Archeology of Violence by Pierre Clastres

Archeology of Violence Reviews

• 
  Toni

  The Western illusion of human nature as either grim and savage (bad) or noble and harmonious (good) still has not recovered from the shock of Pierre Clastres' work. Basically, he agrees that societies without a state are structurally dependent on regularly waging war, but he does not conclude as the other Hobbesians that this necessarily is a good reason for a sovereign. In fact, according to Clastres, the reason why these societies constantly wage war is exactly to ward of the sovereign. It should not come as a surprise that this position is extremely awkward in the debate between the various Hobbes- and Rousseau-like figures we in the West have had to listen argue for the last past 2500 years or at least since the time of the fool Thycudides. Or how about the Founding Fathers, e.g. the title of young John Adams' unpublished essay: "All men would be tyrants if they could". Well, it seems not. But according to Clastres, it is not because these societies are inherently peaceful (or angel-like), it is because they are organized against tyranny: the chief is forced to speak (so the society is given the opportunity to ignore him), the warriors are entirely dependent on the honor given to them by society (so they can easily take it from him, if he begins to desire power over them), a chief who begins to desire too much power can be forced to seek more and more dangerous ways of being honored (finally driving him into a suicide mission) etc. etc. One can see how this does not fit nicely into any existing position in the above mentioned debate. Also, it is not so much a hypothesis of human nature as it is about a way of organizing society. Or as Marshal Sahlins might have said, the natural propensity for humans to create many kinds of culture. Consequently, Clastres is still very much ignored.
  
  Some literature to continue on this path:
  * Marshal Sahlins, The Western Illusion of Human Nature. The above-mentioned 2500 year old debate between bad and good human nature reduced to a three hour lecture. With some comparative notes on societies that do neither.
  * David Graeber deals with him in Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (and introduces the crucial idea, that the reason many egalitarian societies without a state know of domination often is because men dominate the women, a topic overlooked by Clastres).
  * Tiqqun, 'Sorrows of the Civilised Warrior' in This Is Not A Programme being particularly inspired by him. And other texts.
• 
  Kuszma

  
  A fiatalon elhunyt Clastres az anarchista antropológia képviselője volt – ilyen értelemben valószínűleg úgy viszonyult Levi-Stausshoz, mint mondjuk Henry Rollins Stinghez. Mondjuk. Megközelítésének kulcspontja, hogy számára a primitív társadalmak leglényegibb tulajdonsága az „osztálytagozódás” teljes hiánya: vagyis ezek a srácok nem ismerik a nyugati értelemben vett hierarchiákat, vezetőik nem nyugati értelemben vett vezetők, inkább csak a törzs szószólói. Ebből következik, hogy a primitív társadalmak tulajdonképpen homogén közösségek, amelyek számunkra szinte felfoghatatlan egységként tekintenek magukra – a törzs egyik tagja sem rendelkezik több jogosítvánnyal, mint a másik, az egyén pedig sosem halmoz fel többletet (ami ugye a gazdasági egyenlőtlenségek alapja), vagy ha mégis, hát rögvest össze is jön a csipet-csapat, és egy ültő helyükben megeszik az egészet. Ez így nagyon jól hangzik, de még mielőtt valaki elkezdené pakolni a bőröndbe a szúnyogírtót meg a rövidgatyát, és lefoglalni a repjegyet Amazóniába, hallgassa meg a rossz hírt is.
  
