Does Stern treat ideology the same way that Conrad and Demarest do? Does he see it as an agent of historical change, as peripheral, or something else? (Note: ideology is not always religious ideology.)
Conrad and Demarest define ideology as “a set of interrelated ideas that provides the members of a group with a rationale for their existence” (4). They argue the importance of religious ideology in the rise and fall of the Aztec and Inca empires. In other words, the religious practices of the Aztec and Incas provided them a sense of identity and a framework for interactions with others. Steve Stern describes ideology in a similar fashion. Stern’s unifying principle of understanding is the kinship group. “Kinship bonds,” writes Stern, “defined people’s identity” and served as the underpinning principle of reciprocity that characterized Andean interactions (6). The entire structure of society, including religious practices, flowed from, and in turn reinforced, the primacy of kin. Ancestor worship thus assumes appropriate context, as do other Andean concepts of deities and the cosmos. Religious ideology “endowed gods with the very dynamics of ethnic rivalry and reciprocal exchange which governed material life” (13). Stern thus argues that religion was an important component of the Andean self-understanding, but reinforced rather than established societal norms. In contrast to Conrad and Demarest’s argument that religious understanding structured Aztec and Inca society, Stern posits that “Andean peoples… projected their network of kin groups and lineages into a cosmological space” (14). Stern’s Andean peoples are not agents of historical change as are Conrad and Demarest’s Aztec and Inca, but the Huamanga region did weather the brief period of Inca control, returning to traditional structures after the intrusion of the Inca. The Inca did attempt to mirror Huamanga culture in their relations with the region but ultimately failed (20-23). Stern thus grants ideology its place of primacy in creating and maintaining the structural bonds of Andean society
The views on ideology in Stern’s book are comparable to those found in Conrad and Demarest’s work. They—like Stern—saw each respective society’s ideological sides as what held the groups together and drove them forward. For the Aztecs it was their firm belief that the universe would end if they did not make sacrifices to their god of war. This constant need for subjects for human sacrifice created their empire; it was the reason they expanded and conquered, it was what almost every aspect of their lives revolved around, and was the main thing that their leaders were concerned with. Incan civilization as Conrad and Demarest describe it was also ideology that formed the main driving force behind their civilization. Their belief that their king’s still owned their lands even after their deaths made it so that the only way the living kings could accumulate wealth for themselves was to conquer new lands for them to use. As Stern discusses, ideology was a major factor the Huamanga society. For them it did not motivate them to conquer other peoples and new lands as it did for the Aztec and Inca; it formed the backbone of their social structure. For them, the most important thing was not their religion, but the ties between family members and between other families. So the only real difference in ideology between the three examples and the two books is what each group is ideological about; the Aztec and Inca have a more religion based ideology, whereas the Huamanga is family and socially oriented. And as you say: “ideology is not always religious”.
In the intro Stern tells us that the natives “were agents of their own history” and I would take this as meaning that the ideologies that drove them as the main component in historical change. The natives economic system was based on the idea of self-sufficiency, as it defined “wealth” of families and communities (5). Heritage lines were traced, connecting with each other and creating “families” of communities and heritage, which in turn created the community and your job in it (6). Knowing your role in these “micro-environments” meant survival. The idea of self-sufficiency kept specializations to modest proportions, as those specializing still had their duties to produce their own foods, clothes, etc. (5). This idea of self-sufficiency does not mean that everyone was only out for themselves because the harshness of Andean region required team work for the agricultural system, uniting the idea of community with self-sufficiency (5,23). The exchanges of manual labor with each other strengthen not only their level of self-sufficiency, idea of community but also positive relationships (8). Land and its resources did not belong to an individual but to the community (6). Religion and it “obligations” also reinforced the idea of cooperation (13, 18). There was a balance in every level of community which created their idea of “social life” (9). As the community planted crops for the weak, they in turn provided something for the community, like acting as healers. Everything was supposed to be balanced, and when it was not, that is when conflict arose to try and balance the relation (8-9). At every turn, the natives ideology ruled their actions in society. In the intro Stern’s mentions that in the last chapter, he “identifies enduring legacies” that “continue to shape life in ‘Indian’ highland” which I am assuming might be the important native cultural idea of self-sufficiency (XX). Sterns focuses so much on the cultural aspect of the natives, trying to understand what the natives viewed as culturally and socially important, like Conrad and Demarest did. It seems like all authors viewed ideologies as a major factor in native actions.
