Because again they don’t attribute their behavior to their own volition. The fact their hunting is a behavioral response initiated by the need for food. The mistake we make in our modern thinking is that, when we think about our behavior, we think like, “I’m hungry, so I’m going to decide to eat,” when the behavior is more accurately explained as “eating behavior is initiated by the need to eat.” Hunting is a system of behaviors, a system that self-evolved over time. While it includes humans, the system is consists of the environment, the hunted animals, and the collection of humans involved that all act interdependently to form what we call a hunt. While we perceive the people, the animals, and the environment as distinct parts, that’s just an illusion created by our brains.

So, my impression is that the hunters during this time had yet to develop the perspective we have, meaning they didn’t see themselves at the center of their decision-making. Their hunting behaviors are initiated and executed, outside their own free well, by 1) their hunger, which they have no control over, 2) the constraints of their bodies, like their strength, 3) the constraints of the environment that determine where they can go and what they can do, and 4) the behavior of the hunted animals. None of these things they can attribute to their own free will. The error that our brains make automatically is that we perceives ourselves at the center of this system. When I watch myself do something, I unconsciously think, “I did that because I decided to,” when in fact I did that because the interactions between my brain and the environment produced a semi-predictable reaction that “I” was not involved in creating. We assume we are the centers of what we do and what happens to us, when in fact there is no center and this interdependent system carries out on its own. We are just along for the ride, and in this sense the Reindeer People are right.

From what we’ve discussed in class, it does seem that turning an animal into a commodity is an essential part of the domestication of food animals. However in the case of the reindeer, I’m not sure that the impossibility of domesticating wild reindeer is because of change in their genes. I haven’t seen genotype profile comparisons, so I could be completely wrong on this, but I don’t think wild and domesticated reindeer are really that different genetically, just like feral cats aren’t really different from housecats, but it’s next to impossible to take a feral cat and try to domesticate it enough to live with humans. I think that the impossibility of domesticating wild reindeer really just means the enormity of work that would be involved, when compared to relative ease of breeding already domesticated reindeer.

I also felt under prepared in relation to all of the historical and geographical references in the novel but I think class discussion will help that. Although it may be a little off topic I would love to hear about the nature of dreams and how it relates to this topic. It’s so interesting to see what people pull from each reading based on their backgrounds and majors.

I also liked the parallel between the Soviet era and the method of domestication. Most of the other excerpts we have read have been the capitalist system and how this has altered the domestication process but the Communist perspective was an interesting change. I have yet to see Frozen so I don’t understand the reference but from reading the novel I agree that reindeer seem like the perfect animal for domestication and don’t see why it didn’t catch on in other areas as well.

First of all, excellent Frozen reference.

I like the way you examined Soviet interference as a method of domesticating the native peoples. It makes sense in a way, but can we ever really say that humans have been/could be domesticated by other humans? If domestication is dependent on dependence, I don’t see how that would be accomplished. Let’s say one group of people becomes dependent on another, and then are suddenly abandoned. I think that after a generation (or perhaps even sooner) most would grow to be independent and self sufficient. Perhaps a better word might be tame?

I disagree. I think that you’re right in saying the strength or physical fitness aspect would play into it, but I’m talking about the actual act of hunting itself. Being the strongest man in the village wouldn’t help your hunting prowess in the least bit if you just sat at home all day. What I’m wondering is why bother going to hunt at all, if your success is determined entirely by Bayanay?

You might be a little bit mistaken in your interpretation of Bayanay. I remember a paragraph where Vitebsky wrote that hunters who took care of their bodies were rewarded with kills by Bayanay. This makes sense, as someone who maintains or builds their strength is probably going to be a better hunter than someone who doesn’t. This is another instance of “perspective reversal” where instead of attributing one’s own volition to what happens them, they attribute it to their environment. Instead of “I am strong, so I killed a reindeer,” they perceived it as, “I am strong, so Bayanay rewarded me with a kill.” At this time, they might not have understood why being athletic or being strong was associated with getting more kills, so they attributed their success to a god instead of to principles of biology and physics that we understand and take for granted.

I don’t want to degrade the beliefs of the nomadic people in Vitebsky’s book (or anyone else, for that matter) in any way, but I experienced the same confusion as you while reading about their religious lore. It seems to me that their beliefs contradict each other in many ways- if Bayanay presents a hunter with a lot of kills, for example, it could apparently either mean that he is blessed, or that he is going to die. I think the simplest answer to your question is that they hunted because otherwise they would die. I know that’s obvious, but in my experience religion is often superceded by the natural will to live. I would guess that the origin of beliefs of Bayanay began after hunting was already an established practice of obtaining food, so the stories about Bayanay were created to fit into the lives of the hunters, rather than direct them.

I agree with Megan about how much ground this post covers and really appreciate your thoughts about pastoralism and the alphabet. Kessler’s discussion of the development of written language and its roots in the pictograms of pastoralism is one of my favorite parts of the book. As for the “which domesticate is most important” debate, I think you can both be right. Which animal played the most significant role depended on cultural context and geography. I’m thinking that the camel and the horse were incredibly important – but not at the same time in the same place.

What a terrific post! It can be difficult for us to appreciate how the shift in human-animal relations that came with domestication informed and was shaped by the emergence of economic relationships and attitudes that remain salient today. I really appreciate how you read contemporary attitudes toward food animals back into the emergence of the commodity and capitalism. And I agree that we need to do a better job of living up to the bargain we’ve made with the domesticates we use as food.