Contents panel I
| Вид материала | Документы |
- Table of contents, 459.31kb.
- Пособие прошло апробацию в группах магистратур факультета мэо. Contents, 1474.51kb.
- Система программирования Delphi, 31.24kb.
- rum ru/database/osbd/contents shtml Основы современных баз данных, 4049.07kb.
CONTENTS
Panel I. Alternativity in Cultural History: Heterarchy and Homoarchy as Evolutionary Trajectories
Panel II. Art, Struggle, Survival and Change
Panel III. Civil Society, Civil Education and Cultural Identity in the Time of Globalization
Panel IV. Comparing the State in Africa: The Drama of Modern Development
Panel V. Divine Politics and Theocracy: Religion as a Power Mechanism in the Greco-Roman World
Panel VI. Ethnic Model of Power Legitimation in the Political Practice of Contemporary Multiethnic
States and Quasi-States
Panel VII. Hierarchy and Power in Dates of Archaeology
Panel VIII. Hierarchy and Power in Science: An Oxymoron?
Panel IX. Hierarchy and Power in the Postcolonial World
Panel X. Hierarchy, Power, and Ritual in Pre-Columbian America
Panel XI. Ideology and Legitimation of Power in Ancient and Medieval Societies
Panel XII. Markets and Hierarchies in the History of Civilizations
Panel XIII. Money, Currency and Power, with Focus on Africa
Panel XIV. Patterns of Hierarchy and Power in Southeast Asia
Panel XV. Power as "Great Mystery"
Panel XVI. Propaganda, Protest and Violence: Revolutions in the East and the West
Panel XVII. Studying Political Centralization Cycles as a Dynamical Process
Panel XVIII. The Order of Things: Material Culture, Practice and Social Status
Panel XIX. The Role of the Evolutionary Theory in the Political History of the 20th Century
Panel XX. The Use of Estrangement as a Pivotal Instrument in the Study of and Defence against
Hierarchy and Power
Panel XXI. The Will to Power and Its Realisation – The Rises and Falls of Absolute Leaders
Panel XXII. Tradition and Modernization in Political Cultures of Islamic World
Panel XXIII. Urbi et Orbi (Roma Aeterna)
Panel XXIV. Free Communication Panel
Panel (Round Table) XXV. Dilemmas of Leadership and Representation in Jewish and Arab Social
Groupings in Israel
Index of Contributors
PANEL I
Alternativity in Cultural History:
Heterarchy and Homoarchy as Evolutionary Trajectories
Convenors: Dmitri M. Bondarenko (Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies, Moscow, Russia), Carole L. Crumley (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA)
Until quite recently, cultural evolution in its sociopolitical aspect has commonly been regarded as the permanent teleological move to a greater level of hierarchy, crowned by state formation. However, recent research based upon the principle of heterarchy changes the usual picture dramatically. Heterarchy has been defined as “...the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways” (Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy 1995: 3). So heterarchy, being the larger frame upon which different hierarchical structures are composed, incorporates hierarchy, even in so-called “egalitarian” societies. The opposite of heterarchy, then, would be a condition in society in which relationships in most contexts are ordered mainly according to one principal hierarchical relationship. This organizational principle may be called “homoarchy”, and this is just what is misleadingly called “hierarchy” by proponents of the idea of transition from “egalitarian” to “non-egalitarian” societies, though even the most primitive societies can be ordered in such a manner. It is time to move away from earlier visions of social evolution. Rather than universal stages, two fundamental forms of dynamic sociopolitical organization cut across standard scholarly “evolutionary stages”: at any level of social complexity, one can find societies organized along both homoarchical and heterarchical lines. Thus, homoarchy and heterarchy represent the most universal principles and basic trajectories of the sociopolitical organization and its evolution. There are no universal evolutionary stages – band, tribe, chiefdom, state – inasmuch as cultures so characterized could be heterarchical or homoarchical: they could be organized differently, while having an equal level of overall social complexity. We are happy to have papers based on anthropological, archaeological, historical evidence from cultures of different periods and geographical areas. We seek to understand mechanisms and factors – social, political, cultural, and so forth – in the formation and transformation of homoarchical and heterarchical societies, including the transformation of one into the other. These address the possibility of alternativity as well as variability in world history and cultural evolution.
