Pierre Clastres (1934–1977)
Author of Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology
About the Author
Pierre Clastres (1934-1977) was a French anthropologist and ethnologist who, in the wake of the events of May '68, helped overturn anthropological orthodoxy in the 1970s. His books include Society Against the State (1974) and Chronicle of the Guayaki Indians (1972).
Works by Pierre Clastres
SHOQËRIA KUNDËR SHTETIT 1 copy
Associated Works
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Canonical name
- Clastres, Pierre
- Birthdate
- 1934-05-17
- Date of death
- 1977-07-29
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Sorbonne, Université de Paris (Lic. | 1957 | Diplôme d'études supérieures spécialisées | 1958 | Ph.D | 1965)
- Occupations
- anthropologist
ethnologist
ethnographer - Organizations
- École pratique des hautes études
Centre national de la recherche scientifique - Cause of death
- car accident
- Nationality
- France
- Birthplace
- Paris, France
- Place of death
- Gabriac, Lozère, France
- Associated Place (for map)
- France
Members
Reviews
I came to this through Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. For early human politics, I'd say, go there, which builds on Clastres, and had told me Clastres' main message, about how early-style societies defend themselves against that perceived evil power - how they prevent power. Boehm dives into primate behaviour too to link up with our species (he's a primatologist turned anthropologist).
Still, I'm glad I read this. It's a set of essays. Once show more his age did betray him (I say with charity) when he used a smatter of pejorative terms for a cross-sexed person, whom he admits was happily ensconced in his society. He rises to heights of eloquence - in the chapters on religion, I found. There is one religion that holds the fort against any corruption by Christianty, and he talks poetry about it. In fact he gives a swathe of poetry from it, that wrenches your guts. It's a sad religion, of profundities he tries to speculatively construct from bits and pieces, and this hymn is... sorry; the Bible at least has great writing; it's like Lamentations or Jeremiah, or Job.
The text points out that things are evil. Men inhabit an imperfect, evil earth. It has always been so. The Guarani are used to misfortune. It is neither new nor surprising to them. They knew about it long before the arrival of the Westerners, who taught them nothing on the subject... They were a people relentlessly obsessed by the belief that they were not created for misfortune, and the certainty that they would one day reach the Land Without Evil. And their sages, ceaselessly meditating on the means of reaching it, would reflect on the problem of their origin. How does it happen that we inhabit an imperfect earth? The grandeur of the question is matched by the heroism of the reply: Men are not to blame if existence is unjust. We need not beat our breasts because we exist in a state of imperfection.
He makes you deeply sorry that the species has lost this religion, these ideas on evil and the human condition, other than fragments and a few faithful who call themselves The Last Men. And that's his whole campaign, though he writes on different subjects: to treat these Savages seriously... quote. Which perhaps is the language of 1974 (even with irony) but the prejudices are embedded in our heads and are structural in anthropology, and I'm sure he isn't obsolete. He wasn't to me. show less
Still, I'm glad I read this. It's a set of essays. Once show more his age did betray him (I say with charity) when he used a smatter of pejorative terms for a cross-sexed person, whom he admits was happily ensconced in his society. He rises to heights of eloquence - in the chapters on religion, I found. There is one religion that holds the fort against any corruption by Christianty, and he talks poetry about it. In fact he gives a swathe of poetry from it, that wrenches your guts. It's a sad religion, of profundities he tries to speculatively construct from bits and pieces, and this hymn is... sorry; the Bible at least has great writing; it's like Lamentations or Jeremiah, or Job.
The text points out that things are evil. Men inhabit an imperfect, evil earth. It has always been so. The Guarani are used to misfortune. It is neither new nor surprising to them. They knew about it long before the arrival of the Westerners, who taught them nothing on the subject... They were a people relentlessly obsessed by the belief that they were not created for misfortune, and the certainty that they would one day reach the Land Without Evil. And their sages, ceaselessly meditating on the means of reaching it, would reflect on the problem of their origin. How does it happen that we inhabit an imperfect earth? The grandeur of the question is matched by the heroism of the reply: Men are not to blame if existence is unjust. We need not beat our breasts because we exist in a state of imperfection.
