Imagine an ancient forager band had a conflict. For example, imagine some were eating foods that induced stinky farts which bothered others who slept nearby. There are several generic ways to deal with such a conflict:
And we often seem to categorize gaining via trade or personal effort as gaining via dominance. Which is in part why we often dislike market based solutions. But note that these two kinds of status could also be called “politics” vs. “non-political reality”. We prefer social outcomes to be determined by prestige that can be influenced by dominant political coalitions, and fear and suspect social outcomes determined by nature, personal effort, or social competition, even when such competition is peaceful.
I question the "we." I agree that I prefer political solutions - I lean forager. But I don't think you prefer political solutions. Isn't this a forager versus farmer issue?
I may be missing your point but I don't see how the last half-sentence follows from the rest (or even how it's true - e.g. in many contexts there seems to be a strong tendency to root for underdogs and to admire effortful overcoming of, or even just refusal to surrender in the face of, huge obstacles).
So people prefer the lowest cost solutions, even though they may be less effective. Should anyone be surprised? If a solution isn't possible based on prestige, now much chance is there of a deal? Deals require much the same political negotiation necessary for prestige to work as deals become a matter of prestige.
This reminds me of something I read that noted that one becomes "wealthy" in many New Guinea native cultures by accumulating land and wives to farm it. But one accumulates those by being good at warfare and the negotiations that go on around it, not by being good at farming. Similarly in England, where Henry VII (IIRC) finally forced the nobles to stop acquiring land by waging war on each other. Most of history is dominated by processes that revolve around political coalitions, not skill at dealing with the material world.
You write, "... even when such competition is peaceful." But of course, whether it is "peaceful" is irrelevant -- if you have no money to obtain a wife, you're as genetically dead as if you were decapitated.
I think you're onto something very important here.
But I wonder if historically the "prestige" solution (shaming) is simply more effective, more successful, than the others, rather than being preferred.
As you say, slavery, tyranny, pollution have been successfully attacked via the "prestige" route (I can add smoking in public and expect obesity to be next).
But is that just because the other methods haven't worked? Force requires coordination. Dealing and exit require sacrifice.
> less slavery
I can't say for other countries, but slavery in the US was decided by the bloodiest war on US soil. I think that qualifies as "dominance".
And we often seem to categorize gaining via trade or personal effort as gaining via dominance. Which is in part why we often dislike market based solutions. But note that these two kinds of status could also be called “politics” vs. “non-political reality”. We prefer social outcomes to be determined by prestige that can be influenced by dominant political coalitions, and fear and suspect social outcomes determined by nature, personal effort, or social competition, even when such competition is peaceful.
I question the "we." I agree that I prefer political solutions - I lean forager. But I don't think you prefer political solutions. Isn't this a forager versus farmer issue?
I may be missing your point but I don't see how the last half-sentence follows from the rest (or even how it's true - e.g. in many contexts there seems to be a strong tendency to root for underdogs and to admire effortful overcoming of, or even just refusal to surrender in the face of, huge obstacles).
So people prefer the lowest cost solutions, even though they may be less effective. Should anyone be surprised? If a solution isn't possible based on prestige, now much chance is there of a deal? Deals require much the same political negotiation necessary for prestige to work as deals become a matter of prestige.
This reminds me of something I read that noted that one becomes "wealthy" in many New Guinea native cultures by accumulating land and wives to farm it. But one accumulates those by being good at warfare and the negotiations that go on around it, not by being good at farming. Similarly in England, where Henry VII (IIRC) finally forced the nobles to stop acquiring land by waging war on each other. Most of history is dominated by processes that revolve around political coalitions, not skill at dealing with the material world.
You write, "... even when such competition is peaceful." But of course, whether it is "peaceful" is irrelevant -- if you have no money to obtain a wife, you're as genetically dead as if you were decapitated.
I think you're onto something very important here.
But I wonder if historically the "prestige" solution (shaming) is simply more effective, more successful, than the others, rather than being preferred.
As you say, slavery, tyranny, pollution have been successfully attacked via the "prestige" route (I can add smoking in public and expect obesity to be next).
But is that just because the other methods haven't worked? Force requires coordination. Dealing and exit require sacrifice.