Exceptions that Prove the Rule, #2: The Kwakiutl
by Jason GodeskyFranz Boas is often called “the Father of American Anthropology.” Boas is perhaps best known for championing the idea of cultural relativism, and soundly trouncing the previous notions that all societies existed along the same, one-dimensional progression that ultimately led to the pinnacle of existence represented by the white, Victorian Englishman. Another influential early anthropologist, Lewis Henry Morgan, argued that part of this unilineal progression was the transition from primordial matrilineal succession, to patrilineal. The Pacific Northwest Coast was home to the most advanced forager societies ever encountered, including the matrilineal Tsimshian and Tlingit along the northern coasts of British Columbia, and the patrilineal Nootka and the Salish to the south. Between the two, near Vancouver Island, Boas found subjects to problematize Morgan’s simplistic succession: the Kwakwaka’wakw–meaning, “speakers of the Kwak’wala language–more commonly known as the Kwakiutl, after the Kwakwaka’wakw at Fort Rupert. Europeans erroneously applied the only slightly more pronounceable local term “Kwakiutl” to the entire people. Boas’ study of the Kwakiutl became an anthropological classic, and the Kwakiutl became a favorite subject of anthropological study, and a mainstay of introductory cultural anthropology textbooks for millions of college students.
The Kwakiutl were traditional organized into about thirty tribes, each divided into very strict social hierarchies. Kwakiutl society was divided into three main classes, based on hereidty: slaves, commoners, and nobles. The intricate artwork of the Kwakiutl is perhaps best exemplified in their totem poles, masks and canoes made from red cedar. They built large, permanent structures at villages that would be occupied throughout each winter, but they remained hunter-gatherers.
Normally, foraging does not supply sufficient energy for the kind of large-scale, complex society the Kwakiutl had. They enjoyed a peculiar geographical advantage, however, that allowed them to defy the usual correlations of hunter-gatherer society. Regular, rich salmon runs filled the water with fish so thick they merely needed to be harvested. The salmon could be preserved by smoking or freezing. This reliable, high EROEI food source dramatically increased the energy throughput of Kwakiutl society–and thus, dramatically increased its complexity, allowing for slaves, monumental artwork commemorating the power of the nobles, and strict social classes. Of course, this energy–in the form of salmon–still needed to be distributed, and for that, there was the potlatch.
The term comes from Chinook jargon, meaning “to give.” The Kwak’wala term, pasa, means “to flatten.” In the article on the Kwakiutl for the Encyclopedia of North American Indians, Gloria Cranmer Webster describes the term as, “to flatten one’s guests under the weight of the gifts given to them,” but it seems more likely that it refers to flattening society, that is, a “redistribution of wealth.”
Potlatching was the primary political activities of Kwakiutl nobles. Competitive feasting in the Kwakiutl gift economy rewarded the distribution of salmon and gifts with power and prestige. Potlatches would be held to celebrate the birth of a child, or the raising of a totem pole, but they allowed nobles a chance to out-do one another in a forum that distributed the energy harvested from the salmon runs throughout Kwakiutl society.
Thorstein Veblen used potlatching as an example of conspicuous consumption in his Theory of the Leisure Class. Christian missionaries called potlatching a “worse than useless custom,” calling it wasteful, unproductive, and antithetical to the Protestant work ethic. Under such pressure, potlatching was outlawed in Canada and the United States by 1885. Instead, the custom went underground. Though the bans were never officially repealed, by 1951, both the United States and Canada had discretely dropped the laws against potlatching from the books.
Nonetheless, salmon runs diminished, much of the Kwakiutl culture had been lost through the interval years of persecution, and most of their population had been destroyed by disease in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There has been a reviving interest in Kwakiutl culture of late, but most of it is already lost.
The example of the Kwakiutl is an important one for our consideration of the relationship between complexity and subsistence, however. We have generally discussed complexity in terms of agricultural societies, but high levels of complexity can also occur in foraging societies, as the Kwakiutl show. This illustrates that complexity is less a function of subsistence strategy specifically than food supply in general–or, more accurately, energy flow. The regular, high EROEI salmon runs gave the Kwakiutl a much larger source of energy than most foragers have access to.
