anthropology

 In what ways does moka and big-man differ from our society’s economic system and political organization? What functional similarities in political organization and economy can you draw between our society and the Kawelka tribe? How does moka and big-man demonstrate that political organization is intertwined with economic exchange? 

 https://youtu.be/6D8o0mHSKMk

watch this

Requirements:

• Use of AT LEAST FOUR weekly key terms (see above) in BOLD font. 
• Adequate length of at least 300 words minimum. (Try to keep it under 500 words.) 
• SPECIFIC examples from the assigned film in your response. Show me that you ACTUALLY watched the film!
• Connections to the lecture.
• At LEAST ONE specific reference to an example from the reading. Use a specific anthropological case study or example. The connection needs to be thoughtful. Do not just drop a quote from the reading out of no where as that will not get you full points. 
• Writing in YOUR OWN WORDS. If you use direct quotes, be sure to reference your source.
• In-depth and detailed writing. Remember that these are your weekly assessments. I want to see critical thinking and engagement demonstrated in your writing.

 

Be sure to include AT LEAST FOUR of these terms in your writing. 

• Political Organization
• Power
• Authority
• Egalitarian 
• Ranked
• Stratified
• Band
• Tribe
• Bigman
• Chiefdom

!”#

CHAPTER 9
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

C H A P T E R O U T L I N

E

Nationalism and Ethnic Confl ict: Turkey and the Armenians
Political Organization
! Power and Authorit

y

! Political Proces

s

Social Control and Confl ict Management
Types of Political Organization
! Band Societies
! Tribal Societies
! Chiefdoms
! State Societies
The Emergence of the Nation-State
! The Nation-State and Ethnicity
! The Nation-State and Indigenous Peoples
Bringing It Back Home: Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
! You Decide

As societies become more
complex, specialized posi-
tions of authority, such as
kings and chiefs, develop
as centers of power and
control, as in many states
of West Africa. The state
controls wealth, and
symbols of wealth sur-
round the Asante king to
enhance his authority.

©
M

ar
k

&
E

ve
ly

n
Be

rn
he

im
/W

oo
dfi

n
C

am
p

&

A

ss
oc

ia
te

s

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 20301530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 203 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!”$ C H A P T E R !

I
NATIONALISM AND ETHNIC
CONFLICT: TURKEY AND
THE ARMENIANS
N defending the Nazi extermination of the Jews during World War II,
Adolph Hitler said, “After all, who today speaks of the massacre of the
Armenians?” Who indeed! The massacre of the Armenians in Turkey—
and other ethnic minorities—during and after World War I, was related to
the attempts of the newly created Turkish state to foster Turkish nation-
alism by eliminating from the country large parts of its population who
were religiously and culturally di! erent from the Turkic-speaking, Muslim
majority. The old Ottoman Empire, like many empires, had no concept of
nationalism and treated its non-Muslim populations as inferiors. At the
same time, the empire enabled its Christian Greek and Armenian popula-
tions, as well as its Jews, to thrive, particularly in commerce. The empire’s
slow decline in the 19th century led to the rise of Turkish, Armenian, and
other nationalist movements. Although the Turkish revolutionaries were
initially allied with Armenian reformers in hoping to establish a modern,
multicultural Ottoman state, this movement soon broke down into a Turk-
ish national movement in which Armenians, as non-Turks, would have no
place. In 1908, when the “Young Turks” completed a political takeover,
the government began violent harassment of Armenians. With the begin-
ning of World War I, as the Russian armies were threatening Turkey, some
Armenian nationalists took up arms against the Turks. Turkish leaders de-
cided to deport the Armenians from the militarily threatened provinces
to the Syrian desert. Much cruelty accompanied this process: The Arme-
nians were beaten, robbed, raped, and deprived of food, water, and shelter.
Although the Turkish authorities organized these atrocities, many of the
participants were themselves members of non-Turkish minorities, such as
the Kurds and the Circassians.

Unless you are Turkish or Armenian, you may be wondering: Why
am I reading all this ancient history? The point is, it is not ancient history
but has repercussions in contemporary society, both internationally and na-
tionally. Turkish treatment of the Armenians is a subject of intense debate
today. How many Armenians were killed in the deportations? The ” gures
range from 800,000 to one and a half million, depending whether the source
is Turkish or Armenian. Was the Turkish treatment of the Armenians eth-
nic cleansing? Intentional massacre? Genocide? Were the Armenians in-
nocent victims of ethnic con# ict or was their treatment justi” ed by their
attempts to undermine the new Turkish state? Again, you may ask, who
cares? It happened one hundred years ago.

But again, people today care very much. The Armenians care be-
cause their history under the Turks is a source of great su! ering and

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 20401530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 204 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !”%

trauma that even now has not lost its power and ” gures centrally in Ar-
menian identity in the diaspora (Chelala 2009). Only recently, a Turkish
journalist was killed for refusing to let go of the subject, while some Turk-
ish writers and historians are challenging the decades-old Turkish denial
of this ethnic violence (Akcam 2006; Tavernise 2008). The Turks care,
because today Turkey is a modern nation with a strong interest in join-
ing the European Union and playing an important role in international
diplomacy. Many European nations, who characterize Turkish treatment
of the Armenians as genocide, will not vote for Turkish membership until
the Turks admit to their genocide and alter their constitutions so that
open discussion of the Armenian massacres is no longer “an insult to
Turkishness” (Tavernise 2008).

In the United States and other countries, politicians from districts
with large Armenian populations have introduced national resolutions,
calling the Turkish treatment of the Armenians a genocide and demanding
an apology. This has created tension between Turkey and its allies. And
in Turkey itself, the treatment of the Armenians has led to acrimonious
political debate. The secular parties that have dominated Turkey in the
20th century support repression of open conversations on the issue, while
the conservative, Islamic parties argue for an expansion of free speech (de
Ballaigue 2007).

This ongoing story of Turkey and the Armenians emphasizes a major
theme in this chapter: Political organization and political process can only
be understood in their speci” c cultural, historical, economic, and political
contexts. Political organization and the uses of power grow out of speci” c
situations and change as those situations change. The con# ict between
Turkey and the Armenians is but one of the many ethnic con# icts that have
assumed great importance with the rise of the nation-state in the 20th and
21st centuries.

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
Political organization is about how societies use power to address a

universal problem of human societies: how to maintain themselves over
time with a minimum of social disorder and social discontent. This means
that every society must make and implement decisions a! ecting the whole
society; provide a means of managing con# icts, dissent, and deviance;
and generally regulate behavior so that it is consistent with social order.
Political organization refers to the ways in which power is used in all so-
cieties so that they can maintain themselves collectively over time.

political organization The pat-
terned ways in which power is
legitimately used in a society to
regulate behavior, maintain social
order, make collective decisions,
and deal with social disorder.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 20501530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 205 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!”& C H A P T E R !

Power and Authority
Anthropologists examine the uses and sources of power and analyze

how political organization is related to other cultural patterns and social
institutions in a society. Power is the ability to exercise one’s will over oth-
ers. The source of power is ultimately based on the control of resources
that people need or desire.

