Given the basic definition of politics presented in the beginning of this chapter, why do you think that power in egalitarian societies plays a relatively insignificant role?
Student Response
The term political organization is defined in our textbook as “The way power is distributed and embedded in society; the means through which a society creates and maintains social order.” Power, as it relates to politics and societies, is defined as “the ability of individuals or groups to impose their will upon others and make them do things even against their own wants or wishes”.
In societies where individuals are regarded as more-or-less equal in social stature, there is a tendency to dilute political power bases to prevent instances of real or perceived oppression. We are given choice in where we live, and the type of work we do, even the manner in which we voice disapproval of our government’s actions on our behalf. Almost every aspect of life in an egalitarian society is held to be a right of the individual, not just a privilege. We grant a measure of power to some members of society, but we hold tight to that grant, never letting them forget that we are just as happy to take it away (whether through bureaucratic legalities or social defamation) if they fail in their responsibility to our shared trust.
This is not the case in stratified societies. In societies where the cultural structure is rigidly defined, however, those in positions of power do not allow dispute of that authority. State-sanctioned prosecution, restriction of personal rights, confiscation of wealth or lands – even death – are what await individuals that find public fault with the system or who seek to step outside their social boundaries.
There is a movie in which a group of Grasshoppers hold social power over a nest of Ants. The grasshoppers are not part of the ant’s governing body but, because they are seen as bigger, stronger, and are willing to inflict brutalities upon ants to get their way, they are able to dictate the social order on the island where both “tribes” live. During a crucial scene, there is a speech by the leader of the band of political bullies. The words he speaks are absolutely chilling in their clarity of vision regarding the real world politics of various cultures today.
“You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back! Does anybody else wanna stay? … Let's ride!”
--- “Hopper”, A Bug's Life
This sentiment is a key marker of political oppression. Power is held by a few, through violence most often-supported by religion or legislation. This type of oppression is less likely to occur in egalitarian societies because of the people’s general refusal to live life under others’ terms.
Out of curiosity, how do you think this would play in terms of a social contract? This might be outside of the scope of the subject, but I would think that the nature by which a society governs itself is by the implicit agreement of the people, hence Hopper's comment. Would you say that an egalitarian society has negotiated a contract that spreads power amongst the people rather than stratifying it?
ReplyDeleteHi Christopher, and thanks for the question!
ReplyDeleteTaking it as it is that I'm a student and still have *far* to go toward a full understanding of how all of this works outside a textbook ... I'd say yes, that a society is reliant upon agreement, tacit or declared, of its people to adhere to their cultural mores and norms. By remaining a part of that society, each individual agrees that they will uphold those things set as "for the common good".
In the case of the movie I referenced, the ants - at the beginning - have an agreement among themselves to not risk aggression by those outside their "tribe". They accept this form of subservience because they see that it serves their best interest. Though there is a monarchy, power is shared throughout their society by each ant contributing to the annual tribute payment and then benefiting from an equal share of the remaining food. Outside of that single community obligation, it is implied that the ants are given wide latitude in how they spend their "off" time (the main protagonist having time to develop inventions and the youth organization to which the queen's daughter belongs, being two examples). Beyond individuals to lead certain cultural endeavors, there seems to be no need for centralized governmental action or regulations.
In the world view of those fictional grasshoppers, however, the stratified system of governance leads to a very different contract among the people. They are internally obligated to brutality and oppression to maintain their way of life so, with them in charge, there would be several levels of bureaucracy or enforcement created to ensure productivity of the "serf" class over which they ruled. An egalitarian society would not provide the lifestyle they want - food, with no work - so unquestioned domination is a critical element of their governmental style.
Once our insectoid serfs realized that their best interests could never be served under such a dictator regime - that their culture of 'Everyone Works, Everyone Benefits, Everyone Lives in Harmony' would be utterly destroyed - they chose rebellion as the only way to restore their society to the egalitarian lifestyle that suited them best.