Stern regards ideology much in the same way that Conrad and Demarest do. He sees ideology as a catalyst to historical change. In both works it is asserted that what took place following European contact in the Americas was a result of people’s engrained social and spiritual beliefs which dictated their decisions and actions. At the beginning of the book Stern interestingly classifies the Spanish as many separate nuclei who because of their differing background and ideology (varying from explorers and profiteers to Catholic missionaries) influence the natives in many different ways. Likewise, the native’s decisions following contact where dictated by their very distinct cultural perception of the situation. Stern tells that the Andean people’s basic social identity on a community level revolved around common ancestry to particular deity (Stern 6.). Ideology also extended to their everyday life and material world. Their social hierarchy revolved around to laboring for a leader or Kuraka, and they believed that all material wealth, power, and good fortune came only with the favor of the gods (Stern 13). It is explicitly stated that these efforts for the Kuraka are a communal spiritual commitment (Stern 18.). So far ideology and peoples thought process as a community take the same role in both books, being the cause, not the excuse, for actions on both sides of the story.
Steve Stern appears to treat ideology not necessarily as an agent of historical change and neither as a peripheral but, rather as something that lies in between the two. Instead Stern uses ideology as something that is fluid. During the period after first contact between Amerindians and Europeans the two worlds sought to seek equilibrium where the politics of both societies attempted to dominate and resist the other. This is better illustrated in stern’s description of how native lords and elites sought to retain political and economic power shortly after the conquest, (Stern, xxxviii). In contrast, Conrad and Demarest believe ideology, more specifically religious ideology, was an important agent of historical change in both Andean and Mexica societies. Instead Stern portrays religious ideology as an element that plays a crucial part in the system of reciprocity that is evident in Andean society, (Stern, 9). For Stern religious ideology in the Andean world played a part in Incan politics. Religious ideology in the Andean world played in part in politics by reinforcing the stratification between groups in society that could illustrated by the stratification of the different gods that were worshipped, (Stern, 15). The Inca state used ideology as a tool to solidify its rule over conquered territories as illustrated by the foreign gods being paraded in Cuzco, (Stern, 22).
In my opinion, Steve Stern does treat ideology the same way as Conrad and Demarest do with the Incas. Conrad and Demarest describe that the only reason as to why the Incas were a successful empire for that time frame was due to their ideology. The Incas believed that they must be loyal to their dead ancestors either through farming their land and keeping the territories in the name of the previous owner. In other words, no one was allowed to take the land of a deceased family member. This is similar to how Stern describes the family ties with the Andes Indians. They all had extremely strong family ties to the point that when communities received money for certain things, such as lost lands, the whole community received property even if they were an orphans (page 8). This allows for the audience to understand that the ideology explained by Conrad and Demarest is similar to the ideology by Stern in that they took a stance to demonstrate that family bonds are stronger than greed in most cases. In my opinion, Stern does see this as an agent for historical change because the family ties aren't always stronger in other empires.
Stern's ideology is concentrated on the "ayullus" and kinship bond and community bond that was the main foundation of the societies structure. "Religious ideologies and relationships lent an external objectivity to the kin relationships of the community, in part because they endowed gods with the very dynamics of ethnic rivalry and reciprocal exchange which governed material life" (Stern, p.13). Demarest and Conrad Ideology revolves around the sacrifice of humans that is crucial for their survival. Stern is similar with Conrad and Demarest that they also believed (like the Inca) the dead still had rights as a person living and most importunely they got to keep their land. It was the main reason why they expanded more land because a son couldn't take his deceased father's land. Even thought Stern does not treat ideology the same as Conrad and Damerest, I believe that all the authors would agree that Ideology was the main factor shaping their society and how they viewed the world.
