Abstract:Abstract:African pastoralists have historically used aggression strategically to restock after major losses. On the basis of anthropological studies of African pastoral societies, cultural psychologists have linked the psychological roots of pastoral aggression to the cultural complex of honor. This article is a critical examination of this link. It argues, first, that honor cultures are likely to be found among peasant pastoralists, but not among tribal pastoralists. It also argues that honor psychology and t… Show more
“…But while the Bashada had accommodated some resource-related rules (e.g. concerning the set-aside area) into their governance, the Hamar did not, and explicitly objected to these; a finding that seems hugely intriguing from a cultural psychology perspective (Moritz 2008). In practical terms, the use of scenarios in participatory workshops and group discussions that elicit reactions to and evaluations of different ecological and social scenarios together with governance options could be a first step to explore these differences.…”
Section: Degu Tadie and Anke Fischermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Places such as Hamar and Bashada would provide excellent cases for a comparative exploration of the role of everyday activities and the resulting socialisation (Moritz 2008) in producing and reproducing a local governance culture. …”
Abstract:Research on common-pool resources in the last 30 years has hinged on concepts such as rules and property rights for understanding how access and use of natural resources is managed by communities and other actors. However, a small body of literature on mobile pastoralism maintains that resource governance might not always be based on resource-related rules, but instead on negotiation and general norms of reciprocity. Situations conventionally labelled as 'open access' might therefore not always be as unregulated and unmanaged as they seem. Here, we examine what the absence of rules for resource access and use means in practice, and how resource users adapt such a governance system to increasing scarcity of pasture land. We conducted interviews, group discussions and participatory mapping exercises in two neighbouring areas, Hamar and Bashada, in the lower Omo area in southern Ethiopia. Both groups are culturally closely related to each other, but showed important differences in their ability and willingness to change their institutions to adapt to resource scarcity. In both Hamar and Bashada, access to grazing was generally non-exclusive. Instead, we found a complex mosaic of ways in which access to grazing was practiced and sanctioned, characterised largely by negotiations and interplay between individual actors rather than by firm rules. Both groups were confronted with increasingly erratic rainfalls and insufficient availability of pasture. Strikingly, while the Bashada had recently established a strictly enforced set-aside area to provide grazing for the end of the dry season, the Hamar rejected such ideas and sought grazing in protected areas, which eventually led to conflict between herders and authorities. Reasons for these diverging strategies might be connected to subtle 446 Degu Tadie and Anke Fischer differences in the degree to which decision-making is individualised and social coordination accepted. These seem to have important implications for community adaptability to changing environmental and societal conditions.
“…But while the Bashada had accommodated some resource-related rules (e.g. concerning the set-aside area) into their governance, the Hamar did not, and explicitly objected to these; a finding that seems hugely intriguing from a cultural psychology perspective (Moritz 2008). In practical terms, the use of scenarios in participatory workshops and group discussions that elicit reactions to and evaluations of different ecological and social scenarios together with governance options could be a first step to explore these differences.…”
Section: Degu Tadie and Anke Fischermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Places such as Hamar and Bashada would provide excellent cases for a comparative exploration of the role of everyday activities and the resulting socialisation (Moritz 2008) in producing and reproducing a local governance culture. …”
Abstract:Research on common-pool resources in the last 30 years has hinged on concepts such as rules and property rights for understanding how access and use of natural resources is managed by communities and other actors. However, a small body of literature on mobile pastoralism maintains that resource governance might not always be based on resource-related rules, but instead on negotiation and general norms of reciprocity. Situations conventionally labelled as 'open access' might therefore not always be as unregulated and unmanaged as they seem. Here, we examine what the absence of rules for resource access and use means in practice, and how resource users adapt such a governance system to increasing scarcity of pasture land. We conducted interviews, group discussions and participatory mapping exercises in two neighbouring areas, Hamar and Bashada, in the lower Omo area in southern Ethiopia. Both groups are culturally closely related to each other, but showed important differences in their ability and willingness to change their institutions to adapt to resource scarcity. In both Hamar and Bashada, access to grazing was generally non-exclusive. Instead, we found a complex mosaic of ways in which access to grazing was practiced and sanctioned, characterised largely by negotiations and interplay between individual actors rather than by firm rules. Both groups were confronted with increasingly erratic rainfalls and insufficient availability of pasture. Strikingly, while the Bashada had recently established a strictly enforced set-aside area to provide grazing for the end of the dry season, the Hamar rejected such ideas and sought grazing in protected areas, which eventually led to conflict between herders and authorities. Reasons for these diverging strategies might be connected to subtle 446 Degu Tadie and Anke Fischer differences in the degree to which decision-making is individualised and social coordination accepted. These seem to have important implications for community adaptability to changing environmental and societal conditions.