Power di! ers from authority, which is the socially approved use of
power. Authority may be based on personal characteristics such as honor,
status, knowledge, ability, respect, and/or the holding of formal public of-
” ce. Political leaders have authority based on their occupation of public
o$ ce, but may also wield power through their control of resources and/or
control over the use of force or knowledge. Power can exist without author-
ity: An armed robber certainly has power, but is denied authority.

The shared values and beliefs that legitimate the distribution and
uses of power and authority in a particular society are called its political
ideology. A political ideology may be widely, though not universally,
shared throughout a society. The sources of power may be coercive (based
on force or the threat of force) or consensual, or more likely, both. One dif-
ference among types of political organization is the degree to which they
rely on coercion or consensus to achieve social order.

Political Process
Political process refers to how groups and individuals use power and

authority to achieve various public goals—for example, building a road
or increasing a society’s goods through trade—that may bene” t the larger
society, or may bene” t only smaller groups or individuals. Decisions and
activities by groups and individuals may be motivated by material pro” t,
prestige, altruism, survival, or any combination of these, but are usually
justi” ed by reference to the public good.

Formal political institutions and informal systems of alliance are both
sources of power and authority. In many West African societies, for ex-
ample, both men and women exercise power through their membership in
secret societies, while power in many societies is wielded through kinship
groups or religious institutions. The study of political process emphasizes
how power changes hands and how new kinds of political organization and
ideologies develop. Di! erent kinds of power and authority may be used to
stabilize a social order, avoid or resolve con# icts, and promote the general
welfare, but they may also contest prevailing political ideologies and change
or even destroy existing political systems. Groups or factions, informal
alliances within a group or society, as well as governments, use diverse
means to gain their ends. These may include violence and terror as well as

power The ability to impose
one’s will on others.

authority The ability to cause oth-
ers to act based on characteristics
such as honor, status, knowledge,
ability, respect, or the holding of
formal public o” ce.

political ideology The shared
beliefs and values that legitimize
the distribution and use of power
in a particular society.

political process The ways in
which individuals and groups use
power to achieve public goals.

factions Informal alliances within
well-defi ned political units such as
lineages, villages, or organizations.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 20601530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 206 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !”‘

behind-the-scenes manipulation, peaceful protest, the ballot box, and politi-
cal lobbying, and even such a seemingly mundane activity as gossip.

Rebellion, which is the attempt of one group to reallocate power and
resources within an existing political structure, and revolution, which is an
attempt to overthrow the existing political structure and put another type
of political structure in its place, are both examples of political process.
The 2005 riots of Africans and Arabs in France are referred to as a rebel-
lion; their participants were not seeking to overthrow the French society
but to gain a larger presence in it. Rebellion and revolution are sometimes
related: the American Revolution, for example, started out as a rebellion
but ended up as a revolution.

SOCIAL CONTROL
AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Because all societies contain con# ict, they must also manage con# ict

and persuade individuals to conform to (at least most of) society’s norms to
maintain themselves. In small-scale societies, organized through kinship,
conformity mainly results from the internalization of norms and values as
part of the enculturation process, and from many informal processes and
sanctions. Internalization of norms also regulates behavior in complex, so-
cially strati” ed state societies, but the control of the state over many social

rebellion The attempt of a group
within society to force a redistri-
bution of resources and power.

revolution An attempt to
overthrow the existing political
structure and put another type of
political structure in its place.

©
D

ia
ne

G
re

en
e

Le
nt

Political processes are the
ways in which di# erent, often
confl icting groups in society
mobilize to achieve their goals.
This peaceful protest is directed
against the American invasion
of Iraq.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 20701530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 207 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!”( C H A P T E R !

institutions and regulatory processes, including the mobilization of force,
also becomes very important.

Deviants, or those who transgress society’s rules, are handled dif-
ferently in di! erent types of societies. In small-scale societies, informal
mechanisms of social interaction, such as ridicule, avoidance, or gossip,
are e! ective means of social control because most people value the esteem
of (at least some) others and because marginalized people may also be
restricted from access to resources. In writing about the importance of gos-
sip in the small central Paci” c atoll of Nukulaelae, anthropologist Niko
Besnier (2009) suggests that gossip, although di$ cult to de” ne, is probably
universal and plays an important role in studying political action beyond
the structured political institutions of parliaments, bureaucracies, street
protests, and other formal contexts (see Chapter l4).

Informal sanctions, such as gossip, avoidance, and ridicule, may also
be e! ective in industrialized societies in long-term forms of associations
such as housing developments, the workplace, or local voluntary associa-
tions (Merry l981). Fear of witchcraft accusations or other supernatural in-
terventions are other e! ective social control mechanisms (Evans-Pritchard
1958; Lemert 1997; Seitlyn 1993). These are often directed at people who
stand above the group, are malicious, have a nasty temper, or refuse to share
according to group norms. Avoidance works in small-scale groups and so-
cieties because, where cooperative action is necessary, a person shunned by
others is at a great psychological and economic disadvantage.

Law refers to the systematic application of force by a constituted
authority in society (S. Moore 1978:220). Law is applied when a social
norm is so important that its violation authorizes the community, or some
part of it, to punish an o! ender, resolve a con# ict, or redress a wrong.
In every society, some o! enses are considered so disruptive that force
or the threat of force is applied. In this sense, law is universal, although
in small-scale societies it is most often embedded in other social institu-
tions, such as the kinship system or religion, and is most often directed
at maintaining existing social relationships. In more complex, strati” ed
societies, law’s functions belong to separate legal institutions, such as a
police force, courts, or a prison system. Punishment is aimed at asserting
society’s control over an individual, rather than repairing damaged social
relationships.

TYPES OF POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
Societies vary in their systems of political organization, which is

related to a society’s social complexity. Social complexity refers to the
degree to which political roles, institutions, and processes are centralized

deviants Those who transgress
society’s rules.

gossip A generally negative and
morally laden verbal exchange
taking place in a private setting
concerning the conduct of absent
third parties.

law A means of social control and
dispute management through the
systematic application of force by
a politically constituted authority.

social complexity The number
of groups and their interrelation-
ships in a society.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 20801530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 208 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !”)

and di! erentiated from other aspects of social organization or embedded
within other social institutions. Anthropologists have identi” ed four main
types of societies: the band, tribe, chiefdom, and state. Each of these types
of societies is associated with a characteristic way in which people make
a living, their dominant principle of economic exchange (see Chapter 6),
their characteristic forms of leadership and social control, and di! erent
systems of social di! erentiation (Service 1962). In smaller-scale nonindus-
trial societies such as bands, tribes, and chiefdoms, the uses of power and
authority, decision making, and the coordination and regulation of human
behavior are highly integrated. In these societies, power and authority do
not operate independently but are embedded in other social institutions such
as kinship, economics, and religion. In many of these societies, leadership,
the ability to direct an enterprise, may be a function of political o$ ce or
an individual’s authority. On the other hand, it may also be based on an
individual’s position as the head of a kinship group, on supernatural con-
nections and interventions, or on control over the production and distribu-
tion of goods.

Social di! erentiation, another way to characterize these types of so-
cieties, refers to the relative access individuals and groups have to basic ma-
terial resources, wealth, power, and prestige. Anthropologists de” ne three
ideal types of social di! erentiation: egalitarian societies, rank socie ties, and
strati” ed societies. In an egalitarian society, individual di! erences, such as
age and gender distinctions, are recognized, but no individual or group is
barred from access to material resources or has power over others. There
are no rules of inheritance by which some individuals accumulate material
goods or prestige passed down over generations. Unlike egalita rian socie-
ties, a rank society recognizes formal di! erences among individuals and
groups in prestige and symbolic resources, and these may be passed on
through inheritance. However, there are no important restrictions on ac-
cess to basic resources. All individuals can obtain the material necessities
for survival through their membership in kinship groups.

In a strati” ed society, there are formal and permanent social and
economic inequalities. Wealth, prestige, and o$ ce are frequently passed
down over generations, establishing relatively permanent elites. Elites
are those who have maximum access to all culturally valued resources,
whether power, wealth, or prestige, and possessively protect their control
over these resources. In strati” ed societies, some individuals and groups
are also systemically denied access to the basic material resources needed
to survive. Thus, strati” ed societies are characterized by permanent and
wide di! erences among groups and individuals in their standard of living,
security, prestige, political power, and the opportunity to ful” ll their poten-
tial. Contemporary industrialized nations, such as the United States, are
all strati” ed societies.

leadership The ability to direct
an enterprise or action.

social di! erentiation The relative
access individuals and groups have
to basic material resources, wealth,
power, and prestige.

egalitarian society A society
in which no individual or group
has more privileged access to
resources, power, or prestige than
any other.

rank society A society character-
ized by institutionalized di# er-
ences in prestige but no important
restrictions on access to basic
resources.

stratifi ed society A society char-
acterized by formal, permanent
social and economic inequality in
which some people are denied
access to basic resources.

elites The social strata that has
di# erential access to all culturally
valued resources, whether power,
wealth, or prestige, and posses-
sively protects its control over
these resources.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 20901530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 209 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!*” C H A P T E R !

Although political organization, social di! erentiation, and social
complexity can be analyzed separately, in reality these intersect with one
another in signi” cant ways. Within each type of society, history, geogra-
phy, culture, and other factors lead to cross-cultural diversity. Although
many anthropologists reject any evolutionary implications of this typol-
ogy (the idea that societies develop from simpler bands to more complex
states), the typology is useful in grasping some of the varieties of political
organization.

Band Societies
A band is a small group of people (usually 20 to 50) belonging to

extended families who live together and are loosely associated to a terri-
tory in which they make a living. Foragers are primarily organized into
bands, which tend to be egalitarian and mainly use generalized or balanced
reciprocity as mechanisms of exchange (see pp. 135–137). Band societies
have minimal role specialization and few di! erences of wealth, prestige, or
power. Bands are fairly independent of one another, with few higher levels
of social integration or centralized mechanisms of leadership. Bands tend
to be exogamous, with ties between them established mainly by marriage.
Bilateral kinship systems link individuals to many di! erent bands through
ties of blood and marriage. Trading relations also link individuals to other
band members. Membership in bands is # exible, and people may change
their residence from one band to another fairly easily. The # exibility of
band organization is particularly adaptive for a foraging way of life and
low population density.

Band societies have no formal leadership; decision making is by con-
sensus. Leaders in foraging bands are usually older men and women whose
experience, knowledge of group traditions, special skills or success in for-
aging, and generosity are a source of prestige. Leaders cannot enforce their
decisions; they can only persuade and attract others to their leadership on
the basis of past performance. Thus, among some Inuit, the local leader is
called “The One to Whom All Listen,” “He Who Thinks,” or “He Who
Knows Everything Best.”

Social order in band societies is primarily maintained informally
through gossip, ridicule, and avoidance, or in some cases, as among the
Inuit, supernatural interventions and sanctions, such as public confession
directed by a shaman (Balikci 1970). This practice leads to an interesting ex-
ample of culture clash: When Inuit people go before American courts, they
may freely admit guilt, but this is contrary to what is required (and what
lawyers advise their clients) in the adversary legal system of the United
States. In Inuit bands, disputes are sometimes resolved through public con-
tests that involve physical action, such as head butting or boxing, or verbal

band A small group of people
related by blood or marriage, who
live together and are loosely
associated with a territory in
which they forage.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21001530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 210 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !**

contests like song duels, where the weapons are words—“little, sharp words
like the wooden splinters which I hack o! with my ax” (Hoebel 1974:93).
These traditional and highly esteemed means of resolving con# ict are now
publicly performed as part of the annual World Eskimo-Indian Olympic
Games held in Alaska and connected in the minds of their participants to
the survival of Inuit culture (personal communication).

Individual violence, such as the frequent ” ghts over women among
the Ju’hoansi hunters of the Kalahari Desert in Africa, does occur in band
societies, but because of the low level of technology, lack of formal lead-
ership, and other ecological factors, warfare is largely absent. Bands have
no formal organization or production for war, and no warriors and no
cultural or social support for sustained armed con# ict (Lee 2003). When
con# ict gets too disruptive, bands may break up into smaller units, which
separates people in extended con# ict and prevents prolonged hostilities
(Turnbull 1968).

Tribal Societies
A tribe is a culturally distinct population whose members think of

themselves as descended from the same ancestor or as part of the same
“people.” Tribes are mainly found among pastoralists and horticultural-
ists. Tribes tend to be egalitarian and exchange goods through reciprocity
and redistribution (see pp. 135–140). Like bands, most tribes do not have
distinct or centralized political institutions or roles, and power and social
control are embedded in other institutions, such as kinship or religion.

Tribes are usually organized into unilineal kin groups (see p. 168), who
“own” the basic economic resources and are the units of political activity.
These large unilineal kin groups are consistent with the larger populations in
horticultural and pastoral societies, compared to foraging band societies.

The e! ective political unit in tribal societies is a shifting one. Most of
the time, the local units of a tribe operate independently; in some societies,
the local units may be in a state of ongoing violent con# ict among them-
selves. A higher-level unity among tribal segments most often occurs in
response to the threat of attack from another society or the opportunity to
attack another society, as among the Nuer of East Africa, where lineages at
di! erent levels (from minimal to maximal) will join one another to attack a
common enemy (see p. 169) (Evans-Pritchard 1968/1940). This coalescing
of lineages directs the energies of the society away from competition be-
tween close kin to an outside enemy. This kind of tribal integration works
particularly well when stronger tribes want to expand into nearby territo-
ries held by weaker tribes.

Other types of groups that help integrate tribal societies beyond kin-
ship are age sets and age grades, groups organized on the basis of age,

age set A group of people of
similar age and sex who move
through some or all of life’s stages
together.

age grades Specialized associa-
tions, based on age, that stratify a
society by seniority.

tribe A culturally distinct popula-
tion whose members consider
themselves descended from the
same ancestor.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21101530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 211 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!*! C H A P T E R !

who move through some or all of life’s stages together in an organized
progression. Age sets are mainly male, and have political and military func-
tions. Because their members come from di! erent kinship groups, they are
an important basis for wider social integration throughout a tribal society.
Other kinds of associations, such as the military societies among some
Plains Indian tribes in North America, and the secret societies, such as
the Poro male society and Sande female society found in West Africa, also
help integrate tribal societies (Sahlins 1961).

