The anthropological approach to political systems and organization
is global and comparative.
Power is the ability to exercise one's will over others, while authority
is the socially approved use of power.
What Is "the Political"?
Sociopolitical organization involves the regulation or management
of relations among groups and their representatives.
Political regulation includes such processes as decision making and
conflict resolution.
Types and Trends
Elman Service developed a typology with four kinds of sociopolitical
organization: band, tribe, chiefdom, and state.
Although there is archaeological evidence for early bands, tribes,
and chiefdoms that existed before the first states appeared, today
none of these polities can be studied as a self-contained form of
political organization, since all exist within the context of nation-states
and are subject to state control.
Bands are small kin-based groups found among foragers.
Tribes had economies based on non-intensive food production (horticulture
and pastoralism), lived in villages, were organized into kin groups
based on common descent (clans and lineages), and lacked a formal
government.
The chiefdom, a form of sociopolitical organization intermediate
between the tribe and the state, was kin-based like bands and tribes,
but characterized by a permanent political structure and differential
access to resources (some people had more wealth, prestige, and power
than others).
The state is characterized by formal government and socioeconomic
stratification.
Although Service's typology is too simple to account for the full
range of political diversity and complexity known to archaeologists and
ethnographers, it does highlight some significant contrasts in sociopolitical
organization, especially those between states and nonstates.
In bands and tribes—unlike states, which have clearly visible
governments—political organization was not separate and distinct
from the total social order.
Correlations
There are many correlations between economy and sociopolitical
organization.
Foragers tended to have band organization.
Horticulturalists and pastoralists tended to have tribal
organization.
Chiefdoms and nonindustrial states usually had agricultural
economies, although herding was important in some Middle Eastern
chiefdoms.
In general, food production was accompanied by larger, denser
populations and more complex economies, resulting in new regulatory
problems that in turn gave rise to more complex relations and linkages
(greater social and political complexity).
Bands and Tribes
The Forager Debate
In anthropology there is a debate between traditionalists and
revisionists concerning how much contemporary foragers—particularly
the San of the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa—can tell us
about the economic, social, and political relations that characterized
humanity before food production.
Traditionalists maintain that the San are an egalitarian,
autonomous, band-organized people who until recently were nomadic
or seminomadic, and therefore that they are representative of
the hunting-gathering way of life and of band organization.
In contrast, revisionists argue that the San tell us little
about the ancient world in which all humans were foragers, since
the San have been linked to food producers for generations, and
this contact has changed the basis of their culture.
In certain respects, both sides in the debate are correct: Although
modern foragers are not Stone Age relics, to the extent that foraging
is the basis of their subsistence, modern hunter-gatherers can illustrate
links between a foraging economy and other aspects of society and
culture.
Traditional Foraging Bands
Traditionally, foraging societies had two kinds of social groups:
the nuclear family and the band.
Bands were impermanent, forming seasonally when component
families got together, and the particular families that formed
a band varied from year to year.
Marriage, kinship, trade, and visiting created social ties
between members of different bands.
Foraging bands were fairly egalitarian, in that all differences
in status were achieved rather than ascribed.
Band leaders were "first among equals"—they could give
advice or make decisions but lacked a means of enforcing their decisions.
Although foragers lacked formal law, they did have methods of
social control and dispute settlement (e.g., song battles among the
Inuit).
Prestige is esteem, respect, or approval for culturally valued
acts or qualities.
Tribal Cultivators
Although there are no totally autonomous tribes today, there
are societies (e.g., in Papua New Guinea and South America) in which
tribal principles continue to operate.
Tribes usually have a horticultural or pastoral economy and are
organized by village life and/or membership in descent groups (kin
groups whose members trace descent from a common ancestor).
Socioeconomic stratification and formal government are not found
in tribes.
A few tribes still conduct small-scale warfare (intervillage
raiding).
The main regulatory officials—village heads, "big men,"
descent-group leaders, village councils, and leaders of pantribal
associations—have only limited authority, as they lack the means
of enforcing their decisions.
Like foragers, tribes are fairly egalitarian.
Some tribes have marked gender stratification—an unequal
distribution of resources, power, prestige, and personal freedom
between men and women.
Status in tribes is based on age, gender, and personal traits.
Horticulturalists tend to live in small villages with low population
density and open access to resources.
Egalitarianism tends to diminish as village size and population
density increase.
The Village Head
The Yanomami, who live in southern Venezuela and the adjacent
part of Brazil, are an example of a tribal society with a village
head.
The position of village head is achieved and comes with very
limited authority.