Stern's view of ideology is based on "ayullus" bonds, which " served as an idiom which defined the boundaries of a community, tribe or ethnic group." this was so, at least in the Andean peoples, because there where so few resources or land to grow food on that land was not owned by a single family but instead because of the ideology of kinship bonds was owned by the collective whole of the tribe instead of a single household. This worked well because of the amount of work and effort that was needed to maintain the irrigation systems and farmlands in the difficult terrain of the Andean societies. Conrad and Demarest seem to take a more finite approach when it comes to ideology. They believe that religious ideology not only brought the rise of Aztec and Inca society but inevitably led to their downfall as well. Because of the Inca and Aztecs strong centralized religion they were able to project their own ideologies on other societies incorporating them into their own while simultaneously setting up a sense of ones self in the bigger picture of the universe. I believe that Conrad and Demarest see ideology as an agent of historical change, but that they take too much of a religious approach when it comes to ideology. I prefer Stern's approach, which uses societal ideologies as a way to keep the community bonds instead of religious ideology which tends to separate certain castes of society such as priests and peasants in order to create an idea of religious importance. Andean societies realized and practiced societal beliefs that are enhanced by religious ideology but not defined by religious ideology. This type of ideology allows for maintaining a society through community or "Kinship Bonds", which doesn't push the boundaries of ones society like religious ideology does.
Stern’s book does appear to treat ideology similar to Conrad and Demarest. Conrad and Demarest viewed religious ideology as a primary reason for cultural change whereas Stern seems to portray that cultural, political, social hierarchy, and religion were all factors that developed prior, during, and post contact periods as reasons for change. Stern dispelled some of the most common myths and sets about confronting the issues from all perspectives: Spanish colonists, missionaries, the Amerindians, conquistador, and encomienderos.
Stern discussed some of the Spanish utopias such as the wealth utopia, the political utopia, social precedence utopia, and the Christian utopia and then provided evidence that the Amerindians resisted, adapted in part, and politically maneuvered themselves to deteriorate those Spanish utopian ideals. Stern pointed out that the Indians competed in the commercial economy and the Spanish responded in attempts to maintain control over these commercial assets. (xxxv) Which failed in part because many native lords possessed control over many commercial venues. (xxxvii) Stern stated the “Amerindian peoples refused to concede a Spanish monopoly on access to high authority, social reward, and policy debate”. (xxxvii)
In addition, Stern stated Andean religious ideologies were also political. (26) The Andeans believed that their gods provided them with material goods, which offered their elites with social and political relationships as well as economic functions. (26) These statements taken together provide further evidence that Stern treats religious ideology as a reason for cultural change.
Two mentions of Stern stick out in my reading: the Huarochiri myth about the adulterous wife and the "blowing-kiss motion" that the Andeans used to denote respect to both the "political and supernatural lords"(16,17). Aside from being somewhat amusing images to picture, these two examples show just how involved with daily life. A dysfunctional relationship, either between two people or a worshipper and his huaca, brought catastrophe down on the perpetrators. The actions of the deities reflected those of their worshippers, and vice versa- indicating that the deities were integrated to every aspect of daily life. The level of incorporation is solidified by the practice of recognizing both supernatural and earhly lords in the same manner. As Stern demonstrates,the political and religious spheres were blended in the Andean cultures.
Stern argues the same assertion as Conrad and Demarest, but in a different field. Conrad and Demarest focus almost exclusively on the roles of human sacrifice and mummy worship, two ideals that are anathema to Western culture. Their objective is to justify these practices, and normalize them within their respective cultures. Stern focuses more on ideology in daily life, and the more mundane uses in the Andes.
Steve J. Stern in his book " Peru 's Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest emphasized from the beginning that his purpose is not to show again how the Spanish mistreated and exploited the indigenous. He wants to show in his work how indigenous peoples from Huamanga faced the challenge of Spanish conquest.
Compared to the other books this is about a regional study that seeks to analyze the creation of a new colonial society in the Andes between 1532 and 1640. Huamanga (today Ayacucho) is the region where his research was conducted. In that vast area Stern was able to study various forms of colonization.
It is important to mention that the author makes his analysis in Huamanga where he approaches a different reality than Cuzco. He also gives us other perspectives from the Andes. In this specific region several Indians were settled, the ayllu, the Lucanas, the Soras and Yanaconas, among others. Stern emphasizes in his book the different economic units, labor, the survival of the economic autonomy of the ayllu, beliefs, etc. with the solely purpose to make us understand how the indigenous people of that region “Huamanga” (which was at that time part of the Incas) formed their well organize communities.
