Theme: Civilization

Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future amazon.com (He got there!!!!) CHAPTER 2 SECTION: Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.

—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.

[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant. Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time. The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—”The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns. Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments. [ … ] As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors. Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.”— FROM: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future

Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future amazon.com (He got there!!!!) CHAPTER 2 SECTION: Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.

—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.

[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant. Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time. The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—”The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns. Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments. [ … ] As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors. Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.”— FROM: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future