Sunday, April 10, 2011

Two Arguments : Create Or Not Create An Occupational Ranking System


The beginning of the Industrial Revolution (as historians have dubbed the era of European and American industrialization) arguably began around 1750 AD. Over the following 210 years (from 1750 to 1960) many societies (Dominant Male Groups) in Asia, Sub Sahara Africa and the Middle East were exposed to an Occupational Ranking system. However, in South East Asia the people simply remained primarily rice farmers. In the Arab world they pretty much remained Bedouin tribal peoples. In Sub Sahara Africa, the native people remained as they were before the Europeans came: subsistence farmers and cattle herders. At the very least it must be considered remarkable that all these non-European societies (i.e. their respective Dominant Male Groups) had been exposed to an Occupational Ranking social stratification system (primarily by the British or French) during this 200 year span of the Industrial Revolution, though, for some reason (or reasons) they did not adopt this system to stratify their male group. In fact, in two countries, South Africa and Rhodesia, African tribal societies literally had daily contact with an Occupational Ranking system, yet no Occupational Ranking society developed in either of these British colonies among the native male groups.

(Note: with regard to those of African descent in America during this 200 year time span, this present discussion relates to the existing Dominant Male Groups and their corresponding societies. The Negro male group in America prior to 1964 was a subordinate male group of the American DMG. The Negro male group will figure prominently in this discussion at a later time.)

Let us create two arguments here for the rejection of non-Occupational Ranking male groups to alter their societal structure(s) to an Occupational Ranking one - like Japan began doing circa 1853.

Argument One:

Of those societies that rejected a social stratification system based on occupational ranking, tribal leaders among these various Dominant Male Groups, one by one, over the course of the 200 years spanning the Industrial Revolution, carefully, assiduously and deliberately debated the merits of an Occupational Ranking system … and all came to the same conclusion: It wasn’t for them. So it wasn’t that these societies couldn’t create this type of social stratification system. Rather, it was for a multitude of other reasons (we don’t need to know those reasons) they rejected a system that they felt couldn’t or wouldn’t replace all the benefits of the system they would be giving up (e.g. societal orders based on subsistence farming, animal husbandry and fishing).

This explanation is the least contentious. Now let us look at the theoretical argument.

Argument Two:

Occupational Ranking as a societal structure manifests as a result of a male groups’ receptiveness to it as well as their ability to adapt to it. So an Occupational Ranking social stratification system can only form if the innate-culture of the males within the male group will allow it. If this innate-culture is not present, then male groups will form non-Occupational Ranking societies. In other words:

If a male group, when exposed to an Occupational Ranking system, either fails to make an attempt to alter their non-Occupational Ranking society or fails in their attempt to form an Occupational Ranking system (i.e. the structure fails to satisfy the two primary functions a society historically has dictated it must serve under the DMG Theorem), then the male group is limited by inherited cultural traits - their innate-culture - to such a social stratification system.

No comments: