You're walking on the street when someone from an adjacent alleyway approaches you. She's wearing a hat that casts shadows on her face, a pair of big and dark sunglasses and a long coat that covers the majority of her body features. "Hey, do you want to learn something new from a stranger with no qualification or authority?" She asks you in a murmur.
random note: Termite colonies have male and female workers. They also have a small king termite that sticks around after their nuptial flight while the queen grows to start cranking out eggs he remains smol. Eusocial is also sort of a spectrum. In a few species all of the female workers are fertile at birth and are sterilized unless the queen has died in which case a big fight breaks out between all of the potential new reproductive females until only one is left. Yeah, eusociality is weird and complicated and one of the few instances where total trust and cooperation is found in the animal kingdom (even humans have to balance cooperation and self interest ie: ants, bees, and wasps don't need any form of justice system. Everyone is benefited by working together)
Love listening to you to help solidify ideas not only for my story writing but also to help feel less overwhelmed when crafting a world for ttrpg. 😊 Helps inspire more creativity when I get stuck (which is often), as using random tables can only get me so far unless I have a more basic foundation in my understanding in how groups of people form and interact with other groups to really bounce ideas upon. 😊 That was a mouthful. My apologies. Anyway, I really do love this series. 😊
Society the structure within which we interact. Culture how we interact. My society is set up so that I perform a job for money and can receive food for money from a shop. My culture guides my food preferences, who does what jobs, how we do those jobs, how much money those jobs receive, the style of clothes I wear to the shop, how the shop is set up, the words and language I use in the transactions. Two people can live in the same society but have different cultures. Two people who share a culture may interact at different levels within a society (eg high and low)
while this is true, in isolated, small, or "alone" (for a lack of better words) society's will have a narrow culture. even large kingdoms will have major changes to other kingdoms simply because mass migrations or distant foreigners are very rare without semi modern transport. to condense what im saying, in a pre global trade and transport world differences in culture are mostly well defined and apparent. obviously there are exceptions to this.
ANTONIO GRAMSCII INTENSIFIES Regardless of society, its culture and subcultures are largely shaped or influenced by its ruling class through cultural hegemony. Two people with different cultures within the same society will be so for most of the same reasons.
Agriculture seems like a step up, but apparently the first farmers were less healthy, more likely to starve, more likely to die of disease than hunter gatherers. In short, their life expectancy went down. I'm wondering if your main character will resist the change to agriculture because in the beginning it was kinda bad. Source: My high school history textbook from 2016
It was good because it helps more people to eat and eating was more assured and yes until around the Bronze Age it was worse to live and you had worse technology in farming society
Really sorry if any of this is stuff you came across in research, but as an anthro grad I have to give some comments on this. "Aggregate" is it's own important word in that definition of Society, basically means a bunch of people who have no common identity beyond location/event. Trying to map social behaviours of animals onto people is really really dicey as I'm sure you've read. Beyond gender it also leads into discussions of "race" and trying to assert that some people resemble animals because of their social behaviours. There's also problems with trying to map research of contemporary hunter + gatherer groups with the origins of our own sociality. What we have today + the recent past are H+G societies that have undergone significant social evolution, creating complex religions, customs and kinship systems that would not have previously existed. These groups are also survivorship bias, as the ones that existed in the realms of agricultural societies were either wiped out or became the agriculturalists. Stating it another way, contemporary monarchies don't really resemble feudal societies, just as current republics/democracies don't really give us a great window into understanding Rome/Greece. David Graeber's last book The Dawn of Everything touches on a lot of similar subject matter and gives a good view into the larger diversity of past societies that other sources won't (I might be seeing a little of the book in this video, since you did mention that societies weren't destined to follow a particular path to a particular end). Another way to look at this is that the evolution of culture + society from the very early days is very theoretical, and it's much easier and accurate to focus on what we know based on the world as it is + written history that has been verified. Anything else and we are trying to draw analogies between societies that are both separated by time and distance. I encourage you to keep going with this though as anthropology is sorely underappreciated, and I want to see more people using it for world building. Props for managing to avoid the other thorny issue of defining "civilisation"
My personal theory on human vocal range is that it was used as a method of baiting in small birds, and improved with our pattern recognition. One feeds the other, vis versa, until eventually you get early language.
