An Anthropological Perspective

1. POLITICAL SYSTEMS An Anthropological Perspective

2. HOBBES: • “THE CONDITION OF MAN [sic] IN A STATE OF NATURE IS A CONDITION OF WAR OF EVERYONE AGAINST EVERYONE” • Without formal government – anarchy • All societies have power imbalances & conflicts

3. ALL SOCIETIES HAVE SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL ORDER & RESOLVE CONFLICTS • There is diversity in the way power is organized • POWER: Ability to make & enforce decisions • AUTHORITY: Legitimized ability to use power • Political Systems Depend On: • Group size, adaptive strategy, ecological conditions, resources, social stratification

4. I. DECENTRALIZED POLITICAL SYSTEMS • BANDS (20-60 people) • Hunters & gatherers • Informal political system, no formal authority • Egalitarian, generosity & kinship bonds even out power differences • Naturalistic world view • See selves as part of nature • Live in balance with nature

5. HEADMAN: situational leaders • Hunting success, control of supernatural (trance), coordinates group movements • Influence only during hunt • Comanche Peace Chief • “First Among Equals” • “One word from the headman and everyone does as he pleases” • No control over resources

6. Band Social Control • Gossip, ridicule, ostracism • Inuit Song Dual “Court of Public Opinion”

7. Decentralized Political Systems • TRIBES (1000 people) • Horticulture, pastoralism • Informal political system, no formal authority • Politically autonomous villages • May form alliances during conflict • Decision making based on group consensus • Mostly egalitarian, based on kinship relations

8. BIG MAN: Leadership is informal & temporary • Achieved status • Wields influence, not power • Persuasion, charismatic, eloquence in speech making • Generosity to gain support • Distribution creates obligations • Hosts feasts to gain prestige • Instability, competition • Fluctuating loyalties

9. Nuer Leopard Skin Chief(not a chief) • Arbitrates via supernatural powers • Offers sanctuary • Ritually cleanses murder • Must make blood payment (cattle)

10. Kwelka Big Man • Moka feast to create alliances • Redistribution of pigs • Polygyny • Wives raise sweet potatoes, pigs • Competes with other big men • Persuasion, speech making • Avenging of murder • Accusations of sorcery

11. II. CENTRALIZED POLITICALSYSTEMS • CHIEFDOM (10,000 people) • Horticulture with surplus, some pastoralists • Emergence of authoritarian leadership • Not egalitarian • Kinship relations, but ranked lineages

12. Hierarchy of ranked chiefdoms • May be a number of chiefs with subordination of lesser chiefs • Social distance between chief & commoners • Hereditary position • Authority is in the role • Legitimate power to demand labor & tribute

13. Ranked societies create inequalities • Surplus production, conspicuous consumption • Chief has power to distribute more goods • If demands are greater than ability to redistribute, rebellion may occur • Chiefdoms can break up

14. KPELLE (LIBERIA) ORDEAL • Political system maintains differential power relations • Town Chief & subordinate elders • Clan Chief • District Paramount Chief • Chiefs are prosperous farmers with cattle • Allow cattle to wander into rice fields of poor farmers

15. A poor farmer slashed the town chief’s cow with a machete & killed it • The Paramount Chief conducted an ORDEAL to supernaturally determine guilt • A hot knife was magically prepared • If it burns the suspects leg, he is guilty—the man confessed • Coercive authority gives power to defend the interests of privileged groups

16. Centralized Political System • STATE: (100,000–millions of people) • 1st State – Mesopotamia (Iraq) 5000 YA • Agricultural & industrial societies • States are not based on kinship— classes are present • Specialized institutions carry out political tasks—when the society is too large to govern via kinship groups

17. Presence of bureaucracy • Hierarchy of roles marked by different levels of authority • Single, centralized authority with legitimate power to coerce • King, dictator, president • Military force to back up authority

18. THEORIES OF WARFARE • Warfare is associated with horticultural, agricultural, industrial societies • Rare in hunting & gathering societies • Where commitment to land • Domestication fosters an exploitative world view • Nature is to be exploited, controlled

19. ROBERT CARNEIRO: GEOGRAPHICAL CIRCUMSCRIPTION • This is a significant condition for formation of the State • Domestication population increase, pressure on resources • Intensify production competition over land • Warfare dispossession from land

20. Conquerors may subjugate rather than annihilate the conquered • They will pay tribute • Mesopotamia, Egypt, Peru • Physical boundaries – mountains, desert, sea • Limits population expansion

21. NAPOLEON CHAGNON: SOCIAL CIRCUMSCRIPTION • Frequent movement of Yanomami villages, relocate gardens every 3 years • MICRO MOVEMENTS – extend gardens to adjacent areas • Remain in area 30-50 years • Not due to soil depletion or shifting horticulture

22. Micro Movements, over 8 years • New gardens added as extensions to older ones • Group A and A’ • A’ made new shabonos B & B’ when they extended their gardens • Group B’ moved across Orinoco to establish shabono C

23. MACRO MOVEMENTS • Frequent inter-village fighting • Once a death occurs, long-term warfare develops • Villages split, or move away from enemies

24. Macro Movements from the old garden & village

25. Long-term effects of Macro Movements over 125 years • 7 groups • Populations grow, fission into new areas • Dozen villages derived from the same original village

26. Peripheral villages – less warfare • Interior villages – more warfare • Interior villages have larger population, more complex organization • Unable to expand outward • Factions develop

27. There is a limit on the size of a group that can be organized cooperatively on the basis of kinship (50-200) • If the village splits, they flee to a friendly village and live with them until new gardens can be established • Need to optimize – make gardens as far from enemies as possible & as close to allies as possible • Alliances are a cultural adaptation • The more allies, the less likely a village will be raided

28. EVANS-PRITCHARD: SEGMENTARY LINEAGES • Warfare is a consequence of lack of political control over potentially warring parties • This is a political explanation • Tribal society lacks organization beyond clan & community, thus endemic, small-scale warfare exists

29. Segmentary Lineages • No leadership beyond the local groups • Equivalent units (segments) at each level • Mediation to settle disputes is within the lineage • “Warriors without rulers” – Warfare is common

30. Segmentary Opposition

31. KOCH: SELF-HELP CONFLICT MANAGEMENT • Warfare occurs in the absence of cross-cutting group affiliations • Cross-cutting loyalties inhibit conflict • Formation of local power groups • “CANNIBALISTIC REVENGE IN JALE WARFARE”– patrilineal, patrilocal • Men’s house aggregates men in one location • Segregation of men & women is characteristic

32. There is an absence of 3rd party institutions to arbitrate or mediate disputes • Segmentation into politically autonomous local groups leads to self-help conflict management • There will be socialization that fosters a propensity for violence

34. IS WARFARE UNIVERSAL? • Navajo: Matrilineal, no political organization beyond the local level • Coercion is deplored • No one has the right to impose decisions on others • Collective action is based on unanimous decision-making

35. Hopi: Each village is politically independent • SODALITIES = Pan-tribal organizations that unify dispersed groups • Dispute settlement is through kinship relations, not warfare • Ritual Societies • Kachina cult • Medicine societies

36. Each ceremony is owned by a single clan, but performed by all members • Participation cross-cuts clans: Kachinas Medicine Clan A Clan B Clan C Clan D