“…It should be noted that these reports come from a single source. However, this is not the only example of a pastoral culture exhibiting high rates of violence despite reports of norms that condemn aggression (Moritz, 2008). Such observations have led some anthropologists to suggest that aggressive psychological phenotypes can be generated simply by engaging in the practice of animal husbandry.…”
The culture of honour hypothesis offers a compelling example of how human psychology differentially adapts to pastoral and horticultural environments. However, there is disagreement over whether this pattern is best explained by a memetic, evolutionary psychological, dual inheritance, or niche construction model. I argue that this disagreement stems from two shortcomings: lack of clarity about the theoretical commitments of these models and inadequate comparative data for testing them. To resolve the first problem, I offer a theoretical framework for deriving competing predictions from each of the four models. In particular, this involves a novel interpretation of the difference between dual inheritance theory and cultural niche construction. I then illustrate a strategy for testing their predictions using data from the Human Relations Area File. Empirical results suggest that the aggressive psychological phenotype typically associated with honour culture is more common among pastoral societies than among horticultural societies. Theoretical considerations suggest that this pattern is best explained as a case of cultural niche construction.
“…The concept of “honor” carries with it an established set of violations, where the female compromises or is compromised, typically through “invited” or forced violations to her body, and brings dishonor to the male. Mark Moritz explains that during pogroms and riots, “men are prepared to use violence … to defend their reputation as honorable men … [and such violence] is institutionalized, regarded as legitimate by the society at large” (Moritz , 101). The dishonor to the Hindu male in cow slaughter by a Muslim was explained by a cow vigilante at a national conference on cow protection that was held in Ahmedabad in February 2016:You understand, it is not the killing I am worried about.…”
Section: “Cow Is Our Mother Her Milk Is Our Blessing”mentioning
This article argues that gaushalas, or cow shelters, in India are mobilized as sites of Hindutva or Hindu ultranationalism, where it is a “vulnerable” Hindu Indian nation—or the “Hindu mother cow” as Mother India—who needs “sanctuary” from predatory Muslim males. Gaushalas are rendered spaces of (re)production of cows as political, religious, and economic capital, and sustained by the combined and compatible narratives of “anthropatriarchy” and Hindu patriarchy. Anthropatriarchy is framed as the human enactment of gendered oppressions upon animal bodies, and is crucial to sustaining all animal agriculture. Hindu patriarchy refers to the instrumentalization of female and feminized bodies (women, cows, “Mother India”) as “mothers” and cultural guardians of a “pure” Hindu civilization. Both patriarchies commodify bovine motherhood and breastmilk. which this article frames as a feminist issue. Through empirical research, this article demonstrates that gaushalas generally function as spaces of exploitation, incarceration, and gendered violence for the animals. The article broadens posthumanist feminist theory to illustrate how bovine bodies, akin to women's bodies, are mobilized as productive, reproductive, and symbolic capital to advance Hindu extremism and ultranationalism. It subjectifies animal bodies as landscapes of nation‐making using ecofeminism and its subfield of vegan feminism.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
