avi on hunting

reading in prep for m of care – mar 21 24 diogenes p 2

by avi – khalil avi betz-heinemann (see other avi writings bottom of page) 21 pg pdf – RECREATIONAL HUNTING: WHY? AN ETHNOGRAPHIC AND HISTORICAL CASE STUDY FROM NORTHERN CYPRUS – (2021) [https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/RAA/article/view/19846/17942]

notes/quotes:

1 (82)

abstract:

in this paper i answer the question of why people, particularly mean, hunt recreationally.. in both past/present cases, may analysis reveals that recreational hunting is a personal practice in being free in the context of everyday life in a coercive civ.. in addition.. recognised as being entangled w gains in political rights in the wake of the enlightenment and its extension to newly free citizens, men in particular.. spatially juxtaposed against the fixed settlements of coercive civ.. echoing protected areas today.. i conclude that male citizens hunt recreationally seeking a passing taste of elitist ways of being free.. as it is a demo of the limited sovereignty over one’s life that being a legal citizens offer..

3

via hunting citizens: a practice of being free in plains/mountains because it was a break from their ‘normal’ lives.. normal meaning their role in the hierarchy of prescriptive and often coercive relations structuring the non recreational part of their personal live..

via royal/aristocratic elites: practice of being free because was also a break form trials/tribulation of the coercive civ they ruled..

i conclude that these elite practices of being free were nto overturned in wake of enlightenment, subsequent transition of political democracy and the emergence of citizens.. instead i argue that these transitions to democracy extended these practices to non elites.. by contrast to a revolutionary abolishment of them.. where men first benefitted from the legal extension of these practices of being free.. this included rec hunting, the right to vote and right to own one’s body.. in sum.. elites ruling coercive civ’ experience certain freedom in rec hunting which was withheld from non elites.. then thru political democratisation this freedom was legally extended to non elites who they ruled over..

therefore.. political democratisation w regards to legal rec hunting was not a break w past of coercive civ.. but simply the continuity of a certain idea and experience of being free.. t albeit non elite men also now got to experience it during legally allocated time.. thru lens of rec hunting then.. the freedoms that emerged thru democratisation in european region are not innovative, but extension of royal/aristocratic notion of being free.. the notion being that life for non elites involves living in a hierarchy of presciptive and coercive relations. but that is ok because you can get an occasional break

as long as still in sea world.. which is as long as still any form of m\a\p

we have no idea what legit free people are like.. black science of people/whales law et al

4

methods

7

i asked.. why do you hunt? ‘merakhyim’.. the idea of merak (broadly translating as curiosity) cropped up in multiple convos.. overtime i believe i did develop a feeling for what mustafa meant.. a visceral curiosity about what one might encounter in hunting.. not determined by someone else.. and yet one felt empowered rather than in a state of precarity..

need spaces of permission where people have .. with nothing to prove.. otherwise.. not curiosity of legit free people.. rather.. of whales seeking cope\ing mechs for sea world

admitted ‘not born hunters’.. had learned from elders.. et al

built friendships not predicated on deterministic formal social structure.. defined by class or rank

but still classing/ranking if hunting.. ness.. still a power issue.. so still not legit free..

8

other reasons (in chart): doing w/friend; doing sport/exercise; be w nature; love guns; be away from house/village; experience success targeting animal; to eat meat of animal

9

i agree w many of my informants who claimed that hunting was not some exotic practice but relatively pedestrian.. if motivations are relatively pedestrian.. then why do people who hunt defend their right to it so vigilantly? why not do something less contentious in face of anti hunting rhetoric?

because no legit free alt yet.. ie: 1\ no gershenfeld something else law to do whatever 2\ no bachelard oikos law to figure out what want to do that day

is it simply a defensive response to feeling like something is going to be taken away from you so you double down? is hunting so wrapped up in ‘id politics’ that .. leaves you craving more..

10

hunting as non exacting curiosity in terms of time put in ie: going hunting for x hrs w x equipment in x place .. did not mean he would return w x number of dead animals

graeber violence/quantification law et al.. but still makes no diff if hunting ness .. if still in sea world..

in hunting.. shifting climatic and eco conditions mean hunter has to ‘work out his tactics as he goes along’.. not subject to predefined deterministic plans inherent w/in fixed coercive civl… he is *free to ‘consult the world.. not straight jacketed by reps inside his head’

oh my.. not legit free if thinks hunting is a means to freedom.. we have no idea all the straight jackets we don.. wilde not-us law

12 (94)

graeber and wengrow (2021) argue that enlightenment philosophers, specifically rousseau, provide the pirmary source of for the evidence-free imaginary of our human ancestors as simple hunter gatherers evolving into complex coercive civs.. creating idea that these hunter ancestors were free whereas w the advent of civ humans became shackled.. whilst enlightenment marked a transition in how being free and not were conceived.. i argue that prior to enlightenment the history of elite rec hunting and the associate philosophy of cynegetics (hunting), had already created a popular and widely entrenched division between hunters as free by contrast to non elites as stuck in the horrible trials and tribulations of living in coercive genres of civ..

the culture of associating hunting w being free therefore preceded the enlightenment.. but not associated w being primitive.. rather w being noble.. so another why answer: ‘it’s what men have done since dawn of time’

16

experience of being free extended to non elite during their allotted rec time, as long as they performed hunting in ‘proper way’.. in sum.. the freedoms of european democratic transition as reflected in hunting did not mean a rethinking of european royal/aristo logic of being free, but meant everyone considered capable of being a free citizen could play at being a private individual king during their free time

(on women hunting/foraging et al)

18 (99)

coercive civ has not gone away.. it’s just that the freedom of recreation is now officially a part of more people’s lives.. so quant not qual change.. t

conclusion

the formal, legal, and dominant practices of being free today have emerged out of people being the property of elites transition to being legal citizens who have the right to their personal bodies.. and by extension their labour.. as their property (graeber 2014) in exchange for selling their labour, recreational time/space to mimic the freedom of elites has been acquired.. t

need.. global detox leap

so answer to ‘why do men rec hunt?’: citizens may no longer be direct subjects of royalty/aristo.. but thru legal, prescriptive, and formal processes of the sovereign state, are instead subject to the humiliation of being told they have a ‘free choice’ to sell themselves to whoever has more capital as mediated by state.. t

finite set of choices.. spinach or rock ness.. need curiosity over decision making..

19

no wonder why 1 in 40 men in europe seek to rec hunt.. it is both a space that offers a passing taste of one’s superiors way of experiencing being free.. and also a demo of the limited sovereignty over one life that being a citizen of state offers..

in terms of anthropology of hunting, my conclusion is that there is a diff between linear ‘social evolutionary’ change where there is.. relatively speaking.. *the qualitative continuity of practice (of being free) but a quantitative expansion of it to larger percentage of a polity.. a change as a rupture would require that my informants politically experience life and relate to each other as **free outside of recreation.. therefore the technical act of hunting (‘to actively search for and often kill another animal – ingold) would still exist as part of a civ turn based on rupture, but no longer as practice of being free ‘in nature’ because ***one accepts living in a coercive civ as normal..

*i’d say not this.. not till all out of sea world

**hari rat park law et al

***myth of normal et al.. two books

______

______

______

______

_______

_____