Animal's social grooming activities are services "exchanged" for specific types of cultural bonding, hence a form of barter.
"Social grooming between members of the same species. Grooming is a major social activity and a means by which animals who live in close proximity may bond, reinforce social structures and family links, and build companionship. Social grooming is also used as a means of conflict resolution, maternal behavior, and reconciliation in some species."
I think the mistake you are making may be partly semantic, in terms of your conceptual definitions of 'biology' and 'culture', but it's also your over-emphasis of the importance of what you call 'biology' - it's actually another form of bioessentialism, which reduces a lifeform down to its raw mechanical nature, thus depriving it of agency etc. Neuroscience should've totally destroyed the supremacy of biology by now, and bioessentialism along with it. I'm not surprised the powers that shouldn't be haven't allowed that to happen. A bioessentialist population is far easier to control.
Here is another example of 'culture' and indeed 'barter' amongst non-humans (and you did suggest that 'dogs' don't trade) - a pack of wolves (or dogs - same thing). Each member of the wolf-pack has a 'role' - this relates to why different dogs have innately different temperaments. One such is 'mediator' - that's the kind of dog who barks at other dogs having a spat (we had a dog like that - in the park where we walked her with lots of other dogs people thought of her as 'security'). In return for the mediation, however, that wolf would expect to receive the benefits of those with other roles. And the same is true for humas.
So here's the thing - in an egalitarian society in which there is 'division of labour' i.e. individuals have different roles, but which 'pool their resources' - or 'share their surplus value' then there is an UNSPOKEN barter system at work there. Every member of that group tacitly and instinctively agrees on the system and the fact that whatever they produce CAN BE EXCHANGED FOR that which other roles produce. Example - I am the medicine woman in a tribe. In exchange for my medical care the huntsman agrees to provide me and my apprentice with meat. And the seamstress agrees to exchange 'my required amount of clothes' for 'her required amount of healthcare'. And so on, in an expanding series of interconnections.
This is not 'biological' in the raw mechanistic sense. It is in fact neurological - by which I mean it's behavioural - it's a product of brain evolution and structure and functioning, which has evolved to be best adapted to life within the social group.
What we call 'culture' is simply 'behaviour of individuals within a social group' and it's absolutely not solely confined to humans. Charlotte's example of primate grooming is a perfect example, in fact. These are 'gifts' of course, but they would also expect reciprocation. It's also for social bonding of course, but it equally floods the brain's reward centre with happy chemicals, for both giver and receiver (this is how mate selection really works, by the way - neurotransmitters - it's why people 'fall in love' (and often with people you wouldn't expect, there's no 'weighing up of options' or 'competition', it just happens).
So there is a 'barter' system - it's just not 'explicit'.
Finally - when two prehistoric tribes met they would always 'exchange' - whether that's information (as in your example in the article) or 'goods and services' - jewellery, for example; arrow head technology; hunting strategy tips. In a gift economy, because every member understands it as a norm, no one needs to explicitly say 'I will give you this in exchange for that' because it just happens.
So Adam Smith is correct about barter. It's just not the 'barter' a modern person would understand by the term.
Anyway - that's my butting in done. Carry on my good man...
Animal's social grooming activities are services "exchanged" for specific types of cultural bonding, hence a form of barter.
"Social grooming between members of the same species. Grooming is a major social activity and a means by which animals who live in close proximity may bond, reinforce social structures and family links, and build companionship. Social grooming is also used as a means of conflict resolution, maternal behavior, and reconciliation in some species."
Ah! Good point, that makes sense!
Do you know of biologists who explore potential evolutionary implications of mutual grooming?
Biology? Do you think grooming is not cultural but an instinctual behavior.
Um... I would say that if animals do it generation after generation, it probably has a basis in biology... wouldn't you?
I'm going to butt in here - hope you don't mind.
I think the mistake you are making may be partly semantic, in terms of your conceptual definitions of 'biology' and 'culture', but it's also your over-emphasis of the importance of what you call 'biology' - it's actually another form of bioessentialism, which reduces a lifeform down to its raw mechanical nature, thus depriving it of agency etc. Neuroscience should've totally destroyed the supremacy of biology by now, and bioessentialism along with it. I'm not surprised the powers that shouldn't be haven't allowed that to happen. A bioessentialist population is far easier to control.
Here is another example of 'culture' and indeed 'barter' amongst non-humans (and you did suggest that 'dogs' don't trade) - a pack of wolves (or dogs - same thing). Each member of the wolf-pack has a 'role' - this relates to why different dogs have innately different temperaments. One such is 'mediator' - that's the kind of dog who barks at other dogs having a spat (we had a dog like that - in the park where we walked her with lots of other dogs people thought of her as 'security'). In return for the mediation, however, that wolf would expect to receive the benefits of those with other roles. And the same is true for humas.
So here's the thing - in an egalitarian society in which there is 'division of labour' i.e. individuals have different roles, but which 'pool their resources' - or 'share their surplus value' then there is an UNSPOKEN barter system at work there. Every member of that group tacitly and instinctively agrees on the system and the fact that whatever they produce CAN BE EXCHANGED FOR that which other roles produce. Example - I am the medicine woman in a tribe. In exchange for my medical care the huntsman agrees to provide me and my apprentice with meat. And the seamstress agrees to exchange 'my required amount of clothes' for 'her required amount of healthcare'. And so on, in an expanding series of interconnections.
This is not 'biological' in the raw mechanistic sense. It is in fact neurological - by which I mean it's behavioural - it's a product of brain evolution and structure and functioning, which has evolved to be best adapted to life within the social group.
What we call 'culture' is simply 'behaviour of individuals within a social group' and it's absolutely not solely confined to humans. Charlotte's example of primate grooming is a perfect example, in fact. These are 'gifts' of course, but they would also expect reciprocation. It's also for social bonding of course, but it equally floods the brain's reward centre with happy chemicals, for both giver and receiver (this is how mate selection really works, by the way - neurotransmitters - it's why people 'fall in love' (and often with people you wouldn't expect, there's no 'weighing up of options' or 'competition', it just happens).
So there is a 'barter' system - it's just not 'explicit'.
Finally - when two prehistoric tribes met they would always 'exchange' - whether that's information (as in your example in the article) or 'goods and services' - jewellery, for example; arrow head technology; hunting strategy tips. In a gift economy, because every member understands it as a norm, no one needs to explicitly say 'I will give you this in exchange for that' because it just happens.
So Adam Smith is correct about barter. It's just not the 'barter' a modern person would understand by the term.
Anyway - that's my butting in done. Carry on my good man...
Then conflict, war, and murder must also be instinctual.