  Clastres szerint ugyanis a törzsön belüli hihetetlen homogenitást az tartja fenn, hogy ezek a társadalmak a permanens háború állapotában élnek. Saját magukat „emberként” határozzák meg (szinte az összes indián törzs önelnevezése „embert” jelent), a többieket pedig Idegenként, Másikként – vagyis olyan lényekként, akik veszélyt jelentenek rájuk. Természetesen ismerik a cserekereskedelem fogalmát, sőt szövetségi rendszereket is kötnek, de mindezt mintegy mellékesen teszik, akkor, ha a háború olyan kockázattal járna, amit már nem szívesen vállalnak. Ilyen értelemben a primitív társadalmak csak a közösségen belül ismerik a humánum fogalmát, a közösségen kívüliekkel szemben ez elképzelhetetlen számukra – az Idegentől való elkülönülésük által határozzák meg a saját identitásukat, és ha ezt az elkülönülést egy külső erő (mondjuk egy demokratikus állam) felszámolja, a törzs is elveszíti identitását, és felszívódik*. (Ahogy ez a legtöbb esetben valóban meg is történt.) Nem egy rousseau-i „nemes vadember”-kép ez, akadnak is, akik vitatják, de alapja az van – legalábbis én még nem olvastam olyan etnográfiai munkát, amiben nem ne lett volna leszögezve, hogy az a bennszülött, aki egy idegen törzs területére teszi a lábát, nem számíthat hosszú életre e földön. Mindenesetre Claustres meggyőző lendülettel, és nagy kedvvel bontja ki tételét, valamint a harcosok társadalmának ebből eredeztethető sokrétű, izgalmas szabályrendszerét. Nagy kár, hogy életműve tragikus módon lezáratlan maradt, olvastam volna még ezeket a fejtegetéseket egy darabig.
  
  (És egy zárójel. Mert hogy amit most mondok, annak valahol igen kevés köze van a könyvhöz. Meg nem is kéne, hogy legyen. Jared Diamond A világ tegnapig c. könyvének alcímében felteszi az egymillió forintos kérdést: Mit tanulhatunk a régi társadalmaktól? Nos, van egy alternatív válasz: a permanens háborús pszichózis közösségépítő alkalmazását. A XX. századi államok, ha belső instabilitással kellett szembenézniük, rendszerint előrántották a Jolly Jokert: hitessük el az állampolgárokkal, hogy veszély fenyegeti őket, és erre válaszul a közösség majd felhatalmaz minket arra, hogy a védelmében kiszélesíthessük a saját [állami] jogosítványainkat. A veszély egynemű, egyvéleményű közösségé varázsolja őket, aminek a kormányzat lesz a felhatalmazott és felelős képviselője. Persze egy primitív társadalom méretéből fakadóan lehet ténylegesen homogén, de a modern kor társadalmai mára olyannyira széttagozódtak, hogy legfeljebb formailag és időlegesen mutathatnak egységet – a széttartó érdekek ereje, amint a veszélyre való hivatkozás már nem semlegesíti őket, újra szétfeszíti majd a törékeny egységfrontot. Amit most látunk, az tulajdonképpen nem más, mint egy kísérlet: vajon meddig lehet fenntartani mesterségesen egy vészhelyzetet, vagy annak puszta látszatát, hogy mögé bújtathassuk más problémákat? És halkan jegyzem meg: kísérlet, meddig mer elmenni egy állam annak érdekében, hogy alátámassza saját nélkülözhetetlenségét.)
  
  * "A helyi csoportok szemében mindenki Idegen, aki Más: az idegen erősíti meg minden csoport önálló Mi-tudatként értelmezett identitását. Ennek fényében a hadiállapot éppen azért állandó, mert az Idegenekkel szemben csak ellenséges viszonyt lehet elképzelni, függetlenül attól, hogy ez az ellenségeskedés valóságos háborúba fordul-e. Nem a fegyveres konfliktus, a harc realitása a fontos, hanem a lehetőség állandósága, a közösségek számára nélkülözhetetlen különbözőséget megtartó állandó hadiállapot.
  (…)
  Egyszerűen szólva: az állandó hadiállapot meg a tényleges háború időnként a társadalmi változás megakadályozásának legfőbb eszközeként jelenik meg e társadalmakban."
• 
  belisa

  ilginç minik bir kitap, topluluğun doğasının bu işin başında nasıl olabileceğine dair ilginç teoriler...
• 
  tout

  Without this book the idea of the war-machine or 'Introduction to Civil War' wouldn't have been possible. Essentially the book repeats its message in different essays, on different topics and in different formats ranging from personal travel narrative, to polemic, to academic essay. The message is basically that "primitive societies" were not underdeveloped along the path is argued to inevitably lead to the state-form, but that they consciously choose to develop in its very being and mythology practices that ward off the formation and power of the state (as political power or power separated from the social body in general). Clastres argues that "societies of states" are inherently divided, into competing classes, subject positions, various mythologies/metaphysics, etc. In contrast, societies-against-the-state are undivided, which is what makes them stateless, and how they remain constitute themselves as such is produced through many different practices unique to each tribe and situation. What seems essential to all is that "primitive societies" are societies for war, which has many functions, but which creates an environment too influx in terms of how power is distributed for power to become separated from the society as a whole. There is a continual breaking off, breaking away, insuring the existence of multiple worlds outside of the tribe, killing off of warriors who would assume power by obligating them seek prestige to the point of death, killing off of chiefs who would assume power over the tribe or lead them in combat, etc etc.
  