Conrad and Demarest define ideology as “a set of interrelated ideas that provides the members of a group with a rationale for their existence” (4). They argue the importance of religious ideology in the rise and fall of the Aztec and Inca empires. In other words, the religious practices of the Aztec and Incas provided them a sense of identity and a framework for interactions with others.
ReplyDeleteSteve Stern describes ideology in a similar fashion. Stern’s unifying principle of understanding is the kinship group. “Kinship bonds,” writes Stern, “defined people’s identity” and served as the underpinning principle of reciprocity that characterized Andean interactions (6). The entire structure of society, including religious practices, flowed from, and in turn reinforced, the primacy of kin. Ancestor worship thus assumes appropriate context, as do other Andean concepts of deities and the cosmos. Religious ideology “endowed gods with the very dynamics of ethnic rivalry and reciprocal exchange which governed material life” (13).
Stern thus argues that religion was an important component of the Andean self-understanding, but reinforced rather than established societal norms. In contrast to Conrad and Demarest’s argument that religious understanding structured Aztec and Inca society, Stern posits that “Andean peoples… projected their network of kin groups and lineages into a cosmological space” (14). Stern’s Andean peoples are not agents of historical change as are Conrad and Demarest’s Aztec and Inca, but the Huamanga region did weather the brief period of Inca control, returning to traditional structures after the intrusion of the Inca. The Inca did attempt to mirror Huamanga culture in their relations with the region but ultimately failed (20-23). Stern thus grants ideology its place of primacy in creating and maintaining the structural bonds of Andean society
The views on ideology in Stern’s book are comparable to those found in Conrad and Demarest’s work. They—like Stern—saw each respective society’s ideological sides as what held the groups together and drove them forward. For the Aztecs it was their firm belief that the universe would end if they did not make sacrifices to their god of war. This constant need for subjects for human sacrifice created their empire; it was the reason they expanded and conquered, it was what almost every aspect of their lives revolved around, and was the main thing that their leaders were concerned with. Incan civilization as Conrad and Demarest describe it was also ideology that formed the main driving force behind their civilization. Their belief that their king’s still owned their lands even after their deaths made it so that the only way the living kings could accumulate wealth for themselves was to conquer new lands for them to use. As Stern discusses, ideology was a major factor the Huamanga society. For them it did not motivate them to conquer other peoples and new lands as it did for the Aztec and Inca; it formed the backbone of their social structure. For them, the most important thing was not their religion, but the ties between family members and between other families. So the only real difference in ideology between the three examples and the two books is what each group is ideological about; the Aztec and Inca have a more religion based ideology, whereas the Huamanga is family and socially oriented. And as you say: “ideology is not always religious”.
ReplyDeleteIn the intro Stern tells us that the natives “were agents of their own history” and I would take this as meaning that the ideologies that drove them as the main component in historical change. The natives economic system was based on the idea of self-sufficiency, as it defined “wealth” of families and communities (5). Heritage lines were traced, connecting with each other and creating “families” of communities and heritage, which in turn created the community and your job in it (6). Knowing your role in these “micro-environments” meant survival. The idea of self-sufficiency kept specializations to modest proportions, as those specializing still had their duties to produce their own foods, clothes, etc. (5). This idea of self-sufficiency does not mean that everyone was only out for themselves because the harshness of Andean region required team work for the agricultural system, uniting the idea of community with self-sufficiency (5,23). The exchanges of manual labor with each other strengthen not only their level of self-sufficiency, idea of community but also positive relationships (8). Land and its resources did not belong to an individual but to the community (6). Religion and it “obligations” also reinforced the idea of cooperation (13, 18). There was a balance in every level of community which created their idea of “social life” (9). As the community planted crops for the weak, they in turn provided something for the community, like acting as healers. Everything was supposed to be balanced, and when it was not, that is when conflict arose to try and balance the relation (8-9). At every turn, the natives ideology ruled their actions in society. In the intro Stern’s mentions that in the last chapter, he “identifies enduring legacies” that “continue to shape life in ‘Indian’ highland” which I am assuming might be the important native cultural idea of self-sufficiency (XX). Sterns focuses so much on the cultural aspect of the natives, trying to understand what the natives viewed as culturally and socially important, like Conrad and Demarest did. It seems like all authors viewed ideologies as a major factor in native actions.
