Today’s blog post focuses on sociopolitical
organizations. Sociopolitical
organizations are political institutions that govern groups of people and
societies. Anthropologist Elman Service
came up with the current sociopolitical typology that identifies the various
types of sociopolitical organizations that exist, which include the band,
tribe, chiefdom, and state political systems.
Each of these is identified by key characteristics, although there are
similarities amongst them. It is the
number of similarities between chiefdoms and states that often confuse
introductory anthropology students, and this post is dedicated to clarifying
the differences between these two types of sociopolitical organizations.
 |
| Cahokia is an example of a chiefdom level society that existed in the United States. |
Chiefdoms are sociopolitical organizations are characterized
by a permanent political structure with some degree of differential access to
resources and a political structure.
Chiefs are the leaders of chiefdom societies, and they control all
leadership roles of the society, including but not limited to executive (e.g.
administration of daily activities), legislative (e.g. law creation), and
judicial (e.g. court system) responsibilities.
Chiefs do not have formal advisors, although lesser chiefs may be
instituted if the chiefdom is very large and the chief cannot adequately
oversee the people within the whole territory.
Some of responsibilities of the chief include redistributing goods among
all citizens, although the chief will keep more goods than the rest of the
citizens, and overseeing disagreements amongst citizens and meting out rewards
and punishments according to his or her will.
Chiefdom societies are also kin-based where the social divisions within
the society are based on descent from the apical ancestor or genealogical
closeness to the chief. Chiefdoms are
also largely horticultural or pastoral societies, although sometimes they do
practice small scale agriculture.
 |
| Graphic of Egyptian Social Hierarchy (Google Image Search) |
States have more formalized governance and political
structure. Leaders of the state often
times have term positions, although not always (e.g. monarchies or
dictatorships). Leaders share power and
control of the state with formalized governances (e.g. political positions held
by elite members of society). Each area
of the state government has a particular role and set of responsibilities; for
example, the state leader is in charge of collecting taxes and distributing the
taxes according to their own will or the will of the people, which is dependent
on the type of state. Social differentiation
within the state level society is based on power, wealth, and prestige, which
creates formal and very definable social classes within the society. States also sustain themselves on
agricultural or industrialism.
Bibliography:
Gezon, Lisa and Kottak,
Conrad. 2011. Culture. Mc-Graw Hill.
37 comments:
I think that size and greed would dictate which system would work best. On paper it would appear that the Chiefdom run society was more fairly in distribution of commodities. But as the population increased it would be hare to be able to keep track of a lot of people and what they were doing. If someone wanted more than they felt was fair of if they wanted to be the chief they would have to overthrow or leave and start their own community. I think that's where the need for State run communities started. People didn't want to follow the rules that where set for them without their say in the matter. Greed would also play a role in the State run community. Everyone that wanted to be more involved would get the chance to run for office. There are benefits to each depending on your wants and needs.
It's a good hypothesis that those who are unhappy have the option to leave, but we're not seeing that either in the past or today. It's in part because all primates, including humans, are social creatures, and the idea of being on one's own is terrifying. Plus, there are usually social and political barriers that prevent people from leaving. Think about what happens if you are not heard from in a couple of days: Your friends and family will probably call and check on you. Someone may call the police requesting a welfare check. Etc. In some cases, individuals are forcibly kept within the borders of the state or chiefdom (e.g. Check Point Charlie in East Germany; the situation in Cuba right now).
Even after taking anthropology 101 I still have to very carefully read the description of each before I can be sure which is which. They are extremely similar.
I understand the differences between state, and chiefdom, my question is where does a fief and where does the feudal lord fall into the spectrum? Are they a form of chiefdom, or a form of state?
I believe you can find the answers to those questions here: http://historymedren.about.com/od/feudalism/a/feudalism.htm
This was a nice, short paper that makes it really easy to decipher between the two.
-Laura Redl
I find Chiefdoms to be extremely similar to communism (in a non-bias way). Chiefdoms work great and are extremely effective for small communities such as tribes. As long as everyone puts in an equal amount of work and receives an equal amount of wealth everyone is happy. But it does not work well on the large scale level. As populations expand so does diversity which requires more of a state-oriented sociopolitical structure.
-Hayden Lloyd
I personally feel like Chiefdoms will only ever be successful if there is one culture with strong beliefs and values within them. The reason for this is because different cultures expect different treatment, and if you mix them, one culture may end up believing they are entitled to more or believe they should work less than another. This could make a Chiefdom crumble. So in the case that it's one culture, and a strong one at that, in a Chiefdom, I believe this system is a good one. Otherwise,with a mix of culture like we see in the US, a state-oriented structure works better.
It helped me understand that the different levels in there group. other people can learn from this.
James K. - Antho 101
Though I don't necessarily favor chiefdoms over states, I do think there is something our western culture can learn from them: forming relationships, be less aggressive witht he land, etc..
This article clearly differentiates between chiefdoms and states. A chiefdom is a much less formal, but still effective way govern groups of people. It does seem more "communisitic", in that goods are redistributed among all of the people. In today's industrialized world, states are the norm. With populations growing exponentially, it really is the most realistic political and societal organization.
Courteney Hedicke, Anth 101
This article reminds me of who is the top dog kind of thing. Like i'm better than you ans your worth nothing so you have to listen to me. Like the pyramid shows what goes on top and who is at the bottom of the food chain. i think it is like that everywhere even i high school. That's what this article reminded me of the most.