The village head cannot issue orders, nor can he force or
coerce people to do things.
Rather, the village head must lead by example; he can only
persuade, harangue, and try to influence people to do things.
The village head may act as a mediator in disputes, but he has
no authority to back his decision or impose punishments.
The village head must lead in generosity.
Because he must be more generous, the village head cultivates
more land than other villagers.
The village head represents the village in its dealings with
outsiders—for example, he may host feasts to which other
villages are invited.
In the last few decades, the Yanomami have suffered from violence
and disease as a result of encroachment by Brazilian miners and ranchers.
The "Big Man"
A big man was like a village head, except that he had supporters
in several villages (rather than just one, like a village head) and
thus was a regulator of regional political organization.
Big men were common in societies of the South Pacific, particularly
the Melanesian Islands and Papua New Guinea.
Among the Kapauku, the big man (tonowi) was the only political
figure.
The tonowi's position was achieved through the accumulation
of wealth, generosity, eloquence, bravery, physical fitness, and
supernatural powers.
Supporters of the tonowi accepted his decisions as binding.
The tonowi was an important regulator of regional events
(e.g., feasts and markets).
To become (and stay) a tribal leader, such as village head or
big man, a person must be generous with his supporters.
Tribal leaders must work hard to create a surplus to give
away.
By giving away their surpluses, tribal leaders convert their
wealth into prestige and gratitude.
Big men could forge regional political organization—albeit
temporarily—by mobilizing people from several villages.
Pantribal Sodalities and Age Grades
Sodalities are nonkin groups, often based on common age or gender,
that link local groups in tribal societies.
Pantribal sodalities—those that extend across the whole
tribe, spanning several villages—sometimes arose in areas where
two or more different cultures came into regular contact.
Pantribal sodalities were especially likely to develop in
the presence of intertribal warfare.
Since pantribal sodalities drew their members from several
villages, they were able to mobilize a large number of men for
attacks or retaliation against other tribes.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, pressure from European contact
created conditions that promoted the formation of pantribal sodalities
(e.g., age sets) among Native American societies of the North American
Great Plains.
Age sets are sodalities that include all of the men born during
a certain time span.
Age sets were common among tribes of the Great Plains, as
well as in eastern and southeastern Africa.
An age set is similar to a college class (e.g., the Class
of 2009).
Members of an age set progress together through a series
of age grades (e.g., initiated youth, warrior, adult, elder; or
the freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years in American
colleges and universities).
In societies with age grades but not age sets, people can
progress through the age grades either individually or collectively.
Secret societies are sodalities, made up exclusively of men or
women, that have secret initiation ceremonies.
Sodalities based on age, gender, and ritual can link members
of different local groups into a single social collectivity in tribal
society and thus create a sense of ethnic identity, of belonging to
the same cultural tradition.
Nomadic Politics
Various kinds of sociopolitical organization are found among
pastoralists.
As regulatory problems among pastoralists increase, political
organization becomes less personal, more formal, and less kinship-oriented.
Variability in sociopolitical organization among pastoralists
is illustrated by the Basseri and the Qashqai, two pastoral nomadic
tribes in Iran.
The Bassari leader (khan), because he dealt with a smaller
population, faced fewer problems in coordinating its movements
than did the leaders of the Qashqai.
The rights, privileges, duties, and authority of the Bassari
khan were weaker than those of Qashqai khans, and his authority
was derived from his personal traits rather than his office.
The Qashqai population was larger, and managing it required
a complex hierarchy including multiple levels of authority and
more powerful khans.
In Qashqai society, allegiance shifted from the person to
the office.
Chiefdoms
The chiefdom was a transitional form of sociopolitical organization
between tribes and states.
Chiefdom and state are ideal types—that is, they are labels
that make social contrasts seem sharper than they really are.
In reality, there is a continuum from tribe to chiefdom to state.
Some societies had many attributes of chiefdoms but retained
tribal features, while others had attributes of archaic states and
thus are difficult to assign to either category (some scholars refer
to such societies as "complex chiefdoms").
Political and Economic Systems in Chiefdoms
Chiefdoms developed in several parts of the world (e.g., circum-Caribbean,
lowland Amazonia, the southeastern United States, Polynesia, the megalithic
cultures of Europe).
In chiefdoms (as in bands and tribes), social relations are mainly
based on kinship, marriage, descent, age, generation, and gender.
Unlike bands and tribes, chiefdoms are characterized by permanent
political regulation of the territory they administer.
Regulation is carried out by the chief and his or her assistants,
who occupy political offices.
An office is a permanent position, which must be refilled
when it is vacated by death or retirement.