We noted in thesis #12 that high levels of complexity so often create a game of prisoner’s dilemna, where all players must constantly intensify to remain competitive. We certainly see this in the competitive feasting of Kwakiutl nobles, but we do not see this resulting in expansion on the part of the Kwakiutl. They did not conquer huge swaths of North America, nor did they destroy their environment. Why? What was their secret to creating a sustainable, large-scale, complex society? Their energy source itself.
Fields of wheat can be planted. As Jared Diamond showed in Guns, Germs and Steel, it was the ease of spreading crops along an east-west axis that allowed Old World civilizations to conquer the world, while New World civilizations floundered and collapsed. The salmon runs were beyond the Kwakiutl’s control. While agriculturalists can intensify their cultivation to yield more food, the Kwakiutl had a carrying capacity set by the salmon runs. It was a very high carrying capacity, to be sure, but it was set, and they could not change it. Their population and complexity rose to meet that level of energy that was available to them, but once there, it could not be arbitrarily increased any further. Perhaps even more important, the Kwakiutl could not bring their salmon runs with them. They could not send armies into Kansas, and make the salmon run as thickly there as they did in the Pacific Northwest–the way that Europeans could invade the New World and turn the Great Plains into the Breadbasket.
The Kwakiutl’s energy source forced a level of sustainability upon them. They could sustain a very high level of complexity, but they could not use that to conquer the world. Competition was fierce, but necessarily contained within their limited means. This is a promising sign for the post-collapse world. No doubt, pockets like the Kwakiutl’s will exist then, as well, but like the Kwakiutl, the advantages that foragers are able to gain to increase their level of complexity are also pegged to a specific geography. They cannot conquer the world.
I am just amazed that the government could outlaw potlatching. So much for freedom of religion and the principle that all powers not explicitly granted to the government are reserved for the people. It’s such blatant cultural imperialism.
Comment by DigitalDjigit — 27 January 2006 @ 6:28 PM
Am amazed as well. Wonder what the excuse was?
And talking about the salmon run, the great lakes is full of fish that come into the creeks and rivers to spawn. My grandfather taught me to harvest lake suckers, and am sure they and other fish will continue to spawn after the collapse…:-)
There isn’t anything more fun than chasing suckers in the creek!
Comment by Rick Larson — 27 January 2006 @ 10:14 PM
should be noted in light of recent permaculture debate that the kwakiutl did paractice control burns as a method of berry-patch management/ regeneration.
Comment by miles — 27 January 2006 @ 11:17 PM
Inevitably religious freedom always refers to the speaker’s own religion. As for cultural imperialism, conquering nations rarely need give reasons. If they are conquering another people and assimilating them it is because their people agree with that policy. Bringing civilization to the barbarian. Naturally, the barbarians do not get a vote. And even if they were to speak out, what do they know? They’re barbarians. Once they become civilized they’ll understand, and thank us.
As an interesting sidenote. It is very likely that the only reason religious freedom has been as successful in this country as it has been is not due to any underlying belief in the right of all men to worship divinity or not as they see fit and in any way they see fit (notice how much trouble satanists have in the military, wiccans are just now coming into their own), but rather that each person is afraid that their religion would not be the one chosen. Catholics are worried that Baptists will be chosen. Baptists are worried Mormons will be chosen. Mormons are worried Anglicans will be chosen. So on and so forth.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 28 January 2006 @ 12:48 AM
Weren’t pretty much all native americans forced to convert to some form of christianity? I know they didn’t give Chief Joseph and his Nez Perce a choice when they finally caught him.
The policy has always been to crush the culture of the “savages” as thoroughly as possible, which also included banning indigenous languages (it wasn’t until the 70’s that the ban on speaking Hawaiian was finally lifted, by which time the language had almost completely died)
You’d think the army would love satanists, since that is obviously the religion of its leadership.