Briana Banuelos
Anthro 102 1001
States seem to have more access to R.A.P. (resources, authority, and prestige) than Chiefdoms even though all their resources are distributed equally. - Maya Quezada , ANTH 102, 1002
States seem to be becoming more common in the world today. I'm assuming this is because of modern technology that allows us to be industrial and agricultural at a high rate. Chiefdoms seem effective as well in their own ways depending on the environment they are in. I never thought about the different sociopolitical organizations in this way before.
Alexandreana Cocroft
Anthro 101 3001 summer
Chiefdoms and States are still difficult for me to compare, but this paper, thank goodness, clarified things up a little for me. Probably the easiest way for me to determine the two would be Chiefdoms have social status through kin-based integration whereas States are more wealth and prestige.
Thank you for the article
Zachary Forrester
anthro 101 3001 summer
This has been a very interesting chapter! It helped me better put a finger on what I've been observing around me in the US and the world. It seems that we have entered a new period and like the bands, tribes, and chiefdoms, states can no longer be viewed on their own and have to be viewed within the global economy and further must be viewed regarding the impact humans are having on the environment of earth. Technology, overpopulation, and globalization have created a whirlwind. Because of media we can view the changes instantly. A new type of sociopolitical organization seems to be present and I suppose it is corporations. On a smaller scale company towns might have been similar. Coal miners were in an ever increasing cycle of indebtedness and the mines destroyed the land in the process.
Paige Stevenson
Anthro 101 Summer 2015
In the modern world the chiefdom has to submit to the state. If there were no state controlling the population within its borders, neighboring states would simply gobble up each chiefdom and extend their borders.
Most cultures and societies now these days are usually run by a big government so it is hard to imagine one person with so much power governing large numbers of people. When I think about chiefdom I immediately think about native Americans which is the most current and popular known form of chiefdom in my opinion.
Very interesting to learn what a chiefdom en tales, i feel like we rarely here of these type of society as they are becoming more and more rare.
Jordan R
it was interesting to see the comparisons and contrasts between chiefdom and state. While reading about the duties of a chief, I kept relating that position to a king position. I like having state system because the responsibility is distributed equally. I also may like it because it is really the only type of government I have experienced.
This was a great overview to compare the two systems. I think that it is important to note that the Egyptian society relied heavily on the massive (almost industrial) agricultural system to support the massive kingdom. This of course was very much a direct result of being located on the Nile. The other side of this is that the state system of the colonists also relied on the resources that developed over time in the colonies. Interestingly it is the ability of the group to provide for itself, whether or not it is run by a Chief or a state leader to have any lasting success.
It is interesting to see the difference between tribes and chiefdoms as I feel they are frequently lumped/mixed together. What about in the instances of American Indian tribes that have chiefs? Are those non-political chiefs or is the terminology not technically correct?
Cassidy Banks
Anth 101 3001
The Egyptians were actually intensive agriculturists. Industrial agriculture wasn't available until the industrial revolution. :)
Indian chiefs are leaders but not considered chiefs in the anthropological sense. That doesn't mean they aren't important or powerful. Just a different way of understanding things.
This really helped separate chiefdom and states. It's seems hard to be a leader of chiefdoms has a lot to do on their plate, they control a lot of the branches, as in states everything is split up and you have help.
Aaliyah Caldwell
This read was very helpful, I was thinking, if there are undeveloped countries that could be labeled as state-level societies in which they sustain themselves in agriculture and industrialism, what else, if anything else, besides the social differentation separate the fortune vs the unfortunate?
This was a very interesting article I enjoyed it a lot. Back in middle school I had took a field trip to the Cahokia Mounds in Illinois. They have an amazing set up with great information on the history of how the state level societies were built and showed the chiefs. If anyone has the chance to visit the site its great to see.
The only thing I don't like about Chiefdoms is they are kin-based. I don't think its fair for 1 family to be in charge of everybody for years at a time.
-Monique McAllister
Tiffany Heavens
- I grew up in East St. Louis, IL which is about 10 mintues from Cahokia. I never realized how much history is there. I think it is pretty cool that Cahokia use to be a chiefdom type of sociopolitical organization.
Wish I would have read this post for an earlier assignment because now I have a better understanding of the difference between Chiefdoms and states.
So besides similarities in the name, are Chiefdoms smaller structured Kingdoms or are they drastically different? I may not be understanding it fully, I see it as a Kingdom has control of one vast land with a King/Queen, but Chiefdoms control villages with one chief over them. Could their be a Chiefdom under other forms of civilizations/Governments?
Chiefs being the leaders of chiefdom societies, and having control of all leadership roles of the society gives off the impression that they govern themselves.
-apreshana page
I never knew the difference between Chiefdoms and Sates or that they were even a topic. Interesting and informative blog.
I think since there is a chief their basically saying there is a head role so they govern themselves. That is what i took from it. Its crazy how much history there is in areas around us that we don't even know about.
I enjoyed reading this article because it mentions things about the Chiefdoms that I didn't know. One of the things I found neat is that they practice small scale agriculture, this came as a surprise to me because they are such a big horticultural society. I think one of the main difference between the State and Chiefdoms is the leadership. Cheifdoms have really one leader and than like a vice leader whereas in the states, everyone leads in a governance. Another thing is that the states is run by money and wealth.
Until i read this blog i didnt know anything about cheifdoms, i dont think i could live somewhere that the land is ran by a goverment that is only family based.
- Lavonza Marshall
I enjoyed learning the difference between states and chiefdoms as it was a confusing thing for me to understand. States having more of a governmental structure makes a lot of sense.
Elaine Christopher
Post a Comment