Carole L. Crumley (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA)
Widening the Search for Democracy
In a volume exploring heterarchy, Brumfiel (1995) notes the variety of ways the volume's authors use the idea. Heterarchy describes an array of independent, homogeneous elements; the membership of elements in many different unranked interaction systems and depend on need, or where the same element occupies different rank; and the interaction as equals of two or more functionally discrete systems, which may be either ranked or unranked. In the same volume, I suggest that the idea of heterarchy may be of more general use, in three broad areas: scale, power, and values. While I am agree with Brumfiel's characterization of heterarchy as an enhanced descriptor of systems, its larger philosophical potential will not be fully realized until the underlying tension, the dialectic between hierarchy and heterarchy (however defined), is examined against the cultural and historical backdrop in which hierarchy became synonymous with order and other orderly forms were forgotten. For example, is heterarchy an alternative term for certain characteristics of political systems that are more likely to be styled democratic'? The contemporary ideal of the nation-state is founded on the assumption that the Greeks were the inventors of democracy. However, a growing body of evidence from northwest Europe suggests that later Iron Age polities were characterized by political and social forms that were by several measures more democratic than any contemporary forms in the Classical world. The status of women is especially worth examination, as well as the concept of self, the negotiation of strategic alliances and community norms, and the forms of succession in governance. While archaeological and literary records always offer an incomplete glimpse of the past, we may nevertheless know enough about societies situated both geographically and culturally beyond the poleis to challenge a key component of the origin myth of democracy.
David B. Small (Lehigh University, Betleham, USA)
Democracy as an Epiphenomenon
Tradition analyses of the rise of democracies in the established polities of the archaic and classical periods in the Mediterranean report that the rise of democracy was the product of a purposeful clash, a wrestling away of control and power from an entrenched existing social hierarchy. Loosing up our analysis of the genesis of democracy in these cases however, by the application of a heterarchical frame, brings to focus an important, overlooked feature. There is much to support the concept that the rise of democracy, both in the traditional sense in ancient Greek polities and a more republican sense in Italian polities was epiphenomenal. Rather than developing out of a dialectic of opposition in an elites versus non-elites hierarchy, democracy appeared as a secondary issue, developing within contexts that were outside the traditional armature of elite control.
David Christian (San Diego State University, USA)
Power, Scale and Collective Learning:
Power and Hierarchy in Human and Non-Human Societies
Power and hierarchy are not confined to human societies. Animal behaviorists have long been aware of the striking parallels between human societies and those of other ‘social animals’, including species such as ants that are only distantly related to humans. Biologists are aware of an even deeper analogy: between the creation of multi-cellular organisms that organize and rearrange the individual cells of which they are composed, and social communities that do much the same to the individuals of which they are composed. This paper will explore these analogies, in order to see what they can teach us about power and hierarchy in human societies. In particular, it will explore the extent to which power and hierarchy correlate with density of settlement. As a counterpoint, the paper will also explore the implications of an idea I have developed in my forthcoming book on ‘Big History’ (‘Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History’): that the primary feature distinguishing human from non-human societies is ‘collective learning’, the capacity to share and accumulate the learnt experience of individuals with great precision. I will argue that ‘collective learning’ helps explain some of the distinctive features of power and hierarchy in human societies, in particular, the timing and geography of the emergence of different types of hierarchies, and the rich and complex role played within all human hierarchies by symbolism and ritual.
Olga Yu. Artemova
(Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology,
Moscow, Russia)
On Some Forms of Hierarchical Systems
The author argues that various types or displays of social inequality may have been shaped by quite different phenomena. Different mechanisms of structuring or institutionalization of hierarchical systems could act in parallel in the same culture (or society) or could be specific to particular cultures in particular periods and circumstances. These mechanisms could have their foundations in the sphere of material production and property relations as well as outside this sphere. In the last case, monopolization of special knowledge and occupations (often closely connected with ideology) by certain social groups is a powerful force that often shaped and still shapes social inequality. Data from hunter-gatherer societies with the purest and least complicated mechanisms of social differentiation illustrate this idea. The author emphasizes that powerful and prestigious corporations, with limited membership and monopoly of socially important information, exist in a number of societies with quite different social and economic systems: among foragers and shifting cultivators as well as modern industrial societies; in class societies as well as so-called socialist societies which pretended to eliminate classes and private ownership of the means of production. The author proposes that existence of such corporations is deeply connected with socio-psychological phenomena that cut across boundaries of cultures, epochs, continents, and civilizations.
