Both commerce and urbanisation have what we might reasonably call “liberalising” tendencies. Industrialisation means mass urbanisation and mass separation of households from production, which also weakens traditionalism.
A helpful discussion of why urbanisation is liberalising is here:
Nevertheless, there is a lot more to social dynamics than those effects. There are very clear differences in cultural patterns in civilisations well before industrialisation hits. Differences we can see operating in societies that have not yet industrialised.
One notable exception I'm aware of is Professor of Economics and Social Policy George J. Borjas who was probably crucified for his "wrong" conclusions. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" came to mind when he described how differing results can pop up to describe the same event. Needless to add, I trust Borjas not the other side.
Known past history has a lot to say about the mixing of unrelated ethnic groupings with far different religious beliefs, childrearing folkways and customs, particularly sexual ones. "They are people just like us, they have families just like us" is simply blind to certain ugly facts of human life.
As I read this, I had the thought that formal contractual insurance would not be needed in kin/clan groups where someone could look after the children if parents fell ill or dead. But it also would not have arisen as a means of mitigating risk from major commercial or social undertakings. Joining a "syndicate" or non-kin equivalent to establish an insurance pool requires a high level of trust in the wider social structure and rule of law. Plus the larger the pool, the (probable) lower cost per risk mitigator.
Do you know of any examples that run counter to my thesis? I just now thought of ethnic Jews as money lenders in Medieval times and Islamic Hawala money transfer schemes, where the trusted group is not really genetic but ethnic or religious, etc. Your thoughts?
Market-dominant minorities use in-group connections to create trust networks that do not rely on kinship. I do not think it a coincidence that set of islands Venice was a pioneer of insurance and debt instruments, including public debt (the prestiti).
"The other socially-selected for non-kin-based cooperative mechanism was secret (ritual) societies that would sometimes use extreme measures to prove loyalty to the society over the kin-group. Extreme measures ranged up to serving one’s own son as the meat in a cannibal feast: no, I am not making this up."
So is that why the Carthaginians burnt their own children as a sacrifice to Moloch? To prove their commitment to Carthage as a state was stronger than kin-group loyalty?
Both commerce and urbanisation have what we might reasonably call “liberalising” tendencies. Industrialisation means mass urbanisation and mass separation of households from production, which also weakens traditionalism.
A helpful discussion of why urbanisation is liberalising is here:
https://youtu.be/0HuFuXzGJ_M?si=y7f0My5Hads8DSve
Nevertheless, there is a lot more to social dynamics than those effects. There are very clear differences in cultural patterns in civilisations well before industrialisation hits. Differences we can see operating in societies that have not yet industrialised.
What would they do where they came from?
Proceed accordingly.
One notable exception I'm aware of is Professor of Economics and Social Policy George J. Borjas who was probably crucified for his "wrong" conclusions. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" came to mind when he described how differing results can pop up to describe the same event. Needless to add, I trust Borjas not the other side.
Known past history has a lot to say about the mixing of unrelated ethnic groupings with far different religious beliefs, childrearing folkways and customs, particularly sexual ones. "They are people just like us, they have families just like us" is simply blind to certain ugly facts of human life.
Interesting topic to explore. Look forward to #2.
As I read this, I had the thought that formal contractual insurance would not be needed in kin/clan groups where someone could look after the children if parents fell ill or dead. But it also would not have arisen as a means of mitigating risk from major commercial or social undertakings. Joining a "syndicate" or non-kin equivalent to establish an insurance pool requires a high level of trust in the wider social structure and rule of law. Plus the larger the pool, the (probable) lower cost per risk mitigator.
Do you know of any examples that run counter to my thesis? I just now thought of ethnic Jews as money lenders in Medieval times and Islamic Hawala money transfer schemes, where the trusted group is not really genetic but ethnic or religious, etc. Your thoughts?
Market-dominant minorities use in-group connections to create trust networks that do not rely on kinship. I do not think it a coincidence that set of islands Venice was a pioneer of insurance and debt instruments, including public debt (the prestiti).
A lot of Chinese diaspora networks are based on language groups, rather than kinship.
The kongsi republics in Borneo provide examples of such. (The 1911 Chinese Republic was not the first Chinese republic.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsi_republics
I’ve thought this in a vague ‘I got a feeling way’ for some time. Thanks for bringing these ideas into solid form.
"The other socially-selected for non-kin-based cooperative mechanism was secret (ritual) societies that would sometimes use extreme measures to prove loyalty to the society over the kin-group. Extreme measures ranged up to serving one’s own son as the meat in a cannibal feast: no, I am not making this up."
So is that why the Carthaginians burnt their own children as a sacrifice to Moloch? To prove their commitment to Carthage as a state was stronger than kin-group loyalty?
That would be my working hypothesis.
Well, international bankers really do think we’re all the same.