Tribal societies have leaders but no centralized government and few
positions of authority. In Melanesia and New Guinea, a characteristic form
of leadership is the bigman—a self-made leader who gains power and au-
thority through personal achievements rather than through holding o$ ce.
A bigman starts out as the leader of a small, localized kin group. He builds
up his capital, mainly in the form of pigs, and attracts followers through
generous loans, sponsoring feasts, purchasing high ranks in secret societies,
helping his military allies, paying bridewealth for young men seeking wives,

and other initiatives. These actions increase his repu-
tation and put other people under obligation to him,
thus further extending his alliances and in# uence.

As a form of tribal leadership above the local
level, the bigman is a fragile mechanism of tribal
integration because it does not create a permanent
o$ ce but rather depends on the personality and
constant striving of an individual. Bigmen rise and
fall, and with their deaths their support disperses.
Bigmen are vulnerable because they must spur their
local group on to ever-greater production if they are
to hold their own against other bigmen in the tribe.
To maintain prestige, a bigman must give his com-
petitors more than they can give him. Excessive giv-
ing to competitors means the bigman must begin to
withhold gifts to his followers. The resulting discon-
tent may lead to defection among his followers, or
even murder of the bigman. As bigman status can-
not be inherited, each aspiring bigman must begin
anew to amass the wealth and forge the internal and
external social relationships on which bigman status
depends (Sahlins 1971).

Tribes have a variety of (mainly) informal and
some formal mechanisms for controlling deviant
behavior and settling con# icts. Compensation—a
payment demanded by an aggrieved party to com-
pensate for damage—is important in New Guinea,

secret societies West African
societies whose membership is
secret or whose rituals are known
only to society members. Their
most signifi cant function is the
initiation of boys and girls into
adulthood.

bigman A self-made leader who
gains power through personal
achievements rather than through
political o” ce.

compensation A payment de-
manded by an aggrieved party to
compensate for damage.

©
Ir

ve
n

De
Vo

re
/A

nt
hr

oP
ho

to
, I

nc
.

The bigman is an informal leader in many Melanesian
cultures. Much of his infl uence is based on his ability
to distribute resources, of which pigs are the most
important.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21201530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 212 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !*#

among other places. The amount of compensation is based on the sever-
ity of the act that precipitated the dispute, and the individual’s kin group
shares in the payment. Payment of compensation implies acceptance of
responsibility by the donors, and acceptance of compensation implies a
willingness to terminate the dispute by the recipients (Scaglion 1981). De-
mands for excessive compensation, however, may not resolve con# icts, but
rather become the basis for further disputes (Ottley and Zorn 1983).

Mediation, a common form of tribal con# ict management, is par-
ticularly e! ective between parties with ongoing social relationships. Me-
diation aims to resolve disputes through consensus rather than adversarial
interactions, so that the prior social relationship between the disputants is
maintained and harmony is restored to the social order. Mediation involves
a third party, either a go-between or even the whole community, to resolve
con# ict between the disputants. Through the work of anthropologist James
Gibbs (l988), the mediation of the Kpelle of West Africa became widely
known and served as a model for the emerging mediation movement in the
United States (Fry and Bjorkqvist 1997).

Warfare in Tribal Societies

Despite the wide variety of nonviolent methods of con# ict resolu-
tion, tribal societies seem prone to a high degree of warfare. Anthropolo-
gists have suggested that in the absence of strong mechanisms for tribal
integration through peaceful means and the absence of strong motivations
to produce food beyond immediate needs, warfare may regulate the balance
between population and resources in tribal societies. With slash-and-burn
horticulture, for example, it is much harder to clear forest for cultivation
than to work land that has already been used. Thus, a local group may
prefer to take land from other groups, by force if necessary, rather than
expand into virgin forest (Vayda 1976). Tribal warfare may also be linked
to patrilineality and patrilocality, which promote male solidarity, enabling
the use of force in resolving both local con# icts and warfare carried out
over long distances, as occurred among the Iroquois (Ember and Ember
1971). Although anthropologists may not agree about the speci” c causes
of warfare, they do generally agree that warfare is grounded in historical,
material, cultural, social, and ecological conditions, and not in any biologi-
cally based human instinct for aggression.

The Yanomamo of the Amazon areas of Venezuela and Brazil experi-
ence high degrees of both warfare and personal violence. This violence is
directed by men against women, occurs among men within the same village,
and takes the form of warfare between villages (Chagnon 1997). Anthro-
pologist Napoleon Chagnon explains ongoing Yanomamo warfare and their
military ideology as a way of preserving village autonomy. The high degree
of violent con# ict between men within villages leads to the division of villages

warfare (war) A formally
organized and culturally
recognized pattern of collective
violence directed toward other
societies, or between segments
within a larger society.

mediation A form of managing
disputes that uses the o” ces of a
third party to achieve voluntary
agreement between the disputing
parties.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21301530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 213 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!*$ C H A P T E R !

into hostile camps. To survive as an independent unit in an environment
of constant warfare, a village adopts a hostile and aggressive stance toward
other villages, perpetuating intervillage warfare in an endless cycle.

William Divale and Marvin Harris (l976) challenge Chagnon’s expla-
nation of Yanomamo violence, arguing that tribal warfare in horticultural
societies like the Yanomamo regulates population—not by causing deaths in
battles, but indirectly through female infanticide. In societies with constant
warfare, there is a cultural preference for ” erce and aggressive males who
can become warriors. Because male children are preferred over females, fe-
male infants are often killed. The shortage of women that results from female
infanticide among the Yanomamo provides a strong conscious motivation
for warfare—when asked, the Yanomamo say they ” ght for women, not for
land—and a continuing “reason” to keep ” ghting among themselves. In a
Yanomamo raid on another village, as many women as possible are captured.

Yanomamo warfare may also have resulted from European contact.
Anthropologist Brian Ferguson (1992) notes that the extreme Yanomamo
violence documented by Napoleon Chagnon in the 1960s was precipitated
in the 1940s, as a result of severe depopulation due to European disease
epidemics, fatal malnutrition, and intensi” ed competition over European
goods. The high death rate led to disruption of Yanomamo family life, and
negotiating marriages became particularly di$ cult due to the deaths of
adult males. In addition, the Yanomamo desire for European manufactured
goods—particularly metal machetes, axes, and knives, which are very useful
for horticulturalists—increased competition among Yanomamo males, and
” rearms substantially increased the number of fatalities in warfare. Whereas
previously such goods were traded into even remote Yanomamo villages, by
the 1960s, the desire to acquire these goods led to the increasing settlement
of Yanomamo around European outposts such as missionary stations. This
led to the depletion of game, a highly desired food for Yanomamo cultiva-
tors who were also hunters. With the depletion of game, cultural norms of
reciprocity broke down, meat was less likely to be shared, and con# ict within
villages increased. This, in turn, led to enmity between villages. The increas-
ing intervillage warfare reinforced the low status of Yanomamo women and
helped further male violence against them, perpetuating the cycle of female
infanticide, shortage of women, and raids for women described by Divale
and Harris as well as Chagnon. Thus, historical factors complement other
explanations of Yanomamo “” erceness” and indeed raise the question
about how ” erce the Yanomamo actually are.

Chiefdoms
Although there is a great diversity among chiefdoms (Earle l987), a

chiefdom may be de” ned as “an autonomous political unit comprising a

Atlantic
OceanP

a
ci

fi
c

O
ce

a
n

VENEZUELA

BOLIVIA

PARAGUAY

ARGENTINA

PERU

CO
LO

M
BI

A

URUGUAY

GUYANA

SURINAME

FRENCH
GUIANA

Yanomamo

BRAZIL

CH
IL

E

The Yanomamo.

chiefdom A society with social
ranking in which political integra-
tion is achieved through an o” ce
of centralized leadership called
the chief.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21401530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 214 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !*%

number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a para-
mount chief ” (Carneiro 1981:45). Two main characteristics distinguish
chiefdoms from tribes. First, unlike tribes, in which all social segments are
structurally and functionally similar, chiefdoms are made up of social parts
that are structurally and functionally di! erent from one another. Chief-
doms have been called the ” rst step in integrating villages as units within a
multicommunity political organization (Carneiro 1981).

Second, chiefdoms have centralized leadership. Chiefdoms vary
greatly in their social complexity (Peoples 1990), ranging from simpler
tribal structures to those with elaborate systems of social strati” cation and
large settlements that function as administrative centers, surrounded by
smaller villages. Each geographical unit within a chiefdom may also have
its own chief or council.

Chiefdoms, like tribes, are organized through kinship ties. However,
although tribes tend to be acephalous, that is, without centralized govern-
ment, chiefdoms have centralized leadership vested in the political o$ ce
of the chief. Chiefs are born to the o$ ce and often are sustained in it by
religious authority and genealogical records.

Rank societies are normally based on highly productive horticulture
or pastoralism (highly productive foragers such as the Kwakiutl and other
foraging groups on the Northwest Coast of North America are exceptions),
both of which permit su$ cient accumulation of food so that chiefs can ap-
propriate a surplus and redistribute throughout the society. Redistribution
is the characteristic mode of exchange in rank societies, though balanced
reciprocity is also important.

Anthropologists generally agree that the rise of a centralized govern-
ing center (that is, a chief with political authority) is related to redistribu-
tive exchange and the ability to deploy labor. Goods are appropriated by
the chief and then redistributed to the rest of society in feasts and rituals.
Although this redistribution is a primary support of the chief ’s power and
prestige, chiefs may also control their communities by coercion or despo-
tism (Earle l987). Internal violence within chiefdoms is lower than in tribes
because the chief has authority to make judgments, punish deviant indi-
viduals, and resolve disputes.

Complex chiefdoms are characteristic of Polynesia. In Tahiti, society
was divided into the Ariki, the immediate families of the chiefs of the most
important lineages in the larger districts; the Raatira, who were the heads
of less important lineages and their families; and the Manahune, or the
remainder of the population. Social rank in Tahiti had economic, political,
and religious aspects. Mana, a spiritual power, was possessed by all people,
but in di! erent degrees depending on rank (see Chapter 11, p. 263). The
Ariki had the most mana because they were closest to the ancestral gods
from which mana comes. An elaborate body of taboos separated those

acephalous Lacking a government
head or chief.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21501530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 215 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!*& C H A P T E R !

with more mana from those with less and also regulated social relations
among the three ranks. Higher-ranked people could not eat with those of
lower rank, and because men had higher rank than women and children,
they could not eat with them. The highest-ranking Ariki was so sacred that
anything he touched became poison for those below him. In some Polyne-
sian islands, the highest chief was kept completely away from other people
and even used a special vocabulary that no one else was allowed to use.

Although a chief ’s authority is backed by his control of symbolic,
supernatural, administrative, economic, and military power, violent com-
petition for the o$ ce of chief does sometimes occur. Chiefdoms may also
be rendered unstable if the burdens the chief imposes on the people greatly
exceed the services they receive from him. Chiefs generally suppress any at-
tempt at rebellion or threats from competitors and deal harshly with those
who try to take their power. To emphasize the importance of this o$ ce for
the society, o! enses against a chief are often punished by death.

State Societies
A state is a hierarchical (socially strati” ed), centralized form of polit-

ical organization in which a central government has a legal monopoly over
the use of force. Generally speaking, states are based on agriculture and in-
dustrialism, but some are also based on horticulture. In states, citizenship
rather than kinship regulates social relations between the di! erent social
strata and de” nes a person’s rights and duties. Units based on territory are
central to state organization, and individuals belong to states through vir-
tue of being born in a speci” c locale (or of parents from that locale). The
state can incorporate a variety of political units, classes, and ethnic groups
without disintegrating, making them more populous, heterogeneous, and
powerful than any other kind of political organization.

States are characterized by government: an interrelated set of sta-
tus roles that become separate from other aspects of social organization,
such as kinship. Bureaucracy, an administrative hierarchy characterized
by specialization of function and ” xed rules, is essential to the function-
ing of government. The administrative divisions of a state are territorial
units—cities, districts, and so on. Each unit has its own government speci” –
cally concerned with making and enforcing public policy, although these
governments are not independent of the central government.

State organization helps maintain a society in many ways. Through
taxation, for example, the state redistributes wealth and can stimulate or
discourage various sorts of production. It can order people to work on
roads and buildings and to serve in armies, thus a! ecting the workforce
available for other occupations. The state protects the exchange and dis-
tribution of goods by making travel safe for traders as they move from

state A hierarchical, centralized
form of political organization in
which a central government has a
legal monopoly over the use of force.

citizenship Those people invested
by the state with rights and duties,
based on criteria such as residence
or other group a” liations.

government An interrelated set of
status roles that become separate
from other aspects of social organi-
zation, such as kinship, in exercising
control over a population.

bureaucracy Administrative hier-
archy characterized by specializa-
tion of function and fi xed rules.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21601530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 216 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !*’

one place to another and by keeping peace in the marketplace. The many
economic, coordinating, and controlling functions of states, in peace and
war, require extensive record keeping, and gave rise to writing and systems
of weights and measures. In some states, cities arose as administrative,
religious, and economic centers. These centers then stimulated important
cultural achievements in science, art, architecture, and philosophy.

A key characteristic of state societies is the government’s monopoly
over the use of force. Most modern states use a code of law to make clear
how and when force will be used and to forbid individuals or groups to use
force except under its authorization. Laws (usually written) are passed by
authorized legislative bodies and enforced by formal and specialized institu-
tions. Courts and police forces, for example, have the authority to impose all
kinds of punishments on deviants: ” nes, con” scation of property, impris-
onment, and even death. In practice, a ruler in an authoritarian state may
“become the law,” implementing and enforcing those laws that suit his or
her own purposes.

States frequently engage in warfare that both increases and centralizes
their power. In warfare, states may attempt to regulate daily life and inter-
nal con# ict and take control over information and channels of communi-
cation. This strengthens both the war e! ort and the power of the state.

Anthropologists explain the origin of the state, one of humankind’s
most signi” cant cultural achievements, in a variety of ways. States evolve
in di! erent ways in di! erent historical and ecological circumstances, as so-
cieties respond to internal and external situations. They may change some
of their internal structures, subdue a competing group, or through trade,
for example, establish their dominance in a region. These initial shifts set
o! a chain reaction that may eventually lead to state formation.