Congrats on growing the channel! I've already established my worldbuilding but something felt off. This channel really helped me find out why. There was stuff in my world but I never really questioned how that stuff got there exactly so thanks for helping me flesh that out!
Reading through the comments reminds me that anthropology is one of the subjects that brings all the crazies out to talk about their pet theories that their exact cultural values are actually just natural and good. Come on folks, gotta look at the evidence.
The video's information is not bad, it holds a lot of important basis of understanding general anthropology (for writing). You did a great job for falling down such a large rabbit hole.
Thanks for making these videos, they inspired me to actually do research on my own worldbuilding, turns out that’s something I should have been doing this whole time.
Man, RU-vid is fickle at times. I discovered this channel with the lithic technology video, subscribed and binge watched all content. Then today, I thought, "Wait, has she released anything since that QA?", lo and behold, a major video effort has been out for two weeks, from a channel where I've watched every video, and my inbox has in no way informed me. The view count kinda reflects that I think.
i cannot wait for the next few videos. i swear everytime i watch something from you my creativity explodes and then ill be writting for the next few hours. pls keep sharing your wisdom, its like sustinance im not even kidding 😭
Your world building videos are great. They feel like a laid-back version of Overly Sarcastic Productions Trope Talks, with the way you break large concepts into easy to mamage bits
really good video, i always like bonobos and other animals and their approach to sociability I do think though that you've conceded some ground to victorians though, nuclear families as i understand it was simply not a thing in hunter gatherer times, the idea that you have a very strict partner is a social innovation, one made at the earliest in the roman era, that did not necessarily exit in hunter gatherer times, i would think its something more like a loose flock, many of which sharing the same dna and matriarchs/leaders yes, but not ones where you knew who belonged to which parts of the group but more a loose fitting pack of dozens to a few hundred people. Thank you for the video, as always its bloody gorgeous
I feel like the reason why our relationship like you describe (monogamy+ and bill Clinton) is probably because it is the best way to maximize the chances of kids (if one partner dies or can’t have kids you can move to another but it is discouraged unless it is the former) and it let you care for the kids the best
Just wanted to say I absolutely love your videos. I know how much time and effort that goes into this, and I definitely relate to getting sucked into the research so much further than was planned for a video 😅 can't wait to see what's next!
Fascinating as always, I’m looking forward to your next video! I’ve always been an avid worldbuilder but I usually focus on magic, nature, biomes, and geography elements. I’m somewhat lacking in the society department so this video (and all your videos, especially the one on resources) is greatly appreciated
Writer: "Hmm. If I'm going to come up with something new, then I need to know how we even got to this point." Writer after years of research: "Oh.. Ok.." *blankly scribbles things down* Reader: "Pfft. This wouldn't happen. It doesn't make sense. So unrealistic." Writer: *grabs reader by the shirt and pulls them in close* "I... WISH..."
Chimps and bonobos have society and cultures so i don't care about the definition or concept of the hypothetical of religion or culture. The way ive set up the tribes of my world is similar to cultural tribes clans and bands. Someone can be from one tribe that is closely related to a band they travel with but not related to said band. This is an over simplified version of my system to keep it short.
Something I noticed on a rewatch- the United States of America, arguably THE archetypical modern super-state, is sort of an exception to the rule of thumb when it comes to archaeology. Washington D.C. has been the center for power in this country for more or less the entire existence of that city. Yet it has never been the largest, most populated, nor most economically powerful city in the country. From a different perspective, D.C. as a somewhat major city has almost no pull on national politics due to the fact that it isn't a state and therefore isn't directly represented in Congress. Not to get too far into politics, but the most populated cities in the country are technically underrepresented in terms of political power on a national scale. They can and do still impact major change on the whole country, but the country is designed in a way that ideally prevents them from completely overpowering less populated areas. You can have whatever opinions you want on this, but I think it would be neat to implement something like it into a fictional setting.
I wonder if empires would be another type of society, in which conquered states retain some autonomous function but are subordinated to the conquering power. Sort of a Russian nesting dolls version of statehood.
