Na'vi sociology

[auroraglacialis]

Interesting topic indeed.
I think in terms of what we can infer about NA'Vi society in anthropological terms is that they are quite egalitarian. In the tribe, no one seems to own special wealth or property visibly. This could show as special jewelry or clothing or a hierarchical order when taking meals. There is little evidence of that in the NA'Vi, which look very much like they have rather similar clothing and attire (also on the Direhorses they seem to be equal) and meals are eaten in circles. No one seems to be better nourished than the other. There are women warriors even, hinting at gender equality. Possible hierarchical or non-egalitarian do exist in the sense that there is obviously a chief and a shaman that do have a different standing, also visible in attire. This considers still a flat hierarchy and we dont know what the power of these two people really is in terms of making people do things they do not want to do. The positions are given by family connections it seems, so this is sort of an aristocratic system. There is the debatable statement about "choosing a woman" which was interpreted by some as a hint on gender inequality. There is also a warrior class, which has the potential to be hierarchical or is prone to social stratification (warriors, craftsmen, aristocracy, peasants?) but it seems that this is linked to hunting as well (warrior-hunters) and is open to everyone, even an outsider (though that may not be true, considering that an outsider may actually have a special standing). Overall I'd say they seem to be a communalist mostly egalitarian society with flat but aristocratic hierarchies but some division of labour. But we definitely need "more data"
The existence of warriors points to the possibility of intraspecies conflict. While overall they seem to be peaceful enough, there are a few warriors around. The way they act and the fact that not all people in the tribe are part-time warriors reminds of chivalry and I'd suggest that there is some sort of ritualized warfare happening to resolve disputes. This is common among native people to have struggles with other tribes at times but only dedicated warriors participate and there are rules to these fights.

Generally I dont think the Dawkinsian neodarwinistic view of the way evolution or altrusim works ("The selfish gene" that looks only to its own benefit and protects similar genes in the shape of altruism) is getting the full picture. This concept tries to break down the bits of life to its smallest pieces - genes - that compete with each other and keep only alive what is similar to them. That concept totally breaks apart when one looks at how ecosystems work. Generally they develop a state that reminds of a complex interdependent system of living beings, individuals and species who participate in a "cycle of life" in which one beings waste is another beings food or one beings shell becomes the home of another being later. The only way this would be so in a selfish world would be if there is a delicate balance, but in fact nature is quite resilient. If one player breaks out and tries to take over, usually he will not succeed. Dawkins argued that Nature is not a system of mutual beneficial cooperation because if it was so, it would take only one cheater to bring everything down. Well that is what is happening now - there is one species that "cheats" and everything is coming down around it. Of course there is competition, but the "goal" of the competition seems to me rather to find a place that fits, a niche that is not yet occupied, a good part in the overall picture. This is what "survival of the fittest" actually means - the survival of thos species that fit to a given place in the complex overall system of the natural world. (It is not "fit as in fitness training", but rather "fit as in fitting into a pair of jeans"). The overall "goal" is to keep the whole world alive, to maintain a natural living world full of dufferent beings - if you will a balance. And this is on Pandora in a way what Eywa does - not giving special attention to the NA'Vi, but keeping the balance - looking out for cheaters. I guess if the NA'Vi would start wiping out other species, they would feel the opposition of Eywa just as the skypeople did.

When it comes to harsh environments as a potential incentive to develop civilizations, agriculture, technology, I think that this is not a definite connection. Life in the Jungle like on Pandora can be harder than life in a semi-desert environment. In some jungles, the people living there face a lot of dangers, predators, poisonous insects & plants and sometimes few things are edible. But with the right knowledge and culture, a society living in these places can survive well - be it the jungle (where plant knowledge, care of predators etc are important) or in a semi-desert (where knowledge of how to find water may be more important). The NA'Vi would have all kinds of incentives to create a civilization if they wanted to - safety from any potential predator attacks on hometree (or the non tree-based camps of other tribes), avoidance of rain, better weapons for the hunt and so on - but my theory is that they do know of the consequences of this or at least Eywa does and thus things do not go that way (e.g. better weapons might wipe out game species, walls against predators seperate the people from the forest etc.)