Anthropologist Robert Carneiro (l970) emphasizes ecological fac-
tors in the emergence of the Inca Empire. In this area, independent, dis-
persed farming villages were con” ned to narrow valleys bounded by the
sea, the desert, or mountains. As the population grew, villages split and
populations dispersed until all the available land was used up. At this
point, more intensive methods of agriculture were applied to land al-
ready being farmed, and previously unusable land was brought under cul-
tivation by terracing and irrigation. As population continued to increase,
pressure for land intensi” ed, resulting in war. Because of the constraints
of the environment, villages that lost wars had nowhere to go. To remain
on their land, they had to accept a politically subordinate role. As more
villages were defeated, the political organization of the area became
more complex, and chiefdoms developed. The warring units were now
larger, and as conquest of larger areas continued, centralization of au-
thority increased. Finally, the entire area was brought under the control
of one chief. The next step was the conquest of weaker valley chiefdoms

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21701530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 217 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!*( C H A P T E R !

by stronger ones until powerful empires emerged, most notably that of
the Inca.

Anthropologist Keith Otterbein (2010), in his studies of primary
states in Mesopotamia, China, Mexico, and Peru, concludes that, after sev-
eral periods of internal peace, these states emerged out of violent rivalry
between kinship groups, and the “winners become the rulers,” leading to
early state formation. The rulers controlled the population by repressive
sanction and waged war through their control of elite military organiza-
tions. In the next phase of state development, repression and war decline;
mature states do not wage war against each other but may wage defensive
war against other, early state aggressors.

The State and Social Strati” cation

The productivity of intensive cultivation enables a state’s govern-
ment to appropriate an economic surplus through taxation. This surplus
supports the development of cities, economic and occupational special-
ization, and extensive trade. As specialized, non-food-producing elites
emerge, economic and social inequalities become a key element in so-
cial structure. In state societies, unlike most chiefdoms, only a part of
the surplus goes back to the people directly. The rest is used to support the
activities of the state itself such as maintaining administrative bureaucra-
cies; sustaining standing armies, artists, and a priesthood; and supporting
the ruling class in a luxurious lifestyle that di! ers substantially from that
of ordinary people.

In state societies, elites are almost always a numerical minority, so the
question arises: How do they manage to dominate? One means is through
hegemony (Gramsci l971), a process whereby the state achieves dominance
through promoting the internalization of elite values by ordinary people
in the larger society. As Karl Marx said, “The ideas of the ruling class
are . . . the ruling ideas” (in Durrenberger and Doukas 2008:214). While
serving elite interests, hegemonic cultural ideologies explain the existing
social order as being in the interest of the greater good. For example, the
American cultural ideology of the individual as responsible for his or her
own economic failure or success is an example of how hegemony con-
tributes to the continued dominance of elites by repressing the corporate
interest underlying our political and economic system (Durrenberger and
Doukas 2008:214).

Hegemony, however, must be constantly reinforced. Elite interests
cannot count on permanent stability as the inequalities inherent in state
societies continually pose substantial challenges to the status quo. Politi-
cal and economic elites are thus constantly alert to ward o! threats to
depose the government, outbreaks of violence that might result in civil
war, or the disruption of the privileges of vested interests. As we see later,

hegemony The (usually elite)
construction of ideologies, beliefs,
and values that attempt to justify
the stratifi cation system in a state
society.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21801530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 218 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !*)

elites use various economic, political, and symbolic means to ensure their
continued control. To the extent that elites maintain hegemonic domi-
nance and reasonably e! ective protection of some basic economic and
political rights, the constant use of force is not necessary. It is always
there in the background, however, as a potential instrument of social
control (Nagengast 1994:116).

Anthropological theories of the rise of the state tend to emphasize
either con# ict (Fried 1967) or integration (Service 1971). Integration theo-
ries emphasize the bene” ts of the state to its members: its ability to pro-
vide stability for growth and technological development, protection of the
rights of its citizens, e! ective mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of
disputes, protection of trade and ” nancial arrangements, defense against
external enemies, and the ability to expand. Con# ict theories emphasize
the emergence of the state as centrally related to protecting the power and
privileges of an elite class through management of political ideology
and force, when necessary.

THE EMERGENCE
OF THE NATION-STATE
Although an empire is a state that expands to incorporate a wide vari-

ety of ethnic groups and cultures, a nation-state is a government and terri-
tory that is identi” ed with (relatively) culturally homogeneous populations
and national histories. A nation is popularly felt by its members to be a natu-
ral entity based on bonds of common descent, language, culture, history, and
territory. However, all modern nation-states are composed of many ethnic
(and other) groups. Benedict Anderson (1991) calls nation-states “imagined
communities” because an act of imagination is needed to weld the many dis-
parate groups that actually make up the state into a coherent national com-
munity. Anthropologists are interested in the historical circumstances under
which nation-states evolve, the processes by which they are constructed and
maintained, and the circumstances under which they are challenged and de-
stabilized (Stolcke 1995).

Nation-states construct national identities partly by drawing bound-
aries between spatially de” ned insiders and outsiders (Bornstein 2002;
Handler 1988). Regardless of some cultural di! erences, people who live
within these boundaries are viewed as having an essential natural identity,
based on a common language and a shared culture; those outside the na-
tional boundary are viewed as essentially di! erent. The importance of the
spatial dimension of the nation-state is reinforced by colorful world maps,
which visually represent the world of nations as a discrete spatial partition-
ing of territory (Alonso 1994:382).

nation-state A sovereign, geo-
graphically based state that iden-
tifi es itself as having a distinctive
national culture and historical
experience.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 21901530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 219 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!!” C H A P T E R !

Nations also erect physical boundaries, such as the Great Wall of
China, to de” ne their territory and to protect citizens from outsiders (see
the Bringing It Back Home feature on pp. 224).

Nation-states are further constructed by attaching people to time as
well as to space. A common interpretation of the past is essential in creat-
ing national identities. As we see in the chapter opening story of Turkey
and the Armenians, however, because di! erent groups within a nation may
have di! erent interpretations of its history, the creation of national histo-
ries often is marked by struggles over which version of history will prevail
(Friedman 1992; Deák 2002). “Tradition,” “the past,” “history,” and “social
memory” all are actively invented and reinvented in accordance with con-
temporary national interests and reproduced through rituals, symbols,
ceremonies, memorials, and representations in museums and other cultural
institutions (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983; Nanda 2005; White 1997).

The “cultural politics” of nation-states include coronations, inaugura-
tions, publicly pledging allegiance to the # ag, singing the national anthems,
and building monuments and museums of history—constructions that link
the nation’s dead to its living and thus the past to the present. All these are
essential to maintaining the nation-state. Nation-states may also outlaw, as
currently in Turkey, the public presentations of alternative histories.

Constructing national identities has been particularly problem-
atic for postcolonial states, whose arti” cial colonial boundaries encom-
passed many di! erent ethnic groups (see Chapter 12), but it also is true

NORTH
AMERICA

SOUTH
AMERICA

AFRICA

EUROPE

AUSTRALIA

ASIA

Atlantic

Ocean

Pacific
Ocean Indian

Ocean

Figure 9.1

World maps reinforce the im-
portance of the nation-state as
a territorial unit.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22001530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 220 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !!*

in older nations. After World War I and World War II,
the ethnic homogeneity of many nation-states, not just
Turkey, was achieved by the coerced migration of
ethnic minorities (Judt 2005), and ethnic cleansing and
genocide were both widely used to make nations cultur-
ally homogenous (Naimark 2001; Levine and Roberts
1999; Kaufman 2001). In Canada, because of the dual
in# uence of English and French culture, the search for
Canadian national identity is ongoing, occasionally # ar-
ing up in demands for French-speaking Quebecois sepa-
ratism (Handler 1988). In 2006, Quebec o$ cially became
“a nation within Canada.”