Well it mostly if multiple small societies are controlled by one but it has to be from different culture (because while Iraq controls most of the Akkadian land we don’t consider Iraq an empire, same for Syria with Assyrian empire and Iran with first Persian empire etc)
Y'know what's really fun about the "ape, not monkey" thing? To quote Clint's Reptiles - "You can't evolve out of a clade." :) So assuming your definition of monkey is "primate," all apes are also monkeys! (And mammals and cyndonts and therapsids and so on and so forth I definitely skipped a few broader categories in there) We don't need to reject humanity to return to monke. The power was with us the whole time
Early governments got surprisingly diverse. The Greeks *c o o k e d* man. Just hereditary hierarchies tended to rise up the easiest. I like cultures that arn't just "We believe this" but rather different forms of interacting or solving a problem. But arn't logical except for their initial creation, like clothing traditions. You seem to be going that way! Also, the lowerlevels bellow the monarch tends to form because a single ruler can't rule EVERYTHING. And so delegates power. Power that can (and will) be used to rebel, subvert, or weaken the monarch's position. Like France. but Idk, its up to you. Also, are "state"'s as you define it centralized into a single leader?
An interesting side trip might be looking up “eusocial” animals. Typically hive insects like ants or termites, I have heard credible arguments that humans might be borderline eusocial.
describing hunter-gatherer bands as being made up of "nuclear families" is just incorrect. the nuclear family as we think of only emerged around the mid-20th century at the start of the nuclear age.
By nuclear family it is meant that there are various couples with their children united with a larger extended family which is the band. It is not intended as the Western Christian nuclear family.
@@vincenzopiras9765yeah most were semi existing as part of tribe or group or community,it is just that a monogamous family would have been for the average smallest group
@@PlatinumAltaria Yeah, maybe you're right. In fact, I may have confused (or at least the writer of my textbook did) between "nuclear family" and "family unit." In English they are different, but in my language they are said in a very similar way. Sorry😅
@@PlatinumAltariatrue but it does rise the both happiness and well being of individuals to have some level of monogamy on average so it was probably been something (we know that at least by the time the Tanakh was written the people did have the concept of husband and wife and there are from epic of Gilgamesh mentions of it)
Awww, gettin all sappy over people rightfully supporting your awesome stuff? Wish I had any free money to spare, so take my comment for the algorithm at least xD
The concept of "chiefdom" is mainly for lazy historians a century or so ago to tell the difference between uncivilized and civilized, and was used greatly during imperialism, and was the basis of the ideology of racism. The idea is that chiefdoms are relatively small communities with a set ruler that is not delegating their duties. Important to note that a chiefdom like this literally can't be larger than a hundred or so people, otherwise the ruler can't bond with each member (not necessarily positively, mind you), which is a given for effective and unassisted rulership. Chiefdoms may be ruling over other societies, but these ruled over people are generally not directly instructed on how to live and what "laws" to follow, the only expectation towards them being tributes paid in specific times or when asked. In contrast, states are viewed as communities where the leadership is made out of a direct ruler, and a set of other rulers whom they delegated their duties to, and thus have increased the population and land they can rule over exponentially. This is the line where the difference between civilized and uncivilized were drawn back then. People that states rule over are instructed directly on how they are to live, their societies absorbed into the ruling society usually at a lower standing than the original oppressing population, to be slowly turned into the population reminiscent of the main one. Examples are the romanization in ancient times, or the russification of modern times. The first problem is in the numbers: There were chiefdoms historically that were larger than some states, and states that were smaller than what usually a chiefdom would encompass. An example for the former could be technically proto-dynastic egypt. Thousands of people were led by technically the charisma of one guy, who were VERY involved in the hands on leading of their society, and were barely assisted in rulership, often the ruled over societies needing to send envoys and "speakers" directly to the chieftan (pharaoh wasn't a term used at that time). An example would be for the latter the warring states period in japan, where the base building block of society was the clan, which were typically a couple hundred heads strong and were led almost entirely by the head of the family. Loyalty to one's clan was considered to be much more important to loyalty to one's lord in the early years, and thus these so called warring states were no more than chiefdoms ruling over others, and expecting tribute (paid in many ways, such as fighting service for example). The second problem is the hyperfocus on singular rulers. Whilst a lot of modern papers like to describe native american or african societies as democratic, what