Comprehension

[Fifty] years after its publication in English [in 1972], and just a year since [Marshall] Sahlins himself died—we may ask: why did [his essay] "Original Affluent Society" have such an impact, and how has it fared since? ... Sahlins's principal argument was simple but counterintuitive: before being driven into marginal environments by colonial powers, huntergatherers, or foragers, were not engaged in a desperate struggle for meager survival. Quite the contrary, they satisfied their needs with far less work than people in agricultural and industrial societies, leaving them more time to use as they wished. Hunters, he quipped, keep bankers' hours. Refusing to maximize, many were "more concerned with games of chance than with chances of game." . . . The so-called Neolithic Revolution, rather than improving life, imposed a harsher work regime and set in motion the long history of growing inequality ...
Moreover, foragers had other options. The contemporary Hadza of Tanzania, who had long been surrounded by farmers, knew they had alternatives and rejected them. To Sahlins, this showed that foragers are not simply examples of human diversity or victimhood but something more profound: they demonstrated that societies make real choices. Culture, a way of living oriented around a distinctive set of values, manifests a fundamental principle of collective self-determination. . .
But the point [of the essay] is not so much the empirical validity of the data-the real interest for most readers, after all, is not in foragers either today or in the Paleolithic-but rather its conceptual challenge to contemporary economic life and bourgeois individualism. The empirical served a philosophical and political project, a thought experiment and stimulus to the imagination of possibilities.
With its title's nod toward The Affluent Society (1958), economist John Kenneth Galbraith's famously skeptical portrait of America's postwar prosperity and inequality, and dripping with New Left contempt for consumerism, "The Original Affluent Society" brought this critical perspective to bear on the contemporary world. It did so through the classic anthropological move of showing that radical alternatives to the readers' lives really exist. If the capitalist world seeks wealth through ever greater material production to meet infinitely expansive desires, foraging societies follow "the Zen road to affluence": not by getting more, but by wanting less. If it seems that foragers have been left behind by "progress," this is due only to the ethnocentric self-congratulation of the West. Rather than accumulate material goods, these societies are guided by other values: leisure, mobility, and above all, freedom. . .
Viewed in today's context, of course, not every aspect of the essay has aged well. While acknowledging the violence of colonialism, racism, and dispossession, it does not thematize them as heavily as we might today. Rebuking evolutionary anthropologists for treating present-day foragers as "left behind" by progress, it too can succumb to the temptation to use them as proxies for the Paleolithic. Yet these characteristics should not distract us from appreciating Sahlins's effort to show that if we want to conjure new possibilities, we need to learn about actually inhabitable worlds.

Question: 1

We can infer that Sahlins's main goal in writing his essay was to:

Updated On: Aug 17, 2024
  • hold a mirror to an acquisitive society, with examples of other communities that have chosen successfully to be non-materialistic.
  • highlight the fact that while we started off as a fairly contented egalitarian people, we have progressively degenerated into materialism.
  • counter Galbraith's pessimistic view of the inevitability of a capitalist trajectory for economic growth.
  • put forth the view that, despite egalitarian origins, economic progress brings greater inequality and social hierarchies.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The passage highlights that Marshall Sahlins's primary intention when writing the essay was to serve as a mirror for an acquisitive society, which includes bourgeois individualism and contemporary economic life.The essay does this by giving instances of foraging societies that really chose to put values like freedom, mobility, and leisure ahead of material possessions. Sahlins compares the capitalist pursuit of wealth through material production and consumerism with the Zen path to affluence, which is attained by desiring less. As a result, Sahlins's objective—as stated in the passage—aligns with the notion of criticizing acquisitive societies by offering instances of communities that have successfully chosen non-materialistic paths. Thus, Option A is the correct answer.
Option B: Rather than claiming a progressive breakdown of society, the main focus is on exhibiting the values and choices of foraging societies.
Option C: Though Sahlins's essay criticizes several parts of modern economic theories, its main goal is to illustrate other alternatives by using instances of non-materialistic civilizations, rather than directly refuting Galbraith's pessimistic viewpoint.
Option D: Sahlin's essay focuses more on drawing comparisons between foraging societies and modern economic life, even though it acknowledges the rise in inequality and social hierarchies brought about by the Neolithic Revolution.
So, the correct option is (A): hold a mirror to an acquisitive society, with examples of other communities that have chosen successfully to be non-materialistic.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

