Kaplan's Critique: The Darker Side of the Original Affluent Society

Kaplan's main intervention

David Kaplan argues that the influential image of hunter-gatherers as the "original affluent society" has retained remarkable authority despite significant empirical and conceptual problems. His essay gathers criticisms scattered through the literature and argues that the thesis is less secure than its popularity suggests.

Questioning the evidence

Kaplan emphasizes that the original formulation relied heavily on a small number of time-allocation studies, especially work from Arnhem Land and Richard Lee's study of the !Kung. He argues that these data were often treated as stronger or more representative than they actually were.

The problem of overgeneralization

A central criticism is that findings from selected foraging populations were generalized too broadly to hunter-gatherers as a whole. Kaplan suggests that the literature sometimes transformed limited evidence into a sweeping image of abundant leisure, easy subsistence, and near-ideal well-being.

Against the romantic image

Kaplan notes that anthropology replaced an older stereotype of the miserable hunter-gatherer with a newer stereotype of the happy, carefree, affluent forager. He warns that this reversal can be just as misleading as the earlier negative image.

What Kaplan is really challenging

Kaplan is not simply denying that some hunter-gatherers may work relatively little or enjoy good nutrition in certain settings. Instead, he challenges the tendency to treat these cases as proof of a general rule. His critique targets both the empirical base of the thesis and the intellectual desire to preserve it.

Why the thesis endured

The reading suggests that the affluence thesis persisted partly because it offered a powerful insight into the human condition and appealed to anthropologists' broader cultural and moral concerns. Kaplan therefore studies not only the data, but also the thesis's continuing attraction.

Key takeaway

• Kaplan sees the affluent society thesis as influential but overstated.
• He highlights weak support, selective use of evidence, and romantic overcorrection.
• His critique pushes readers to distinguish suggestive cases from universal claims.

Primary reference: [Week_2_Sahlins,_Kaplan](material:64)