Comment by limukala — 28 January 2006 @ 3:26 PM
More or less. Although there as been a resurgance of native beliefs. But the line was broken, after that crash the Navajo might (might, they are civilized now) become foragers again. They might even called themselves the Navajo. But they won’t be the original Navajo. Once the chain in culture is broken, it’s over. One of my anthro professor liked to say that “civilization is only one generation thick.” It naturally applies to other cultures as well. The US policy towards the natives was attrocious. And only became tolerable by any stretch of the imagination after the damage was done.
You might want to google satanism a bit. It’s not quite what the seterotypical christian would have you belief. Keep in mind that there are satanists and there are luciferians. They are different religions and don’t like each other. It is strongly recommended that you do not confuse them.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 28 January 2006 @ 4:25 PM
Yes, that reminds me of the Black Robe movie. There was a tribe that had a fort and houses. There was a chief and they went out of their way to be violent.
It was also interesting how that movie mentioned Champlain and how scalps I think were of other Indians had prices. And Champlain would manipulate the tribes by giving them things they needed. But they could never be sure about it because they expressed worry that Champlain could turn on them as well. But in that tribe, there was definitely probably that pursuit of progression since they were having more.
Also, I heard as tribes in the West started to trade and when they did, this created primitive niches and specializations. For instance, there were also pirate tribes that were created from this.
Comment by planetwarming — 29 January 2006 @ 3:56 PM
As I understand it, the potlatch STARTED as redistribution when their society was stable, but eventually BECAME an excessive display of conspicuous consumption after exposure to European traders (initially Russian, I think). That was probably an effect of having both more goods flooding their society and a smaller population due to disease outbreaks. In effect, the Kwakiutl went temporarily insane (as did many Native tribes; some never recovered) when European society undercut their cultures.
Comment by Jay Denari — 31 January 2006 @ 5:37 PM
this site does not help me on fucking bit u need things like about food and hunting and clothing and themaps location and transpotaion all theses things would be help full for when people are projects on the first people and thats all i have to say but get more information about the kawkiutl people so people can finish there reports
P.s this is roslny
Comment by Elmo — 11 February 2006 @ 2:28 PM
I’m sorry, Roslny, I didn’t realize I was writing to do your homework for you. I guess all my paychecks for this were lost in the mail? I’ll tell you what, I’ll send you my salary requirements and some direct deposit info, and then I’ll get right to work on your homework for you, OK?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 February 2006 @ 2:38 PM
The Kwakiutl seem to be similar to another example, the Chumash of the Santa Barbara coast of California. They were a sedentary people living in large villages, getting their food from fishing.
See http://www.angelfire.com/sk/syukhtun/syuk.html
Comment by Odense — 6 September 2006 @ 1:35 PM
These articles are so inspiring:
I am the initiator of a family eco-village in Québec. Primitivism have been our way of life, not by goal but by deduction and taking away the less relevant roads. We were put putting along until you came.
Articles like this one crystallises obscure thoughts on how to do things and gives the motivation, inspiration and direction to pursue this strange new path long forgotten by my elders.
Just want to express my profound gratitude for the intelligence, inspiration and art in the subjects you cover.
Also appreciate you constructively shaking the so well seated thinkers like Savinar, Jenson, and others.
We are slowly getting off the money system so we’ll tan you a hide any time (make sure you include the brain with the skin)! You surely deserve it and much more!
You are a precious light in these obscure times.
claude
Comment by claude — 20 October 2006 @ 9:34 PM
Thank you so much, Claude. Truly; hearing something like that makes all the efforts worthwhile. I’m honored I’ve been able to help. Primitivism is something humans fall into naturally (naturally enough!), but my greatest aspiration in all the effort I’ve poured into this site has been to help people do exactly what it sounds like you’re already doing. So thank you; you’ve just validated far more time and effort than I’d really care to recall.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 October 2006 @ 11:59 PM