What Rousseau didn鈥檛 know
Chancellor鈥檚 postdoctoral fellow uses archaeology to combat inequality
Economist Thomas Piketty has written about it. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has built a campaign around it. Professional pundits go at each other on talk shows about it.
In the unlikely event you haven鈥檛 guessed, 鈥渋t鈥 is economic inequality, and it鈥檚 a hot topic in a presidential election year. Economists, politicians, journalists, sure 鈥 but what, exactly, can an archaeologist bring to the discussion?
Sarah Kurnick, a Chancellor鈥檚 Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Colorado Boulder, is glad you asked.
鈥淎rchaeology may seem an unlikely ally in the effort to understand contemporary economic inequality,鈥 she writes in 鈥淭he Origins of Extreme Economic Inequality: An Archaeologist鈥檚 Take on a Contemporary Controversy,鈥 a new paper forArchaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress.
鈥淏ut archaeology is more than stones and bones, shovels and screens.鈥
The paper, written in a colloquial voice to make it accessible to non-academic audiences, starts with 18th-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau鈥檚 famous 鈥淒iscourse on the Origins and Basis of Inequality among Men鈥 and the Enlightenment era thought that forms the foundation of contemporary Western civilization.
Rousseau concluded, among other things, that inequality was not inherent to humanity, and indeed that humans are naturally inclined to the opposite. He believed that economic inequality developed as a consequence of private property, technology and agriculture.
In the current way of American thinking, inequality is seen as natural, but most people are not looking at the ways things are done in other places and times. One of the benefits of anthropology is showing how other people do things.鈥
鈥淩ousseau could only philosophize about what humans were like in a state of nature,鈥 says Kurnick, who is teaching a course on The Archaeology of Inequality this spring. 鈥淲ith archaeology, this doesn鈥檛 have to be just a thought experiment any more.鈥
Through field research into such things as pre-literate burial sites and comparative architecture 鈥 for example, pole-and-thatch structures and those made of masonry 鈥 archaeology can look much further back than the written record to see evidence of inequality. And since, as Winston Churchill observed, history is written by the 鈥渨inners,鈥 such evidence can be more reliable than written records.
Kurnick concludes that Rousseau was both right and wrong about inequality. It is not inherent to humanity, but humans are not naturally inclined toward equality, either. More egalitarian societies, such as that of the !Kung people of southwest Africa and contemporary European social-welfare states, don鈥檛 happen by accident.
The !Kung, she notes in the paper, have constructed complex 鈥渓eveling鈥 mechanisms in their culture, such as the practice of denigrating a hunter for bringing in a large supply of meat, to remind him that his feat does not make him better than anyone else.
She also parts ways with Rousseau over the causes of inequality, which she argues emerged from the production and storage of surplus resources and from owner-labor relationships. And once some people control the labor of others, inequality can result.
鈥淭he control over the labor of others is arguably a dramatic shift and restructuring in the human past,鈥 Kurnick says. Control of labor is a major key to the problem of inequality, she argues.
But why would people continue to participate in a system that鈥檚 not in their best interests? While laborers may participate in that relationship willingly, believing they are fulfilling an important, perhaps inevitable role, others do so under a kind of duress, fearing negative repercussions such as losing a job or social ostracization. Many people simply cannot imagine any other way of doing things.
鈥淭hey aren鈥檛 able to think of viable alternatives,鈥 Kurnick says. 鈥淚n the current way of American thinking, inequality is seen as natural, but most people are not looking at the ways things are done in other places and times. One of the benefits of anthropology is showing how other people do things.鈥
Kurnick wrote the paper in a deliberately accessible style in part because, 鈥淧eople can鈥檛 change what they don鈥檛 understand. I want them to see other alternatives.鈥 She also pursues 鈥減ublic archaeology,鈥 taking the insights of her field beyond the walls of academia to engage real-world problems.
She is now engaged in a 鈥渃ommunity archaeology鈥 field project in Mexico, helping residents combat inequality through a local ecotourism project at a Maya architectural site that also is a haven for spider monkeys.
鈥淲e are actively trying to combat inequality to a small degree, producing (different forms) of capital, including economic, cultural 鈥 knowledge and education 鈥 and social capital,鈥 she says.
Clay Evans is a free-lance writer and longtime Boulder journalist.