From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: communities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:03:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <717479955snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au writes:
>(nelson_p@apollo <---> claird@Neosoft exchange deleted for space)

>It is also highly problematic to insist on references, when the academic
>record is at best limited and a reasonable ethnographic approach would
>be to go and visit communities yourself. With your access to diaries
>and journals an extremely valuable comparative study could be made.

  Except that I'm a software engineer, not a trained anthropologist.

  Why is it so unreasonable to expect references, anway?   Isn't
  the dynamics of communities, what makes them work, what holds
  them together, etc, a pretty major subject in cultural anthro-
  pology?

  [ a minor flame here:  During the Primaries I remember hearing
    some candidate talking about increased funding for things like
    Usenet and what a great tool for research, etc it is.  Indeed
    in the few reports I've seen in the popular press on Usenet 
    they often mention how it connects academia, government, and
    corporations, and is such a great tool for research and learning.

    My personal experience doesn't support this.  I mean I *expect*
    long winded flames and wild claims on places like talk.politics 
    -- that's why I post there 8-)   .  But I'm often disappointed
    by the specialty newsgroups too.  When I was getting started in
    this journal/diary investigation I posted requests for published
    material on soc.history and got NOTHING that met my criteria,
    although later I was able to find various sources on my own
    in history departments, history sections of bookstores, history
    museums, etc.    And recently here someone posted twice over
    several months asking for references to the male role in birthing
    and got virtually nothing.    And yet there doesn't seem to be any
    difficulty in getting a good discussion going about a TV show.

    I mean I realize we're all doing this in our spare time and none
    of us are under any obligation to answer ANY postings, nevermind 
    provide actual references.   But this is, after all, "sci" and not
    "rec" "dot anthropology".  So if we do post it would be nice to offer
    something a little better than speculation.   ]


>Your notion of a "Goodwill Bank", is germane and relevant since it is
>present in almost all non-industrial societies. I am hard-pressed to
>think of anywhere it is not central to the practicalities of people
>meeting their obligations to one another, although my own terminology
>refers to "Social Credits" since the "depository" is rarely central.
>
>I have seen them used even to the extent of patching up marriages,
>where a foolish fling with another woman cost a married man all the
>credits he had built up over the years. A breakup would have caused
>problems for the whole community, and the fact that he had "used up
>all his favours" amounted what we now legally refer to as a Community
>Service Order in that he would have to work without any expectation
>that anyone would do anything for him in return, for some time.

   Right, this is the kind of dynamic I'm curious about.  Has there been
   much research into what features of a society or culture make these
   work or how widespread these are among different cultures?  And of course,
   ultimately I'm curious whether industrial or postindustrial cultures
   have, for lack of a better word, the social or cultural "infastructure"
   to support these things.   


---peter


Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:989 soc.culture.netherlands:3114