Introduction

Eltis, David; Engerman, Stanley L.; Drescher, Seymour; Richardson, David

doi:10.1017/9781139046176.002

Cited by 5 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Slavery was practiced throughout history in the most diverse societies, including empires (China, Rome), city–states (Greek poleis ), agrarian societies (many African polities), and even foraging communities (some Native American tribes) (Eltis, Engerman, Bradley, Cartledge, & Drescher, 2011). If we assumed that the domain of what can be owned resulted from accepted social norms or from a mental theory of ownership, it would seem that the abolitionist movement that started in 18th century England required a drastic change in conceptions of ownership.…”

Section: Explaining (Supposedly) Peripheral Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation: A minimalist model

Boyer

2022

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ownership is universal and ubiquitous in human societies, yet the psychology underpinning ownership intuitions is generally not described in a coherent and computationally tractable manner. Ownership intuitions are commonly assumed to derive from culturally transmitted social norms, or from a mentally represented implicit theory. While the social norms account is entirely ad hoc, the mental theory requires prior assumptions about possession and ownership that must be explained. Here I propose such an explanation, arguing that the intuitions result from the interaction of two cognitive systems. One of these handles competitive interactions for the possession of resources observed in many species including humans. The other handles mutually beneficial cooperation between agents, as observed in communal sharing, collective action and trade. Together, these systems attend to specific cues in the environment, and produce definite intuitions such as “this is hers”, “that is not mine”. This computational model provides an explanation for ownership intuitions, not just in straightforward cases of property, but also in disputed ownership (squatters, indigenous rights), historical changes (abolition of slavery), as well as apparently marginal cases, such as the questions, whether people own their seats on the bus, or their places in a queue, and how people understand “cultural appropriation” and slavery. In contrast to some previous theories, the model is empirically testable and free of ad hoc stipulations.

show abstract

Section: Explaining (Supposedly) Peripheral Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation: A minimalist model

Boyer

2022

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The end of slavery reflected above all a delegitimation of the idea that one person can own another as property. 204 Thus by looking into the past and trying to learn something new from it, we are looking into a different normative world.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…63.Alpers 1975, 209, 214; Lovejoy 2012, 16, 60; Manning 2014, 146–47, 2015, 632; Sheriff 1987, 2, 34–35; Ware 2017, 362.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Something New out of Africa: States Made Slaves, Slaves Made States

Sharman

2023

Int Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I explain a nexus between slavery and state formation in Africa, proceeding from initial demographic and institutional conditions to an external demand shift, individual state responses, and their collective systemic consequences. Historically, African rulers faced distinctive challenges: low population density prioritized control of people more than territory, and internal disintegration was often a greater threat than external conquest. A massive expansion in the demand for slaves offered African rulers increased opportunities to use external resources for “outside-in” state building. Many did so by creating highly militarized predatory slaving states. The collective consequence was heightened systemic insecurity. Variation in the timing of these developments reflected regional and historical variation in the expansion of the demand for slaves. Slaving states appeared first in West Africa, reflecting the late-seventeenth-century expansion of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, before spreading to East Africa a century later, following the parallel later increase in the Indian Ocean slave trade. This “outside-in” path to state formation both parallels and contrasts with contemporary postcolonial state formation.

show abstract

“…We do not aim for a general theory of slavery for all times and all places. The incredible diversity of slavery as an institution across the centuries on all continents makes such an undertaking impractical (Eltis and Engerman 2011, 1). Because slavery was so widespread, and present in most societies at most times (Miller 2009; Klein 2016; Eltis et al 2017), our coverage is inevitably selective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The incredible diversity of slavery as an institution across the centuries on all continents makes such an undertaking impractical (Eltis and Engerman 2011, 1). Because slavery was so widespread, and present in most societies at most times (Miller 2009; Klein 2016; Eltis et al 2017), our coverage is inevitably selective. In order to move away from the traditional Eurocentric focus on the United States and the Atlantic, much of our evidence is drawn from the Islamic world, Africa, and Asia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Slavery in the Making of States and International Orders

Sharman

Zarakol

2023

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite having key implications for fundamental political science questions, slavery as a global phenomenon has received little attention in the field. We argue that slavery played an important role in state-building and international order formation. To counter a historical U.S./Atlantic bias, we draw evidence mostly from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. We identify two slave-based paths to state construction. A “slaves as the state” logic saw slave soldiers and administrators used to overcome the constraints of indirect rule in centralizing power. In a “slaves under the state” model the economy was based on slave production, itself underpinned by institutionalized state coercion. Norms often prohibited enslavement within communities, thus externalizing demand. This led to militarized slaving, and fostered increasingly long-distance trade in slaves. The combination of these normative, military, and commercial factors formed international slaving orders.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation: A minimalist model

Ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation: A minimalist model

Something New out of Africa: States Made Slaves, Slaves Made States

Global Slavery in the Making of States and International Orders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About