( 1968:94)
commented:" It has been suggested that because they [the !Kung]d o not have to
work everydayt hey can be said to have an 'affluents ociety.' This is a bon motbut
does not addt o the understandingo f the reasons.... The !Kungw e workedw ith are
very thin and . . . constantly expressed concern and anxiety about food."
Harpendinga nd Wandsnider( quoted by Wilmsen 1989:305) assert that "Lee's
studies of the !Kung [Zhu] diet and caloric intake have generateda misleading
belief among anthropologistsa nd otherst hat !Kunga re well fed and underl ittle or
no nutritionals tress." Konner and Shostak (quoted by Wilmsen 1989:305) are
quite emphatict hatn utritionals tress and its healthc onsequencesa mong the !Kung
are hardlyi n the eye of the beholder:
Deprivationo f materialt hings, including food, was a general recollection
[of Zhu adults] and the typical emotional tone in relation to it was one of