they were actually is shared rulership between multiple individuals of roughly the same rank, or even crowd-managed societies (elective societies/ direct democracies). And no, democracy is actually choosing a restricted ruler for a set amount of time, not the abolition of royalty or centralized rulership, even if it is called "representative" democracy. De-facto the prime minister of a country is a temporary monarch with slightly less control than they had during absolutism. What the so called "tribal democracies" had were much more senatorial then what civilized countries today are so proud of, and thusly straight up don't fit the chiefdom/ state categories, as they lack the central ruling figure. Good example is the Iroquois Confederacy, where each chiefdoms had an elected ruler that attended the grand meetings, where they decided about topics of interest for the whole confederacy. Whilst lower stages of the society were led by set rulers, the higher stages distinctly didn't. A potential example of actually direct, or elective democracy is ancient athens... which is called a city state, even though their leadership lacked rulers at the time. Their government consisted of the male population old enough to vote, and the meetings held to discuss the topics relating to athenians, and of course the election process of choosing what to do. However, they still had (elected) representatives, which can be seen as rulers, though their roles were mainly to present the affairs to be elected upon and manage the decisions of the ecclesia. Third problem is in the classification itself, as in: To what metric and who are classifing these sociecites? Most of our recorded history of the so called chiefdoms and early states stem from either very fragmentary records left of the european, near eastern and north african ancient societies, or more numerous is the 17th-19th century records of african, asian and american "tribal" societies that were made mostly as propaganda to colonisation and imperialism, which in turn affected the point of view historians of later eras. The metric was the closeness of these "tribal" societies to the ones doing the colonizing, as in societies with set rulers who delegate their duties (monarchies). If their leadership didn't have delegation, then chiefdom, if they only have temporary leadership then they are egalatarian, and if they don't have a leader at all (as in full-on leader of a tribe, not leader in a particular activity), then they are hunter gatherers. Even if a society is more advanced (socially and otherwise) than that of the one making the metric, they will be categorized under them, since the goal of the categorization is the propagation of the superiority of the categorizing society. TL:DR; Modern classifications of societies should be rewamped to incorporate latest archeological records and be less biased towards central ruling figures.
Hi, I completely see what you are talking about, and I can assure you that - based on an anthropological understanding of the issue - these are all things that are taken into account when studying society, including the criticism that has been made regarding it being a tool to classify other societies as 'superior' or 'inferior' from European countries. The reason that it is still in use, and was used in the context of this video, is because even today it is a useful conceptual tool for anthropologists and archaeologists to compare different societies and contextualize them. Unfortunately though, I worry you have somewhat misunderstood the modern usage of the terms chiefdom and state. 'Chiefdom' means that, within societies based on extended families, the groups come together under a guiding family or lineage with a possible single leader. It doesn't necessarily mean that the leader decides every single thing, and the video doesn't say anything about the type of dominion they exercise over society, because those are always subject to change based on cultural differences. Sometimes the leader may be elected within a dominant family or be chosen by various family units. Sometimes there may also be a council of the heads of individual families, but the point is that there is common coordination that allows for a greater degree of complexity within societies based on extended families. For the sake of simplicity within the video we also skipped the division between simple chiefdom and complex chiefdom. As for the definition of state, the intended meaning is that we move from an organization based on extended families to a more bureaucratic organization in which the organization of extended families is progressively lessened. Of course, anthropologists are well aware of the limits of these very generic definitions, but they do not use them uncritically without knowledge of the facts and awareness that each case is a story in itself. Apologies for the misunderstandings, and I hope these clarifications help.
Fun fact. We aren't unique in having culture. Animals have culture. Lions is a perfect example. Did you know what prey any given lion pride hunts is not inherent to their biology? It's affected by the culture of that pride. Most lions do not hunt buffalo, and if they ever try to, they're terrible at it, and die in the attempt. But certain specific prides of lions have a culture of hunting buffalo. They have learned how to do it, and pass that knowledge on within the pride, and are the only lions capable of doing this, due to that shared culture. This is just one example, culture is not unique to humans, and shows up in many species.