  Tiqqun and D & G have already made incredible use of the important theses of Clastre's work. It has an immense relevance for current combatants against the state as it did for the Guarani tribes of South America. We should take this to mean a very different form of communism, one that it is an opening to many different worlds rather than simply another world without capitalism, and worlds so committed to their own particular founding myths/positions/form-of-life/metaphysic that they are in constant conflict, thought as broadly as possible, with each other.
• 
  Joel

  essays on primitive society with great clarity of thought in terms of interpretation of tribal practices and so on. bound with that cheap semiotext(e) glue. interspersed with thematically pertinent though much less interesting academic spats (as in the funny one that begins 'though it is not very entertaining, we must reflect a bit on marxist anthropology...').
  
  i liked this part about the karai prophets:
  
  'The prophetic discourse of the karai can be summed up in an observation and a promise: on the one hand, they constantly affirmed the fundamentally evil character of the world, on the other, they insisted that conquest of a good world was possible. ‘the world is evil! The world is ugly!’ they said. ‘let us abandon it!’ they concluded. And their absolutely pessimistic description of the world was met with the general acceptance of the Indians who listened to them. It follows that, despite its total difference from every primitive society’s discourse – a discourse of repetition, not difference, a discourse of fidelity to tradition and not of an opening to innovation – it follows, thus, that the discourse of the karai did not seem unhealthy to the Indians, a lunatic’s delirium, since it reverberated in them as the expression of a truth for which they were waiting, new prose describing the new face – the evil face – of the world. In short, it was not the discourse of the prophets that was unhealthy, but indeed, the world in which they spoke, the society in which they lived.'
• 
  nico

  someone's trying to accumulate resources needlessly? eat it all
  a warrior is trying to rule society? send him to certain death
  a chief is trying to rule others? kill him
  there's a state in sight? obliterate its foundation
  men are putting themselves as superiors over women? withhold reproductive powers and end them
  
  rules to live by tbh
• 
  Aung Sett Kyaw Min

  how is war opposed to the State?
  a primitive society is a society without a state, without a separate organ by means of which political power can be exercised by one group over the rest of the community. according to clastres, war is one of the important mechanisms by which power is prevented from ever developing into an irresistable site, by which the formation of the State is actively warded off. the war machine works to undermine the formation of the State as the despostic center from which all power flows. so Hobbes is only half correct.
  as such, the emergence of the State coincides with the division of the previously undivided totality into One which ostensibly represents the interests of the undivided whole (rulers) and the rest of the community (subjects). clastres does not furnish a clear answer as to the atiology of the State, but he does hint at the initial quest for spoils by which prestige is measured being gradually transformed into a pillage of resources as one of the culpable developments (the rest of the society becoming economically dependent on the war party for sustenance).
  however, primitive societies, especially war-like primitive societies, are societies against the warrior as much as they are societies of warrior. from its entry into the warrior order, society marks the individual as a being-towards-death in its "infinite task" of accumulating ever more prestige in the eyes of the society by throwing themselves ever more reckless raids.
  the common misconception that primitive societies are subsistence level economies; in fact, since their needs are more or less satisfied without the hunter gatherers or the crop farmers (they are both autonomous domestic units that can be both present in a community) having to devote a significant portion of their daily lives to their respective "economic" enterprises, they can actually be thought of as societies of leisure and abundance. clastres drives home the point that savages deliberately choose not to produce more than what is needed. there is surplus, however, generated by the chieftain's many wives, but this surplus is squandered by the rest of the society, which showers the chieftain with prestige in return. therefore, Clastres urges us to not overlook the subtle but important distinction between prestige and power.
  i'll have to take clastres word for the supposed economism of the marxist anthropology scholarship of his day. in any case, clastres' contention is that war cannot be reduced to an after-effect of the mode of production and other categories of marxian political economy that, in his opinion, have no theoretical or empirical import in ethnology, in part for the simple reason that the primitive society wields [non]politics to the effect of warding off the formation of the State, i.e. the primacy of the political over the economic. moreover, little by way of analytical clarity is gained by attempting to interpret a religious phenomenon that is at the same time social phenomenon as ideology.
  all in all, a very absorbing ethnological study of the role of warfare in primitive societies.
• 
  Andrew