He makes you deeply sorry that the species has lost this religion, these ideas on evil and the human condition, other than fragments and a few faithful who call themselves The Last Men. And that's his whole campaign, though he writes on different subjects: to treat these Savages seriously... quote. Which perhaps is the language of 1974 (even with irony) but the prejudices are embedded in our heads and are structural in anthropology, and I'm sure he isn't obsolete. He wasn't to me. show less
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 show more 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. show less
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. show less
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. 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 show more 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 of 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. show less
For the rest of the book I thought 'I've been here before' in Society Against the State. 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 show more 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 of 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. show less
Having read Clastres´ later [b:Archeology of Violence|927436|Archeology of Violence|Pierre Clastres|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1179520452s/927436.jpg|912438], I was prepared to be blown away by this one (after all, the production/jacket is much higher end stuff, which means it's better, right?). But I was instead disappointed. He says essentially similar things, but in more theoretical ways than he does in the other book. This made it harder for me to stay interested. Additionally, show more there were a couple of spots where he seemed to romanticize the indigenous people, giving them way more credit for creating a sophisticated political safeguard than they must have deserved. Theirs struck me as a system that surely evolved much more organically than he continuously intimated. For example, from page 44:
Now, call me cynical and "culture-ist" if you will, but to refer to the organization of primitive societies and tribes as a deep political philosophy seems a little ridiculous.
Clastres' preaching aside, he continues to raise some good points about the common modern view of "primitives." He points out the paradox of the stereotype that the primitive lived in a subsistence economy, but is also invariably considered lazy. Either he worked all day for his food, or he didn't work it all, it can't be both. Also, there is a brilliant essay ("Elements of Amerindian Demography") where he neatly debunks the low estimates for pre-Columbian population in the Americas, convincingly arriving at a significantly higher estimate, including a shocking 90% mortality rate in the 100 years after the white arrival.
Ultimately, though, Clastres left me wanting more. In the titular essay at the end of the book, he poses some fascinating questions: All civilized people were first primitives, and the State is impossible in primitive society, so what made the State cease to be impossible? Why did some people cease to be primitives? What event allowed the Despot to emerge? "Where does political power come from?" These are all the questions that I expected to get answered when I picked up the book. Instead, Clastres immediately follows them with a disclaimer about the impossibility of answering, followed by a weak hypothesis about the emergence of spiritual prophets who could have provided the seed for political power.
For those who haven´t read "Archaeology" and already have this one instead, I would definitely recommend it as an introduction to Clastres. Otherwise, "Archaeology" is far more interesting -- an anthropological masterpiece. show less
. . . it is as though these societies formed their political sphere in terms of an intuition which for them would take the place of a rule: namely, that power is essentially coercion. . . these societies astonish us by the subtlety with which they have posed and settled the question. They had a very early premonition that power's transcendence conceals a mortal risk for the group, that the principle of an authority which is external and the creator of its own legality is a challenge to culture itself. It is the intuition of this threat that determined the depth of their political philosophy.
Now, call me cynical and "culture-ist" if you will, but to refer to the organization of primitive societies and tribes as a deep political philosophy seems a little ridiculous.
Clastres' preaching aside, he continues to raise some good points about the common modern view of "primitives." He points out the paradox of the stereotype that the primitive lived in a subsistence economy, but is also invariably considered lazy. Either he worked all day for his food, or he didn't work it all, it can't be both. Also, there is a brilliant essay ("Elements of Amerindian Demography") where he neatly debunks the low estimates for pre-Columbian population in the Americas, convincingly arriving at a significantly higher estimate, including a shocking 90% mortality rate in the 100 years after the white arrival.
Ultimately, though, Clastres left me wanting more. In the titular essay at the end of the book, he poses some fascinating questions: All civilized people were first primitives, and the State is impossible in primitive society, so what made the State cease to be impossible? Why did some people cease to be primitives? What event allowed the Despot to emerge? "Where does political power come from?" These are all the questions that I expected to get answered when I picked up the book. Instead, Clastres immediately follows them with a disclaimer about the impossibility of answering, followed by a weak hypothesis about the emergence of spiritual prophets who could have provided the seed for political power.
For those who haven´t read "Archaeology" and already have this one instead, I would definitely recommend it as an introduction to Clastres. Otherwise, "Archaeology" is far more interesting -- an anthropological masterpiece. show less
Lists
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 13
- Also by
- 2
- Members
- 819
- Popularity
- #31,141
- Rating
- 4.1
- Reviews
- 7
- ISBNs
- 76
- Languages
- 9
- Favorited
- 2