The nation-state always seeks to repress the invented
or imagined nature of national unity (Foster 1991:238),
and it has many sources of power in fostering some
group identities and marginalizing or disparaging others.
States use media, politics, educational institutions, and
the law, among others, to create a national culture and
identity that become the only authorized representations
of society and to suppress subcultural variations.

The Nation-State and Ethnicity
Ethnicity, like the nation, is a social construction, which refers to per-

ceived di! erences—such as culture, religion, language, national origin—by
which groups of people distinguish themselves and are distinguished from
others in the same social environment. Ethnic groups are categories of
people who view themselves as sharing an ethnic identity that di! erenti-
ates them from other groups or from the larger society as a whole. Ethnic
boundaries are the claimed cultural attributes by which ethnic groups dis-
tinguish themselves from others.

Ethnicity, like the nation, is popularly viewed as a “bedrock” of
“natural” ties based on “common blood, language, attachment to a place,
or culture” passed down largely unchanged from generation to generation
(Meier and Ribera 1993; Geertz 1973b:277). But although ethnicity does
have cultural content, ethnic group identity is constructed by groups to dif-
ferentiate themselves from other similar groups, even when the cultural
di! erences among them are small. The perception that one belongs to a
particular ethnic group, and the emergence of particular ethnic groups and
identities, evolves from the interaction of a group with other groups and with
the larger society, signi” cantly shaped by competition and con# ict over re-
sources (Barth l969/1998). This view that ethnicity is primarily signi” cant
in de” ning group relationships leads anthropologists to ask questions about

Nation-states intensify national
identities by presenting history
in emotionally intense ways,
such as this sculpture of the
capture of Iwo Jima in World
War II by the United States
Marines.

©
S

er
en

a
N

an
da

ethnic groups Categories of
people who see themselves as
sharing an ethnic identity that
di# erentiates them from other
groups or the larger society.

ethnic identity The sense of self
a person experiences as a member
of an ethnic group.

ethnic boundaries The perceived
cultural attributes by which ethnic
groups distinguish themselves
from others.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22101530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 221 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!!! C H A P T E R !

how ethnic groups and ethnic identities emerge, change, and disappear in
responses to economic and social environments, especially as related to
political and economic inequality (De Vos and Romanucci-Ross 1995).

Ethnic Con# ict and Political Instability

Political instability and violent confrontation are nothing new in our
world. Traditional societies often fought with one another. Western expan-
sion, colonial and otherwise, was accompanied by great loss of life and
culture. The trenches of World War I, the death camps of World War II,
nuclear weapons, the purges under Stalin and Mao, and the growth of na-
tionalism, political instability, and ethnic con# ict make the past one hun-
dred years appear to be a particularly brutal time in human history.

Poor nations were deeply a! ected by Europe’s wars, and for many, the
devastation continued long afterward. In French Indochina (later Vietnam),
World War II faded into wars of independence that persisted until the
1970s. In many cases, traditional peoples became involved in networks of
warfare that drew them into the competition between the United States
and the Soviet Union, who furnished guerilla movements, impoverished
governments, and rebel armies with vast amounts of weaponry.

Although the end of the Cold War brought relief to some poor na-
tions, other violent con# icts emerged as the strong, centralized, and fre-
quently repressive governments that the United States and the Soviet
Union had supported fell apart. Nations containing multiple ethnic and
religious groups, such as Yugoslavia, Somalia, Liberia, Sudan, and others,
disintegrated as these smaller groups openly fought for wealth, power, and
control.

The popular media often explain intranational con# ict and violence,
including genocide—between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, between Hin-
dus and Muslims in India, between Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka,
between Kurds, Shi’a, and Sunni Muslims in Iraq, between Basques and
Spanish in Spain—as natural eruptions of age-old ethnic hatreds and cul-
ture clashes between di! erent ethnic groups within nation-states. In fact,
some of these con# icts may be better explained as contemporary strug-
gles for political and economic power, now ” nding its main expression
in nationalism (Stolcke 1995). Ambitious politicians may promote ethnic
identities in opposition to the state, building constituencies from groups
that hope to gain increased access to economic and political power. Such
individuals mobilize a rhetoric of historical abuses and inequities, arous-
ing fears of victimization among members of di! erent groups who then
become openly in con# ict with one another or with their governments, as
happened in the former Yugoslavia. Authoritarian governments may also
repress ethnic groups as disruptive to government, as in the case of China’s
con# icts with Tibet and its Muslim Uighur minority, or even repress

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22201530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 222 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !!#

historical memory of certain ethnic groups in the interest of fostering na-
tional solidarity, as we see in the chapter opening story of Turkey.

The Nation-State and Indigenous Peoples
In much of the world today, particularly in North and South America,

Africa, and parts of Asia, indigenous peoples are an important part of
the multicultural landscape in nation-states. Indigenous peoples are those
small-scale societies designated as bands, tribes, and chiefdoms that oc-
cupied their land prior to European contact. Generally, indigenous people
are closely identi” ed with their land, are relatively egalitarian, manage re-
sources at the community level, and (previously) had high levels of eco-
nomic self-su$ ciency. They consider themselves distinct from other sectors
of society now living in their territories and today function as nondomi-
nant sectors of the larger nation-states of which they are a part. Indigenous
societies today are determined to preserve and transmit their lands and
culture to future generations to continue their existence as a people, which
frequently brings them into con# ict with the nation-state (Lee 2000).

As a result of European expansion to Asia, Africa, and the New
World beginning in the 15th century, many indigenous societies com-
pletely disappeared, or survived only as remnants in marginal geographic
areas (see Chapter 12). The destruction of indigenous peoples intensi” ed
rapidly by the mid-19th century as new frontiers were opened up in na-
tions such as the United States, Australia, and Brazil. Although there was
much resistance, indigenous peoples in most places were no match for the
military and economic power of nation-states. After World War II, many
indigenous peoples were incorporated into new postcolonial states, such
as in Indonesia, Malaysia, and India, and few independent, self-su$ cient
indigenous societies remained (Maybury-Lewis 1997).

The incorporation of indigenous peoples into modern nation-states
involved at least partial destruction of their political and economic auton-
omy. Because indigenous peoples must maintain control over their land
base and subsistence resources to remain self-su$ cient and politically
autonomous, their political defeat was usually accompanied by their eco-
nomic marginalization. Europeans appropriated their land, and, without
their land base, indigenous peoples were forced to give up their traditional
livelihoods and participate in the global market economy or were pulled
into national economies by their desire for Western goods. The colonial
agenda was also imposed on indigenous peoples through the imposition
and enforcement of Western law.

After World War II, the United Nations provided an international
framework within which the concepts of human rights and self-determination
were expanded to include indigenous peoples. Because the United Nations

Indigenous peoples Small-scale
societies designated as bands,
tribes, or chiefdoms that occu-
pied their land prior to European
contact.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22301530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 223 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!!$ C H A P T E R !

policy worked within the framework of the nation-state, however, it did little
to support indigenous rights in any substantial way. Some of this changed
with the passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(2007), although several industrialized societies, such as Canada, fearful of
indigenous land claims, did not sign the declaration.