ReplyDeleteStern regards ideology much in the same way that Conrad and Demarest do. He sees ideology as a catalyst to historical change. In both works it is asserted that what took place following European contact in the Americas was a result of people’s engrained social and spiritual beliefs which dictated their decisions and actions. At the beginning of the book Stern interestingly classifies the Spanish as many separate nuclei who because of their differing background and ideology (varying from explorers and profiteers to Catholic missionaries) influence the natives in many different ways. Likewise, the native’s decisions following contact where dictated by their very distinct cultural perception of the situation. Stern tells that the Andean people’s basic social identity on a community level revolved around common ancestry to particular deity (Stern 6.). Ideology also extended to their everyday life and material world. Their social hierarchy revolved around to laboring for a leader or Kuraka, and they believed that all material wealth, power, and good fortune came only with the favor of the gods (Stern 13). It is explicitly stated that these efforts for the Kuraka are a communal spiritual commitment (Stern 18.). So far ideology and peoples thought process as a community take the same role in both books, being the cause, not the excuse, for actions on both sides of the story.
ReplyDeleteSteve Stern appears to treat ideology not necessarily as an agent of historical change and neither as a peripheral but, rather as something that lies in between the two. Instead Stern uses ideology as something that is fluid. During the period after first contact between Amerindians and Europeans the two worlds sought to seek equilibrium where the politics of both societies attempted to dominate and resist the other. This is better illustrated in stern’s description of how native lords and elites sought to retain political and economic power shortly after the conquest, (Stern, xxxviii). In contrast, Conrad and Demarest believe ideology, more specifically religious ideology, was an important agent of historical change in both Andean and Mexica societies. Instead Stern portrays religious ideology as an element that plays a crucial part in the system of reciprocity that is evident in Andean society, (Stern, 9). For Stern religious ideology in the Andean world played a part in Incan politics. Religious ideology in the Andean world played in part in politics by reinforcing the stratification between groups in society that could illustrated by the stratification of the different gods that were worshipped, (Stern, 15). The Inca state used ideology as a tool to solidify its rule over conquered territories as illustrated by the foreign gods being paraded in Cuzco, (Stern, 22).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Steve Stern does treat ideology the same way as Conrad and Demarest do with the Incas. Conrad and Demarest describe that the only reason as to why the Incas were a successful empire for that time frame was due to their ideology. The Incas believed that they must be loyal to their dead ancestors either through farming their land and keeping the territories in the name of the previous owner. In other words, no one was allowed to take the land of a deceased family member. This is similar to how Stern describes the family ties with the Andes Indians. They all had extremely strong family ties to the point that when communities received money for certain things, such as lost lands, the whole community received property even if they were an orphans (page 8). This allows for the audience to understand that the ideology explained by Conrad and Demarest is similar to the ideology by Stern in that they took a stance to demonstrate that family bonds are stronger than greed in most cases. In my opinion, Stern does see this as an agent for historical change because the family ties aren't always stronger in other empires.
ReplyDeleteStern's ideology is concentrated on the "ayullus" and kinship bond and community bond that was the main foundation of the societies structure. "Religious ideologies and relationships lent an external objectivity to the kin relationships of the community, in part because they endowed gods with the very dynamics of ethnic rivalry and reciprocal exchange which governed material life" (Stern, p.13). Demarest and Conrad Ideology revolves around the sacrifice of humans that is crucial for their survival. Stern is similar with Conrad and Demarest that they also believed (like the Inca) the dead still had rights as a person living and most importunely they got to keep their land. It was the main reason why they expanded more land because a son couldn't take his deceased father's land. Even thought Stern does not treat ideology the same as Conrad and Damerest, I believe that all the authors would agree that Ideology was the main factor shaping their society and how they viewed the world.
ReplyDeleteStern's view of ideology is based on "ayullus" bonds, which " served as an idiom which defined the boundaries of a community, tribe or ethnic group." this was so, at least in the Andean peoples, because there where so few resources or land to grow food on that land was not owned by a single family but instead because of the ideology of kinship bonds was owned by the collective whole of the tribe instead of a single household. This worked well because of the amount of work and effort that was needed to maintain the irrigation systems and farmlands in the difficult terrain of the Andean societies.
