re: CFP: Hierarchy and Power, comment

>The choice of an evolutionary direction which a society follows is to 
>a 
>considerable extent a result of its all-round adaptation to the 
>environment, not 
>only the natural but sociohistorical one as well.

        Replacing one assumption with another one? I can perhaps understand
state to state competition or the 'sociohistorical' as being part of the
equation of how states expand (states as any hierarchies of power here). Yet
certainly with ecological degradation being such a background influence of
humans in general and urbanization specifically, I would disagree on the
supposition that human states can be usefully constructed as 'fitting into'
the environment in question. Definitely *influenced* by the environmental
raw material base, the geography, and the climatic base [Diamond; Bunker;
Andrews]. Unlikely a result of 'ecological fit,' per se, only *ecological
use.* It's easy to turn this into a functional argument for seeing 'fit'
instead of simply raw material utilization (and in many cases, subsequent
exhaustion). I would pose that all human societies/states have been
degraders. Within the span of the historical record, extinction waves
paralleled expanded human contact with North and South America millennia ago
and continue to the present day.
         As we adapt state-centric discourses to be more inclusive of a
wider array of pastoral and nomadic peoples in what we consider states in
the social sciences, let's avoid the assumption that the variation in states
is consonant with ecological adaptability, or we are replacing the discourse
of one-path modernization of states justifying study of 'unEuropean states'
with another one-path model of ecological fit.
        On a related note: a story. Reminds me of the 'human climax' models
of United States ecology in the 1950's, in discussions of how human
settlement was justified 'as fitting into the environment' and as 'a
requirement for completing' a region's ecology--the operating assumption
being that there was a human/environmental homeostasis in operation that
would kick in. 
        Further studies in the past 20 years have shown this area to be,
climatically speaking, semi-arid desert. Geographic study of sediment levels
has shown that as little as 800-1000 years ago, the interior "Grain Belt"
was sand. The United States 'heartland' was desert. Where's the water coming
from them? A huge underground aquifer is being pumped dry, mined cheaply
like any accessible coal seam.  Guess what likely happens after that is
gone? Relatedly,  I read somewhere that the Canadians are already feeling
antsy about exporting their water to the United States, and recently this
was stopped by the Canadian government, due to a combination of public
outcry and governmental concern.


Regards,


Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
..