(See related pages)
|
|
|
Answer: Anthropologists interested in social and political organization have developed four broad categories that attempt to describe the strategies used in various human cultures, both modern and ancient. These categories are based on the observation that despite all of the variation present, certain combinations of social, political, and economic strategies frequently co-occur. For example, most mobile foragers organize their social and political lives around nuclear families and bands, small groups that are created when a few nuclear families come together. These band-organized societies don't permit people to accumulate wealth, they prize generosity, and they generally recognize that all members of the band have access to the same strategic resources. These organizational principles are effective because members of a band have well defined social relationships with each other based on kinship. Sometimes, it becomes necessary for societies to manage conflicts between people who are not related or who are more distantly related. Tribally organized societies have leaders (such as village heads or big men) who are able to do this. As one might expect, societies with a tribal form of sociopolitical organization typically have more people, and are less mobile, than bands. Answer: In Star Trek, when the crew of the "Enterprise" lands on a strange planet, their first request to the natives is usually some variant of "Take me to your leader." In a similar way, the first Europeans who arrived in the New World during the 16th and 17th centuries made the same request. This statement reflects their (and our) assumption that in any group there is a leadership office. But what anthropologists know—and the 16th and 17th century explorers found out—is that this statement can often lead to some confusion, because in the sociopolitical organization of some societies there are no formal leadership offices. Among bands and tribes, there may be influential individuals, such as village heads or so-called "big men," but these individuals do not hold formal offices. Any authority these individuals have comes from their power of persuasion and from leading by example, not from the authority of an office. During the 2000 Presidential election in the United States, there was great anxiety among the press and American citizens because there was a delay in determining the winner. Indeed, the press frequently called the one-month delay a "Constitutional Crisis." This anxiety stemmed from Americans' assumption that at all times there must be someone holding the office of President. Anthropologists know that such an assumption is not universal cross-culturally. Answer: Today all people live in the context of nation-states and are subject to state control. States are characterized by central governments that use population controls (establishing boundaries and citizenship categories, taking a census) and collect taxes from citizens in order to support permanent military and police forces, as well as a system of laws and judges. Social stratification—the creation of separate social strata that differ in their access to wealth, prestige, and power—is also characteristic of states. As ordinary as states might seem to most people today, they have existed for only about 5,500 years and have become widespread only in the last few centuries. Answer: In egalitarian societies, such as bands or tribes, status and access to resources are based on achieved as opposed to ascribed status. This means that access to strategic resources is shared among all members of the group. This is certainly not the case in Western nation-states, where society is stratified. Children of the wealthy or of important politicians enjoy greater access to resources such as wealth, prestige, and education than do average members of society. However, many modern states claim or strive to have an "egalitarian" ethos. In the United States, justice is supposedly "blind," and communist states try to achieve "egalitarianism" on a much grander scale. However, most anthropologists would argue that there is a large gap between the egalitarian nature of bands and tribes and the stated goals of some states. Bands, tribes, and states are fundamentally different types of societies. Bands and tribes are smaller societies whose members are linked by kinship and other strong social bonds. Modern states are characterized by much larger populations, and most interpersonal interactions occur between unrelated individuals. Under such conditions, it would be unlikely that truly equal, universal access to strategic resources could be implemented or achieved. |