The author of the passage criticises Sahlins's essay for its:

Updated On: Aug 17, 2024
  • cursory treatment of the effects of racism and colonialism on societies.
  • failure to supplement its thesis with robust empirical data.
  • outdated values regarding present-day foragers versus ancient foraging communities.
  • critique of anthropologists who disparage the choices of foragers in today's society.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Looking at it from today's perspective, not every part of the essay has aged gracefully. Although it recognizes the violence of colonialism, racism, and dispossession, it doesn't emphasize them as much as we might now.
Option A is correct because the passage notes that not every part of Sahlins's essay has aged well when seen through today's lens. It points out that the essay doesn't delve deeply into topics like racism and colonialism, offering only a brief treatment of these crucial issues. The term "cursory treatment" indicates that the essay provides only a surface-level examination, prompting criticism for not addressing these important issues more thoroughly.
So, the correct option is (A) : cursory treatment of the effects of racism and colonialism on societies.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

The author of the passage mentions Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" to:

Updated On: Aug 17, 2024
  • document the influence of Galbraith's cynical views on modern consumerism on Sahlins's analysis of pre-historic societies.
  • show how Galbraith's theories refute Sahlins's thesis on the contentment of prehuntergatherer communities.
  • show how Sahlins's views complemented Galbraith's criticism of the consumerism and inequality of contemporary society.
  • contrast the materialist nature of contemporary growth paths with the pacifist content ways of living among the foragers.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The passage directly states that Sahlins's essay, "The Original Affluent Society," offered a critical viewpoint on modern consumerism and inequality, echoing similar themes found in John Kenneth Galbraith's work, "The Affluent Society." It highlights that Sahlins's essay compares the values of foraging societies with the capitalist drive for wealth, indicating a parallel with Galbraith's skeptical portrayal of postwar affluence and inequality. Consequently, Option C correctly represents the passage's discussion of the connection between Sahlins's perspective and Galbraith's critique of contemporary society.
The passage doesn't propose that Galbraith's theories contradict Sahlins's thesis, but rather emphasizes their compatibility (Option B), nor does it center on comparing the lifestyle of foragers with Galbraith's perspectives on modern development paths (Option D).
The passage doesn't detail the impact of Galbraith's views on Sahlins's analysis; rather, it underscores how Sahlins's essay complements Galbraith's critical stance on modern society. Hence, Option A is also deemed inaccurate.
So, the correct option is (C) : show how Sahlins's views complemented Galbraith's criticism of the consumerism and inequality of contemporary society.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

The author mentions Tanzania's Hadza community to illustrate:

Updated On: Aug 17, 2024
  • how two vastly different ways of living and working were able to coexist in proximity for centuries.
  • how pre-agrarian societies did not hamper the emergence of more advanced agrarian practices in contiguous communities
  • that forager communities' lifestyles derived not from ignorance about alternatives, but from their own choice.
  • that hunter-gatherer communities' subsistence-level techniques equipped them to survive well into contemporary times.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Option C is the correct choice because the passage cites the Hadza community in Tanzania to demonstrate that forager societies, like the Hadza, don't fit into a straightforward narrative of human diversity or victimization. Instead, they actively make decisions about their lifestyle. The passage notes that despite living among farmers, the Hadza were aware of other options and deliberately chose to reject them. This example underscores that forager communities aren't limited by a lack of knowledge about alternatives; rather, their way of life stems from their own conscious decisions. Therefore, Option C accurately captures the essence of the Hadza example provided in the passage.
Option A: The passage doesn't particularly focus on the survival strategies of hunter-gatherer communities in modern times; instead, it highlights their decision-making processes and principles.
Option B: The passage doesn't address the Hadza community in relation to agricultural practices in nearby communities, rendering this option irrelevant to the example provided.
Option D: The passage doesn't indicate that the Hadza community lived alongside drastically different lifestyles and occupations for extended periods.
So, the correct option is (C) : that forager communities' lifestyles derived not from ignorance about alternatives, but from their own choice.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CAT exam

View More Questions