  A fascinating account of the relationship between war and primitive society, primarily in South America. It is a series of essays that all approach the topic from a slightly different angle.
  
  Clastres´ main premise here is that war is not just a part of these primitive societies, it is inseparable from their existence. He separates societies into undivided and divided societies. The former are "primitive," even though this implies that they need to progress to "civilized." Civilized societies, on the other hand, have allowed themselves to become divided into a ruling class of some type and the class that allow (even desire) themselves to be ruled. This inherently results in a ruling class dominating a ruled class, however mildly it may be.
  
  Every society from the "primitive" kingships of Africa to the most totalitarian Nazi Reich (including our democracies) have been this "divided" society, a society with a State, where people voluntarily give up their freedom. True egalitarianism, Clastres posits, can only be found in so-called primitive societies, where even the chiefs do not have power to rule but can only advise as the society already wishes.
  
  Some of the more memorable essays are: the first, a first-person account of Clastres visit with Jacques Lizot to the Yanomami tribes of Venezuela; the second, a review of a biography of a Brazilian girl who was kidnapped by a tribe and lived with them for 22 years before returning to "civilization;" the fourth, a fascinating treatise on the term "ethnocide," the killing of a culture; then comes a fabulous treatise on Etienne La Boetie, the man who was writing 200 years before Rousseau on the nature of power, liberty and the social contract; the penultimate (and titular) work, a comprehensive summary of the entire process of war, and how it transforms itself into the method of maintaining societal autonomy while preventing the rise of a State; and finally, an essay on the less common "warrior societies" along with the harrowing plight of the privileged/cursed warrior, a "being-for-death."
  
  Lest this sound like a ridiculous romanticization of primitive life, as has become popular lately, I gladly contradict the notion. Clastres does indeed come across as defensive of these societies, but he is defending them against the academic arrogance that allows people to consider them "pre-civilized," when in reality their societies seem to be almost as sophisticated, just in another direction.
  
  If anything, Clastres´ position is one of deflection and enlightenment, trying to shift the paradigm of how we consider these people -- not heathens to be "civilized," but rather a completely alien society that have developed distinct methods over thousands of years and can be respected in their own right, without being compared to us.
  
  Indeed, just reading the book will disarm you of any illusions of romanticism. The picture he describes of a permanent state of war is distinctly unappealing as a modern reader. Too much tension and uncertainty, and he never even comes close to suggesting that we should return to such a way of life.
  
  His questions are more concerned with origin: Assuming all societies began this way, how did the first divided society arise? How and why did people voluntarily give up their liberty? His perspective is so interesting because he considers our divided society as the anomaly, not theirs.
  
  It results that the essays gradually divulge more on the topic, and build on what you've already read, so you feel like their order is a logical progression, even though each was published several years apart during the 70s and early 80s. I can only suppose that´s a result of excellent editing. Sometimes the ideas get a little repetitive, but overall there is enough freshness in each essay that they are able to captivate you.
  