Herbert Barry, III (University of Pittsburgh, USA)
Heterarchical or Homoarchical Leadership and Kinship in Communities
Community customs may constitute either heterarchical choices or predetermined homoarchical structures. Heterarchical community status is independence. The hierarchical alternative is subordination to higher government. Heterarchical choice in succession of community leadership is a formal election or an agreement by a group of the members, when a vacancy occurs. The homoarchical alternative is hereditary succession, determined prior to the vacancy. Heterarchical choice in family relationships is bilateral kinship, affiliation with the relatives of either parent or with both. The homoarchical alternative is predetermined unilineal kinship, either patrilineal or matrilineal. In a world sample of 186 communities, independent communities have similar numbers with bilateral and unilineal kinship. Independent communities with heterarchical choice of leadership have more frequent homicide, less incorporation of adolescents into adult culture, and more elaborate social control over adolescents. These attributes appear to be detrimental effects of predominantly heterarchical choices. Most of the homoarchical subordinated communities have homoarchical unilineal kinship. Subordinated communities with unilineal kinship and hereditary community leadership have lower levels of technological development, longer post-partum sex taboo, less frequent internal warfare, and less requirement of adolescents to be obedient. Some of these customs appear to be detrimental effects of predetermined homoarchical structures The optimal customs appear to be the individual freedom and adaptability of heterarchical choices combined with the predictability and continuity of homoarchical structures. The communities include villages in contemporary Russia (Viriatino), Spain (Spanish Basques), Thailand (Siamese), and Japan. Community leadership is heterarchical choice and family affiliation is heterarchical bilateral kinship. National leadership also is heterarchical choice. The heterarchical ideals of individual freedom, universal education, and equal opportunity for men and women are strongly expressed in these nations in spite of the homoarchical subordination of the villages to higher government.
Garrett Cook (Baylor University, Waco, USA)
Heterarchy and Homoarchy in Maya Village Politics
Debates about the degree of hierarchization of Classic Maya polities remain inconclusive (See Potter and King 1995, Fox, Cook, Chase and Chase 1996). Maya populations have consistently resisted centralized administration in favor of decentralized mechanically repetitive administration. Maya social-political history is a process expressing a dialectic between counterpoised powers (Crumley 1987:163), and also between counterpoised native models (Leach 1964). In colonial Guatemala, Maya pueblos were decentralized. Parcialidades (cofradias) retained the form of pre-conquest calpules or chinamits. Elite (cacique) lineages supervised these communal estates and sponsored the cults of local patron saints. The Twentieth Century Ladino-dominated nation state, supported locally by acculturated urban Maya, eliminated communal lands, seized the saints and placed them in a central church. Epi-toltec stories where saints were brought from Spain by cacique ancestors were challenged by a story of autochthonous power where saints were found in local caves. Cofradias became fiesta-sponsoring sodalities in the municipal church controlled by the urban elite. In the 1970's, though, surviving cacique families used the Catholic Action movement to break with the centralized cofradia system, replacing festival sponsorship in the urban center with local observances in newly built chapels underwritten by the caciques' descendants. In a Yucatec village in 1980's Belize several wealthy acculturated families gained control of electoral offices and the Catholic Church. Pentecostalism grew in the 1980s and 90's recruiting 90% of the Catholics into four small churches each of which was composed of two intermarrying patrilineages. Pentecostal participation in town government and elections was replaced by participation in decentralized churches. Village activities were coordinated by a council of pastors. Pentecostalism was used to resist hierarchical centralization and the western state's model of electoral representative democracy in favor of a decentralized Maya model of a council of visionary elders representing their junior kin.
Toon van Meijl (University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands)