Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 08:46:25 -0400
Subject: Forms of Surplus in gathering cultures (and some others)


     What if humans *are* biologically programmed to be lazy? The ancient
Greek
intellectuals thought so--that was their rationale for despising those who
worked
with their hands. Jane Austen thought so: the main occupation of her more
positive
characters is the search for humanly valuable ways of filling up "free time."
Marx
thought so: he looked forward to an age in which work for its own sake would
be
a necessity of life--and that requires a good deal of leisure, because as
soon as
work is imposed by nature or society it loses its "fully human" quality. And
above
all, according to everything I've ever read, hunter-gatherer cultures in
which a
surplus was available chose (for the most part) to "consume" that surplus in
the form
of leisure.
     Of course they wouldn't pile up more food to eat as someone on this list
toys
with, but after the average of 15 to 20 hours a week necessary in some such
cultures (e.g., pre-European Hawaii) they chose to spend their time loafing, 
gossiping, playing games, etc. rather than, say, construct more elaborate
homes
or work out more "productive" forms of "technology." (I define technology, as
I think
Marx did, as the interface between humans and the [rest of] nature.) The
anachronistic
term "interface" may be replaced with "metabolism between."

     I recommend the beautiful book, The Right to Be Lazy, by Paul Lafargue,
Marx's
son-in-law.

          Jan C


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---