  
  Not Bad Reviews
  
  
  @pointblaek
• 
  Molsa Roja(s)

  Incontables toneladas de admiración por Pierre Clastres, el antropólogo anarquista por excelencia. Su trabajo es vital para desmontar mitos occidentales sobre los "salvajes" y sobre las sociedades "primitivas", para mostrar que si no encajan con los estándares modernos es porque, sencillamente, lo evitan a toda costa. Sociedades contra el Estado, sociedades contra la producción, sociedades contra el comercio, sociedades guerreras. Las sociedades primitivas son múltiples y permiten pensar en el problema del Estado, en el poder político y en la supervivencia de grupos sociales mediante una dialéctica Mismidad/Otredad.
• 
  José Coto

  Respecto de la edición: el texto central realmente es una obra fundamental bien seleccionada, aunque es de mayor utilidad una vez leída “La sociedad contra el estado”, ya que en este artículo se revisa su tesis principal desarrollado en el libro anterior, exponiendo que la sociedad contra el estado es una sociedad para la guerra. Sin embargo, este artículo se encuentra ya en otra edición recopilatoria de sus ensayos. Como forma de diferenciarse de otras ediciones, este es complementado con dos ensayos sobre el autor realmente útiles, ya que recogen las aportaciones teóricas principales del autor, dan una perspectiva general de sus obras, una lectura interpretada de la misma y sobre todo, referencia a un contexto teórico anterior y recepción anterior realmente interesante y que no podemos encontrar con la simple lecturas de las obras de Clastres. Ahora pues ¿Por qué una nota tan baja? Lo ensayos, si bien de utilidad para alguien que está investigando la obra del autor, no son suficientemente críticos, no entran a valorar la obra en sus deficiencias sino que se ciegan (probablemente) por su afinidad política con el autor, sin embargo las tesis principales del autor, su estilo de escritura y falta de rigor me parecen fuertemente deficientes. Políticamente hay muchos autores anarquistas o comunistas con mejores aportaciones a la hora de pensar proyectos emancipadores, teóricamente en el estudio de la política está desfasado por las tesis posestructuralistas y en cuanto a su relevancia en el desarrollo histórico de la teoría antropológica política es donde mejor funciona, aunque quizás es de un calado menor en relación a otras corrientes y autores.
• 
  Yupa

  Libro composto da due saggi molto brevi.
  È una bella cosa che da essi emerga un'immagine tutt'altro che idealizzata, ma anzi disincantata, dei cosiddetti "primitivi" qui mostrati come società impegnate costantemente nell'impresa guerriera.
  Il libro sconta tuttavia dei difetti. Se il secondo saggio riporta l'esperienza dell'autore, nonché alcuni documenti storici, relativi a delle società "primitive" sudamericane, che vanno a corroborare il suo discorso, il primo saggio invece è completamente astratto, privo di esempî, e contrappone in maniera troppo netta l'"Occidente" e i "primitivi", come se fossero due entità onnicomprensive, omogenee al loro interno e prive di sviluppo storico. Anche per questo se, come dice l'autore, le società "primitive" sono società "contro lo Stato", i cui membri si oppongono scientemente e pervicacemente, anche con la violenza, al sorgere, al loro interno, di un potere separato che comandi, non si capisce come storicamente un po' in tutto il globo alla fine lo Stato sia comunque nato e l'uguaglianza "primitiva" sia tramontata. Alcune idee in merito vengono date nel secondo saggio, ma forse è poco.
  Lettura comunque interessante.
• 
  Mikael Hall

  Archaeology of Violence is a spectacular work of practical and philosophical anthropology. Through a series of essays, Clastres explores different aspects of primitive society, as he insists on calling them. He develops his arguments from “The Society Against the State” and grounds them both in philosophy, history and foremost in anthropology. He precents scalding and apt critiques of Marxist and structuralist accounts of primitive society. I'm especially taken by his explorations and definition of the state and societies against it, and its further relation to war and violence. In the end, there is little to critique and much to learn for all those interested in history, anthropology and philosophy, but even more so for those who aim to radically change society and upend a world with states.
• 
  Eternauta

  Ο Clastres στο σύντομο αυτό δοκίμιο κατακρημνίζει πολλές απο τις βεβαιότητες σχετικά με την "αθώα" ή απλοϊκή φύση των "πρωτόγονων" κοινωνιών. Σε αντίθεση με το Levi-Strauss που όρισε την αρχή της ανταλλαγής (την κουλτούρα του δώρου) ως το κλειδί που ερμηνεύει τις ενδοκοινοτικές όσο και δια-κοινοτικές σχέσεις στις αρχαϊκές κοινωνίες, ο Clastres εισάγει την βία και τον πόλεμο ως το βασικό μηχανισμό που επιτρέπει σε αυτές τις κοινότητες να διατηρούν την "πολιτική" τους αυτονομία προς τα έξω και την κοινωνική ισότητα στο εσωτερικό τους.
  Δεν έχω τις γνώσεις για να συμφωνήσω ή να αντικρούσω το επιχείρημα αλλά δε νομίζω ότι όποιος μελετά κοινωνική ανθρωπολογία ή εθνολογία μπορεί να το αγνοήσει.
• 
  Ömer Ak