National policies of neglect or hostility toward indigenous peoples
were often based on the expectation that indigenous peoples eventually
would disappear as they were assimilated into national cultures. Interna-
tional ” nancial organizations, such as the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund, whose lending practices supported economic “develop-
ment” programs that adversely a! ected the subsistence economies of indig-
enous peoples (Bodley 2000:378), were also founded on this assumption.

National policies of cultural assimilation, designed to foster a na-
tional identity, also contributed to cultural loss among indigenous peoples.
In many Central and South American countries, indigenous Indian cul-
tures may not be totally repressed, but Indians may be identi” ed with a fos-
silized past as a folkloric irrelevance, a tourist commodity, or a backward
culture standing in the way of national development (Alonso 1994:398).
Only a few nations, most recently Bolivia, with the election of President
Evo Morales, have raised indigenous Indian ethnicity to a central place in
national identity and political leadership (Guillermorprieto 2006).

BRINGING IT BACK HOME:
DO GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD
NEIGHBORS?

Contemporary states view a ” xed and secure border as essential to
sovereignty and national security. They accept the notion that states have
a right and responsibility to restrict and control immigration. The most
passionate debate about immigration today concerns the U.S. border with
Mexico, which has become increasingly militarized in an e! ort to keep out
undocumented workers.

Politicians often justify the militarization of the border through the
rhetoric of protecting domestic labor markets, and since 9/ll, protecting
the nation from terrorism. In spite of fencing, lighting, infrared scopes,
underground sensors, increased law enforcement, and vigilante groups,
hundreds of thousands of undocumented Mexicans continue to cross the
border in search of work. They are encouraged by employers who use them
as a source of cheap labor. Although there are supposedly penalties for

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22401530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 224 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !!%

employers who exploit undocumented work-
ers in this way, in fact, there are far too few
law enforcement o$ cers to make such penal-
ties meaningful. And so, although the debate
over undocumented immigration generates
much heat, most of it is aimed at the undocu-
mented immigrants themselves, rather than
the employers of such workers who are sub-
ject to much less vigilance.

The latest proposal to control undocu-
mented migration is the erection of a double-
layered 700-mile-long border fence. Thus
far, measures such as the fence have only
succeeded in directing immigration to more
di$ cult and dangerous terrain, making the
immigrants even more vulnerable to exploita-
tion (Chavez l998:l96; Holthouse 2005).

The border fence is a controversial proj-
ect and highlights the clash of interests and
cultures in the American Southwest. Seventy-
” ve miles of the border, at one of its most
vulnerable points, is located on the Tohono
O’odham (Indian) Reservation, not far from
Tucson, Arizona. The Tohono O’odham oppose the wall, claiming a need to
freely cross the border to visit friends and relatives in Mexico, take their chil-
dren to school, gather traditional foods, and visit religious sites to perform
rituals, all of which they have been doing for years. Their cultural concerns
also focus on the wall’s restricting the free range of deer, wild horses, coyotes,
jackrabbits, and other animals they revere and regard as kin. “In our tradi-
tion we are taught to be concerned about every living thing as if they were
people. We don’t want that wall,” said one tribal council member.

The Tohono O’odham cooperate extensively with the U.S. Border
Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security in patrolling the border.
As the federal government is the trustee of all Indian lands, it could build
the fence through the reservation without tribal permission, but that would
jeopardize the valuable help the Tohono O’odham now give the govern-
ment (Archibold 2006).

YOU DECIDE
$. Do you think human movement between states should be free and unre-

stricted? Why or why not? If you believe that there should be restriction
of immigration, what criteria would you use for admitting immigrants?

Protecting borders is an urgent
concern for nation-states as
they try to hold back refugees,
undocumented immigrants, and
terrorists, who are increasingly
crossing borders for economic
and political purposes.

©
J

ac
ki

e
M

er
ca

nd
et

ti
Ph

ot
og

ra
ph

y

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22501530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 225 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

!!& C H A P T E R !

%. What kinds of solutions would you suggest to the problem of undocu-
mented immigration? Do you think that the construction of the border
fence will make a substantial contribution in addressing this problem?
Why or why not?

&. Decisions made by states often pit groups in society against one another.
In this case, do you think the need to prevent undocumented immigrants
crossing the border justifi es overriding the cultural values of the Tohono
O’odham? How would you mediate the confl ict between the United
States government and the Tohono O’odham over the building of a wall
on their reservation?

CHAPTER SUMMARY

$. Anthropologists try to understand political organization by focusing
on power: who has it, what are its sources, how is it related to other
aspects of culture, especially political ideology, and how is it used in
achieving public goals.

%. Social control in all societies is e# ected through formal sanctions such
as exile, death, and punishments meted out by courts, judges, police,
and other institutionalized forms of regulation. Conformity is also
achieved through informal means such as gossip, ridicule, and ostracism.

&. Political organization is closely related to social di# erentiation, which
is in turn related to the dominant pattern of making a living and ex-
changing goods and services. Band societies, which are characteristic
of foragers, are egalitarian and dominated by generalized reciprocity.

‘. Tribal societies, found among pastoralists and horticulturalists, also
tend to be egalitarian and operate through generalized reciprocity as
well as balanced reciprocity. Though tribal societies have many di# er-
ent nonviolent means of resolving confl icts within the society, they
also have a high degree of warfare.

(. Chiefdoms, which are found in highly productive horticultural socie-
ties and among pastoralists, are called rank societies. Though kinship
integrates the society, social units are socially ranked, and social
position may be inherited. The chief is a central o” ce, supported by
his position as one who redistributes goods within the society.

). The most complex form of political organization is the state, found
mainly in agricultural and industrial societies, and associated with
social stratifi cation. Social, political, and economic inequality are
institutionalized and maintained through a combination of internal-
ized controls (hegemony) and force. Kinship ties between the upper
and lower classes no longer serve to integrate the society, and there
is a wide gap in standards of living.

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22601530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 226 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

Political Organization !!’

*. The nation-state is a state that identifi es itself with a culturally
homogenous group and a shared history and geographic territory,
and uses various social and cultural institutions to foster nationalism.

+. Many nation-states are in fact multicultural, incorporating ethnic
groups who also defi ne themselves as culturally homogenous. Some-
times ethnic confl ict occurs between various ethnic groups within a
nation, or as in China, between ethnic groups and the nation iself.

!. Many nation-states today incorporate indigenous peoples, whose
cultures, economies, and social institutions are constrained by the
need to live within these complex societies and their regulatory
systems.

KEY TERMS

acephalous
age grades
age set
authority
band
bigman
bureaucracy
chiefdom
citizenship
compensation
deviants
egalitarian society
elites
ethnic groups
ethnic identity
ethnic boundaries
factions
gossip
government
hegemony

indigenous peoples
law
leadership
mediation
nation-state
political ideology
political organization
political process
power
rank society
rebellion
revolution
secret societies
social complexity
social di# erentiation
state
stratifi ed society
tribe
warfare (war)

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22701530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 227 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM

01530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 22801530_ch09_ptg01_hires.indd 228 04/01/11 10:11 AM04/01/11 10:11 AM