Banded

An important thing to remember is that none of the four political organizations and their designated definitions talked about in Political Anthropology are not universally applicable. Bands may have common elements, but there’s nothing that says one Band is a carbon copy of another. Likewise, can be said of Tribes, Chiefdom, and States. Despite this, generalizations will come about. There are of course many distinctions between the four groups. Population density and permanence geographically being perhaps the biggest divisions. Others factors being their organization, social division, and personal freedoms. This all plays into how these system function politically.

Leadership at the Band level is essentially a pure democracy, with a caveat that the first three levels do tend to be patriarchal. Most “decisions are made in groups,” unless that person has special knowledge (Kebede lecture, 1/18). Such as knowledge about where to move, avoid weather changes and how to hunt. Even when authority is deferred, a lack of results means that leader could be removed from his position. This does also happen once the specific knowledge is non-essential to survival. No leader becomes rich of the backs of others or becomes a deity in the eyes of other Band members.

The actual structure that composed a Band outside of leadership is composed of other elements. The equality of those within a Band meant Politics had more to do with distribution or food, deciding where to move and resolving interpersonal conflicts. Specific Examples like the Eskimo have a very ceremonial way of dealing with interpersonal conflict. In the video “Song Duel” we see two men taking punches intentionally to show who is worthy of marrying the women they want. This is the nature of Band politics, and in this scenario, the Shaman is the man in charge.

Tribal Leadership is more formal due to a larger population. While Bands can range from “20 to 500 people”, tribes range from the 100’s to nearly a thousand people (Kebede lecture, 1/18). This means a central authority based on lineage. There can be a Headman or Headwoman in some cultures, position that is earned somewhat by being related to the right Tribe members and based on the work you put in. Like it is in Bands, leadership had to be earned and “this role might fall to someone with more of the personal qualities of leadership” (Lewellen, 25). There is more in common with Bands in that ownership over land is not permanent. The area they control is everyone’s but is used temporarily by individuals.

Tribes in simple terms are Bands integrated by associations that go outside of Kinship. More of the political life in a Tribe revolves around farming and food. A large area and denser population suggest spending more time evaluating land and deciding where to grow and eventually where to slash and burn. The idea of everything belonging to the tribe meant that if a member abused the land they all suffered in some way. Another aspect not seen in Bands is “Small-scale warfare… commonly found in tribes” (Kebede lecture, 1/20).

What makes these two Uncentralized systems most different is the focus on food v. interpersonal relations. Food for Bands is fairly uncomplicated. For example, the !Kung food was mostly “supplied by the women, who daily collected nuts, fruits, tubers, roots, and various other field foods. The remainder of the !Kung subsistence was supplied through hunting, which was exclusively a male occupation”  (Lewellen, 25).  War being another differentiator. Neither the! Kung or the Eskimo according to Lewellen participated in a war. Tribes like The Yanomamo were constantly at war:

every killing of a member of one’s own group had to be avenged, raiding other villages was routine. In a situation of constant war, intervillage politics was a matter of survival. Unlike many horticultural tribes that participate in warfare almost as a game, the Yanomamo were deadly serious; it was not unknown for entire villages to be overrun, with all the men killed or dispersed and all the women taken captive (Lewellen, 29).

The internal fighting within a tribe shows just how loose tribal connections can be.

Chiefdoms have The Chief, the leader for his lifetime and the final authority of a population larger than that of a tribe. Obedience is not based on popular opinion or even “from the fear of physical sanctions,” but from control over the economics and distribution of supplies necessary to live (Kebede lecture, 1/21). Beneath the Chief is a Hierarchy of lower leaders made up mostly of the Chiefs family members in some cases. Which further delineates it from Bands and Tribes.

The State is a “hierarchical form of political organization that governs many communities within a large geographic area” (Kebede lecture, 1/21). Instead of a singular leader in all cases, a state can be run by many people that tend not to mingle with the rest of a population. The idea of kinship that might have decided who succeeded a previous Chief is mostly removed in a State. Children of leaders can become a leader but there is no guarantee through inheritance.

Chiefdoms and States are both Centralized systems which “encompasses societies in which power and authority inhere in one person or a small group” (Lewellen, 31). What makes them different is the concentration of power and solidity of Government. Power is far more spread out in some States and closer to being democratic than a Chiefdom. States also can remain structurally the same even after those who represent the Government leave.

On a graph, it might appear that Leadership at all four levels becomes progressively less democratic. More authority is given to the one or the few but not to the individual. Public opinion becomes somewhat less important until the State were public opinions affect depends on the situation. The structure of Government becomes more complex which also aids in cutting individual choice.

On a graph, it might appear that Leadership at all four levels becomes progressively less democratic. More authority is given to the one or the few but not to the individual. Public opinion becomes somewhat less important until the State were public opinions affect depends on the situation. The structure of Government becomes more complex which also aids in cutting individual choice.