ReplyDeleteConrad and Demarest seem to take a more finite approach when it comes to ideology. They believe that religious ideology not only brought the rise of Aztec and Inca society but inevitably led to their downfall as well. Because of the Inca and Aztecs strong centralized religion they were able to project their own ideologies on other societies incorporating them into their own while simultaneously setting up a sense of ones self in the bigger picture of the universe. I believe that Conrad and Demarest see ideology as an agent of historical change, but that they take too much of a religious approach when it comes to ideology. I prefer Stern's approach, which uses societal ideologies as a way to keep the community bonds instead of religious ideology which tends to separate certain castes of society such as priests and peasants in order to create an idea of religious importance. Andean societies realized and practiced societal beliefs that are enhanced by religious ideology but not defined by religious ideology. This type of ideology allows for maintaining a society through community or "Kinship Bonds", which doesn't push the boundaries of ones society like religious ideology does.
Stern’s book does appear to treat ideology similar to Conrad and Demarest. Conrad and Demarest viewed religious ideology as a primary reason for cultural change whereas Stern seems to portray that cultural, political, social hierarchy, and religion were all factors that developed prior, during, and post contact periods as reasons for change. Stern dispelled some of the most common myths and sets about confronting the issues from all perspectives: Spanish colonists, missionaries, the Amerindians, conquistador, and encomienderos.
ReplyDeleteStern discussed some of the Spanish utopias such as the wealth utopia, the political utopia, social precedence utopia, and the Christian utopia and then provided evidence that the Amerindians resisted, adapted in part, and politically maneuvered themselves to deteriorate those Spanish utopian ideals. Stern pointed out that the Indians competed in the commercial economy and the Spanish responded in attempts to maintain control over these commercial assets. (xxxv) Which failed in part because many native lords possessed control over many commercial venues. (xxxvii) Stern stated the “Amerindian peoples refused to concede a Spanish monopoly on access to high authority, social reward, and policy debate”. (xxxvii)
In addition, Stern stated Andean religious ideologies were also political. (26) The Andeans believed that their gods provided them with material goods, which offered their elites with social and political relationships as well as economic functions. (26) These statements taken together provide further evidence that Stern treats religious ideology as a reason for cultural change.
Two mentions of Stern stick out in my reading: the Huarochiri myth about the adulterous wife and the "blowing-kiss motion" that the Andeans used to denote respect to both the "political and supernatural lords"(16,17). Aside from being somewhat amusing images to picture, these two examples show just how involved with daily life. A dysfunctional relationship, either between two people or a worshipper and his huaca, brought catastrophe down on the perpetrators. The actions of the deities reflected those of their worshippers, and vice versa- indicating that the deities were integrated to every aspect of daily life. The level of incorporation is solidified by the practice of recognizing both supernatural and earhly lords in the same manner. As Stern demonstrates,the political and religious spheres were blended in the Andean cultures.
ReplyDeleteStern argues the same assertion as Conrad and Demarest, but in a different field. Conrad and Demarest focus almost exclusively on the roles of human sacrifice and mummy worship, two ideals that are anathema to Western culture. Their objective is to justify these practices, and normalize them within their respective cultures. Stern focuses more on ideology in daily life, and the more mundane uses in the Andes.
Steve J. Stern in his book " Peru 's Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest emphasized from the beginning that his purpose is not to show again how the Spanish mistreated and exploited the indigenous. He wants to show in his work how indigenous peoples from Huamanga faced the challenge of Spanish conquest.
ReplyDeleteCompared to the other books this is about a regional study that seeks to analyze the creation of a new colonial society in the Andes between 1532 and 1640. Huamanga (today Ayacucho) is the region where his research was conducted. In that vast area Stern was able to study various forms of colonization.
It is important to mention that the author makes his analysis in Huamanga where he approaches a different reality than Cuzco. He also gives us other perspectives from the Andes. In this specific region several Indians were settled, the ayllu, the Lucanas, the Soras and Yanaconas, among others. Stern emphasizes in his book the different economic units, labor, the survival of the economic autonomy of the ayllu, beliefs, etc. with the solely purpose to make us understand how the indigenous people of that region “Huamanga” (which was at that time part of the Incas) formed their well organize communities.