The Contrast Between a Hunting-gathering Society and The Modern Consumer Society

Society alludes to set of people; who live respectively in a community, where they share same culture, norms, values, and beliefs. Societies have been categorized accordingly to their different stages of industrialization by sociologist. Emile Durkheim explicates society’s evolvement and its function through social norms and values. According Durkheim social solidarity holds the society together, whereas hunting-gathering societies had different kind of social solidarity than modern consumer societies. Mechanical solidarity exists in Hunting -gathering society because it’s tie together by homogeneity; Individuals in hunting-gathering society almost have similar skills sets, similar responsibilities, such as both hunting-gathering are practiced, men usually hunt and women and their children collect stationary food (Britannica, 2019). Because of homogeneity, hunters-gathers are connected as society, as a result that’s one of the motives hunters-gathers content with few possession of goods. According to Durkheim, modern societies have organic solidarity, and people in modern consumer society are tie together by heterogeneity and the explanation for such phenomena is every person in modern consumer society has different sets of skill, different valves, norm, culture, and each person is depended on others, which leads to high division of labor, most likely how individuals in modern consumer society connect with each other. This essay will discuss why hunters-gatherers societies are happy with less possession of goods and nature, culture of a hunting-gathering society and the modern consumer society.

People didn’t always live in cities before; they began as nomadic tribes searching for food. Hunters-gatherers societies established the framework of modern consumer society, throughout the Paleolithic Era; hunters-gatherers went through their days rummaging food and hunting animals, these methods for acquiring sustenance prompted the essential culture structure we do nowadays (Edwards, 2019). Goods were surely differently perceived in hunting-gathering societies than they are perceived comprehended today in modern consumer societies. It was predominantly because of various reasons including hunting-gatherers perception of material things, differences within economic activities, division of work, way of life, food collecting activities, and their relationship with the ecosystem. All these aspects have been explained below with relevant examples and readings. Sahlines, (1972) simplify that the original affluent society was the hunting-gatherers and to distinguish that, one must understand the current human’s circumstances; the black-hole of human’s unlimited wants. Sahline, discuss the Zen road to affluence, which means humans material wants are few, which describes the hunters-gatherers very well. As indicated by Sahlins, hunting-gatherers to great extend were easygoing of material possessions since all of them were extremely enslave by food hunt requiring most efficiency from a greater number of individuals, with the goal that time no time or effort remain for the arrangement of different solaces. A few ethnographers vouch to the contrary that the food hunt is so thriving that half of the time the general population appears not to realize how to manage themselves. Then again, development is a state of this achievement, more development at time than others; however in every case enough to quickly devalue the fulfillment’s of goods. In the state of hunters-gatherers society, possessions of goods are burden. Goods can be shockingly harsh. These points out those material goods hunter-gatherers require are restricted and sufficient; the methods for fulfilling their wants and needs are moderately fixed as the strategies to get them are manageable and compelling and Sahlins, (1972) refers to this as material plenty. Hunters-gatherers “had no sense of possession,” therefore they were free of material goods, had no feelings of ownership, demonstrate an undeveloped feeling of belongings, and are absolutely not interested in any material goods, this leads to what Sahline stance for which he mentions that the whole concept of not begin interested in goods manifest a lack of interest in developing their technological equipments. It is not that hunters-gatherers have checked their materialistic motivation; they simply never made a foundation of them, exactly what people in modern consumer societies do today. Hunters-gatherers labor less then modern consumer society; the food hunt is irregular, plentiful free time and gets vast period for nap during the daytime compare to modern consumer society.

People in hunters-gatherers society were mostly equal footing, meaning having the same rights or conditions for everyone. On the other hand it is incorrect to mention that hunters-gatherers have no formation of ownership for the goods. The comparison of small goods such as bag pack in the modern consumer society could’ve been integrated with hunters-gatherers usual way of life, which would remained them from moving around with other possessions of goods. Most of the hunters-gatherers societies were nomadic individuals; they moved all the time and did not have any permanents storage place. Nomadic people did not farm for food; but they traded goods as they travel, trading was really important part of hunters-gatherers, and they would exchange resources such stone tools, food and clothes. For example the Mbuti in Central Africa trade honey and meat for various goods with Bantu villagers. Hunter-gatherers will often also maintain strong social ties with each other. This is because if one group is in a bit of trouble due to a lack of food, they need to be able to rely on others, with the expectation that this will be reciprocated should the need arise. Moreover, trades were very important part hunters-gatherers, since not all resources were available. These relationships stated on a ritual or spiritual basis.