History
does not happen in a vacuum. It is a constantly shifting interplay of ideas and
cultures, of conflict and changing boundaries. Stern clearly sees this, and it
is reflected in the choice of his prologue. “Paradigms of Conquest” is an
indictment of historians who too often attempt to search for an “objective”
view of history, separating the individual motivations and political causes of
a time period from more “pure” motivations. History is not objective; the
records available of almost all time periods are written in a partisan manner,
representing a specific point of view or cause. As the prologue points out,
those points of view can offer an insight into the motivations of those who
wrote them, and it is worth observing those motivations when analyzing any
historical period.
As
he progresses, Stern explores the social and economic structure of the people
of the Andean region. He constructs a picture of society of “reciprocity”, where
large communal family groups work together to tend communal holdings. These holdings
produce a degree of self-sufficiency which allows these family groups (ayllus) to operate independently. As
needs arise the groups can call on one another to do labor in exchange for the
expectation that they will reciprocate as needed.
When
he reaches the areas of society and ideology Stern then expands this theory of
reciprocal relationships to include deities. The ancestral spirits of the Inca
were tied to a mythical lineage, meaning that in many areas the indigenous
Andeans held that they were literally descended from the deities they
venerated. The relationships between ayllus
were reflected in this: the reciprocal relationships that the people had with
one another they also had with their spirits. In return for veneration the spirits
would bring blessings.
When
viewed in this light, and at least insofar as I have read, it would appear that
Stern considers ideology (religious and otherwise) to be an important driving
factor in history, and a topic worth analyzing in historiography. So, to answer
the prompt, yes Stern does seem to agree with Conrad and Demarest that ideology
is an important factor in historical motivations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the reciprocal society of the Andean Indians. The ideological structures of these peoples created a strong communal sense and led to a close knit society, in which people shared and worked together. Under the ideology of the ayllus, the Huamanga created their main means of survival. Stern describes this system:
ReplyDeletewithin this overlapping network of kin relationships stretching back to
several ancestral generations, individuals and families found their identity
and the means for survival. The dispersed fields, pastures, waters, and
animals at the disposal of Andean families belonged not to them as
alienated property, but rather to the collective domain of their ayllus,
communities, and ethnic groups (6).
The ayllu ideology was perhaps the main driving force of the society of Andean Indians, as it provided them with their economic structure and their religious structure as well. Stern describes how this religious structure aided Andean societies:
finally, the performance of "religious" obligations by ayllu "brothers" created
settings of cooperation which, by holding in check the destructive aspects
of local rivalries, facilitated the productive tasks of the entire community.
(13).
Much of Stern's opening chapter focuses on the ayllus, which shows he believes ideology played a key role for indigenous peoples in Peru. Therefore, I agree with you that Stern treats ideology in a similar fashion to Conrad and Demarest. Both groups of writers believe ideology was an integral part of the particular indigenous societies which they examined. This means they all see ideology as an agent of historical change.