  "İlkel toplumsal varlık tamamen savaş üzerine kuruludur; ilkel toplum savaş olmadan varlığını sürdüremez. Ne kadar savaşılırsa o kadar az birleşme olur; ve Devlet'in en büyük düşmanı savaştır.
  ...
  Savaş Devlet'in, Devlet de Savaş'ın önünü alır.
  ...
  İlkel dünyayı doğal olmayan bir dünya olarak düşünmemesine karşılık Hobbes, savaşın Devlet'siz düşünülemeyeceğini, bu ikisini bir karşılıklı dışarıda bırakma ilişkisi içinde düşünmek gerektiğini ilk fark eden olmuştur..."
• 
  Anna Braga

  Este livro abriga vários ensaios do Antropólogo. Gostei bastante de alguns, e outros nem tanto. Não é uma leitura fácil, os ensaios são extensos e às vezes cansativos. Gostei de ter lido, aborda temas interessantes e como existe um véu, uma má explicação, um preconceito ocidental diante das sociedades primitivas.
• 
  Campbell

  A very readable and well-assembled series of essays, but personally found some of the conclusions Clastres reaches to be a bit unsatisfying - the analysis was stronger than the synthesis. More useful for some fresh new interpretations, rather than the formation of viable alternatives to the ideologies he discusses.
• 
  Andrew

  Title essay is extremely interesting, but some of the included essays are forgettable. Also see de Castro's very stimulating introduction. If you are considering picking up one of the two essay collections, grab Society Against the State first/instead.
• 
  mel

  cap 6
• 
  marine

  c quoi ce ton de petasse dans ton bouquin la clastres 😏😏😏
• 
  Bryn Hammond

  The two last essays, the title one and the ravishingly titled 'Sorrows of the Savage Warrior', make up his start on a work about primitive war, unfortunately lost to us.
  
  For the rest of the book I thought 'I've been here before' in
  Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology. For me that one had more and hung together more, though it might just be that I came to it 1st.
  
  On primitive war. He begins by undoing old answers to the question, why war? 1, that war was a result of poverty/scarcity (no: primitive societies are affluent, leisure societies). 2, that war happens when exchange fails (war is universal, essential to these societies -- not an accident). Clastres is a political anthropologist with a political answer:
  
  "It is not war that is the effect of segmentation, it is segmentation that is the effect of war. It is not only the effect, but the goal: war is at once the cause of and the means to a sought-after effect and end, the segmentation of primitive society... In other words, primitive war is a means to a political end."
  
  War is against the state, too. It follows a "centrifugal logic" and cannot cease. War is a permanent condition, active or in abeyance, and its function? Freedom. As always with Clastres, political independence.
  
  'Sorrows of the Savage Warrior' is one of his lyrical, melancholy pieces -- to explain how warriors, even with their prestige, are prevented by society from ever upsetting equality. For one thing, they must be in a individualistic rivalry with each other. For another they are wedded to death. Clastres talks about the "infinite task" and the escalation of the exploit: "The glory won is never enough in and of itself; it must be forever proven, and every feat realized immediately calls for another."
  
  While he talked, even though he's in South and North America, I thought of the sad glory-hunt of Beowulf, and of a couple of poignant lines from that heroic tradition:
  
  I am led from a boast to another boast,
  From a feat to another feat.
  
• 
  Heike

  Now I might not always agree with Clastre's anarchist leanings, but he is such an interesting read as academic books go and he is co-guilty of enticing me into choosing social anthropology as a discipline. Always thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating, and with a clear writing style (a rarity in the world of academe). A must for anyone who wants to think about the big questions, such as the origins and development of violence and ethnocide.