Because offices are refilled systematically, the structure
of a chiefdom endures across generations.
In Polynesian chiefdoms, chiefs regulated production, distribution,
and consumption.
In chiefly redistribution, products moved up the hierarchy to
a central office, and then were redistributed during feasts sponsored
by the chief (who thereby fulfilled the obligation to share with kin).
Chiefly redistribution made goods from different regions
available to the entire society.
Chiefly redistribution helped manage risk by stimulating
production of a surplus and providing a central storehouse for
goods that might become scarce during times of famine.
Social Status in Chiefdoms
In chiefdoms, social status was based on seniority of descent.
All of the people in a chiefdom were believed to have descended
from a group of common ancestors.
The chief had to demonstrate seniority in descent.
Even the lowest-ranking person in a chiefdom was related
to the chief.
In such a kin-based context, everyone, even a chief, had
to share with his or her relatives.
Chiefdoms were characterized by a continuum of social statuses,
rather than distinct social classes (elites and commoners).
Status Systems in Chiefdoms and States
The status systems of chiefdoms and states are based upon differential
access to resources—that is, some men and women have privileged
access to power, prestige, and wealth.
In chiefdoms, differential access was based on kinship, such
that people with privileged access were generally chiefs and their
nearest relatives and assistants.
Compared to chiefdoms, states are characterized by much clearer
class divisions (at least nobles and commoners).
In states, kinship ties do not extend from nobles to commoners
because of stratum endogamy—marriage within one's own group.
Stratum endogamy results in stratification, the creation
of separate social strata that differ in their access to wealth,
prestige, and power.
The presence of stratification is one of the key distinguishing
features of a state.
Max Weber defined three related dimensions of social stratification:
Economic status is based on wealth (a person's material assets).
Political status is based on power (the ability to exercise
one's will over others).
Social status is based on prestige (esteem, respect, or approval
for acts, deeds, or qualities considered exemplary).
In archaic states—for the first time in human evolution—there
were contrasts in wealth, power, and prestige between entire groups
(social strata) of men and women.
The superordinate (higher or elite) stratum had privileged
access to wealth, power, and other valued resources.
The subordinate (lower or underprivileged) stratum had limited
access to resources.
States
States have specialized units that perform specific tasks.
Population control: fixing of boundaries, establishment of citizenship
categories, and the taking of a census.
Judiciary: laws, legal procedure, and judges.
Enforcement: permanent military and police forces.
Fiscal: taxation.
In archaic states, these subsystems were integrated by a ruling
system or government composed of civil, military, and religious officials.
Population Control
To control their populations, states create administrative divisions
(e.g., provinces, districts, counties, subcounties, parishes) that
are managed by lower-level officials.
The importance of kinship is greatly reduced in the sociopolitical
organization of states.
States foster geographic mobility and resettlement, severing
longstanding ties among people, land, and kin.
States assign different rights and obligations to different social
groups—for example, citizens versus noncitizens; members of
different social classes (elites, commoners, and slaves); and soldiers
versus ordinary civilians.
Judiciary
States have laws, based on precedent and legislative proclamations,
which regulate relations between individuals and groups.
All states also have courts and judges to handle disputes and
crimes (violations of the legal code).
Unlike nonstates, states intervene in family affairs.
Despite states' attempts to curb internal conflict, the majority
of armed conflicts during the last half century began within states.
Enforcement
All states have agents to enforce judicial decisions.
State governments are concerned with preserving internal order
and guarding against external threats, as well as with defending hierarchy,
property, and the power of the law.
Fiscal Systems
A financial (or fiscal) system supports rulers, nobles, officials,
judges, military personnel, and other specialists in a state.
Of the resources collected by a state (e.g., via taxation), some
are redistributed to citizens while others (often more) are used to
support the government and the elite.
Common people in states usually must work harder than those in
nonstates.
Fiscal systems of archaic states helped to maintain and elaborate
class distinctions.
Box: Diwaniyas in Kuwait
When discussing political systems, it is important to think about
the informal political institutions that are not part of the governmental
apparatus, but which significantly influence it.
Diwaniyas in Kuwait are informal, local-level meeting places
where informal discussions can have formal consequences.
Much of Kuwait's decision making, networking, and influence peddling
takes place in diwaniyas.
Traditionally, diwaniyas are male-only political salons that function
like the local equivalent of a neighborhood pub and town-hall meeting
combined.
Important decisions—ranging from business to politics to
marriage—are made in diwaniyas.
Recently, some people have begun to host mixed (male and female)
diwaniyas.
