21A.100
Prof. Howe
NUER: FEUD & VIOLENCE
1. Strength and weakness of anthropology: Anthropologists are often swayed by a
single key case
a. Weakness in that this is an obviously inadequate sample. No way of
knowing if typical or how typical.
b. Strength in that rich analysis, really can tell you a lot.
2. As said before, ethnography of E.E. Evans-Pritchard (EP) is problem-oriented
a. Zande cognition: question of mentality of natives.
i. argued that they were rational
ii. but systems of rationality were culture-specific, bounded
3. Nuer political system was seemingly anarchy
a. No chiefs. No coercive power.
b. Very aggressive, warlike.
c. EP argued that nonetheless was order, system, not chaotic.
4. EP's Answers: Why there was “order in the feud”
a. Nesting hierarchy of groups. From tribe down to local sections.
b. No one of them got absolute loyalty, but relative loyalties.
c. Also nesting hierarchy of patrilineal kinship.
i. Clans divided into subclans divided into maximal lineages divided
into minor lineages
d. Relative loyalties: brothers, close cousins, distant,
i. These loyalties were not identical with tribal.
ii. This got messy. Dominant lineage in section, but then others
attached.
5. EP noted that gradations existed with their actions. Hutchinson discusses:
i. Gradation of violence:
1. Clubs instead of spears when fighting people who are fairly
close.
2. Rape and plunder and drive off only with non-Nuer.
3. The Dinka are a marginal case.
ii. Gradation of readiness to resolve the conflict
6. So there is some peace in feud.
a. Violence is not total or constant.
b. There are checks and limits.
i. What imposes the limits?
1. Environment.
a. Mauss wrote about seasonal variations among Inuit
or Eskimo, probably influenced EP
i. Certain times of year people could come
together in larger groups. Intensification of
social life, practice religious rituals.
2. EP noted that the Nuer had seasonal variations, with dry
and wet seasons.
a. During the flood seasons, they end up crammed
onto little islands.
b. Then in the dry season, they disperse to cattle
camps.
7. So there are real incentives to resolve killing fast, especially when they take place
within the same or neighboring settlements.
a. This tapers off in conflict with more distant peoples in part because almost
they never meet, and the conflict doesn’t disrupt subsistence
b. Also because patrlineal kinship is not airtight. Cross-cutting ties.
i. Have maternal relatives
ii. Have others with whom one might be tied
8. There are mechanisms to resolve conflict, even without authoritative control.
a. Bloodwealth.
b. Compensation.
i. Seen throughout European history. Celtic countries, including
Britain, France & Germany.
ii. Practice called: "Wergild"
1. not foolproof. Someone might eventually seek revenge
even if compensation has been accepted.
2. but not totally random and chaotic either
c. Figures to mediate.
i. Leopard skin chiefs are the go-betweens, the mediators.
ii. We now recognize lots in own society:
1. When there’s a strike, occasionally resolved by Presidential
order, but much more often through negotiation or binding
arbitration, meaning negotiation with sanctions
iii. Leopard skin chiefs have some ritual sanctions
d. Beliefs also mediate feuds
i. There is pollution by killing.
ii. Hutchinson discusses that the people involved in the conflict can't
eat with others involved.
iii. One can't hide from the pollution either because will find you out.
iv. This encourages acknowledging and resolving conflict.
e. Restraint also plays a role, though EP didn't mention it.
i. Sonny Barger writes about prison,
1. sees civility when know consequences of incivility.
ii. The Nuer are touchy and aggressive, but probably in carefully
controlled way. Just as community cannot tolerate hostility against
itself, so too are individuals intolerant of it.
9. EP emphasizing stability, system, and order. Hutchinson portrays a much more
messy and fluid life.
a. But EP knew there was mess.
b. But EP saw the mess in the assumed chaos.
10. Problem of Violence and War - Simple “primitive” socities are often sen as key to
understanding war in general.
a. Understanding it is very messy. What are the criteria?
i. How violent?
ii. How many killed?
iii. How often wars take place?
b. This is a question of great concern because the answers are taken to say
something about human nature in general.
i. If people in small-scale traditional societies are more peaceful,
then maybe war and killing is not ingrained,
1. If this is true, then there may be a chance that if we can
work out mess of modern civilization, then maybe can
control war
ii. If the Nuer and all the rest are constantly killing each other, then
maybe war is inevitable, and we can only work to limit and control
it
c. War is hard to study.
i. e.g. EP: arrives right after huge changes so there was good reason
to think that Nuer warlike before he got there.
1. They had just been forcibly pacified with machine guns,
bombs.
2. so are they killing each other more or less than before?
a. It could be that it was not much less, or it could be
that these changes stirred people up and EP saw
unnaturally more killings.
d. Also hard to be dispassionate about the subject.
i. Basic disagreement about human nature, influences how interpret
data.
ii. As noted before:
1. Hobbes said: savages are nasty, brutish, and short. Man
naturally violent, bad, and must be kept in check,
controlled.
2. Rousseau said: Man is naturally good. It's society that
distorts.
e. Partly, this is a question of how much is programmed by "human nature"?
Partly this is a question of if we’re programmed for violence, how nasty
are we?
f. So studies of war, right away transfer assumption to all humanity.
i. Yanomami, “our ancestors”.
ii. But why are they more representative than someone else? Is it just
because they are notorious?
g. There are always exceptions to our rules
i. even chimps, wolves have been seen as object lessons regarding
violence.
1. Both portrayed as nice guys. “Never Cry Wolf.”
2. But this is sadly disillusioned.
3. Dolphins act like males sexist pigs, herd females around.
11. If studies of war aren’t drawing conclusions about humanity in general, then they
make Us and Them claims.
a. History of colonial expansion is one of violence. How do we interpret
these interactions?
i. In the US: Indians were savage, scalpers, and defilers or seen as
natural sweeties who only defended themselves
1. There’s a myth that they didn't even scalp before whites
taught. (Not true)
2. Extraordinarily touchy subject.
a. Film, Black Robe: in many ways very sympathetic,
but also violence.
3. Iroquois museum. Iroquois notable warriors, and
dominated other tribes. They were very effective and tough.
But the museum portrays them as wimps, sweeties. Turned
other cheek
b. Prof. Howe’s take on subject:
i. great ceremonial element: Line up and shoot, dodge.
1. For the Nuer and Iroquois it was a chance for individual
showing off
a. less as matter of policy, less land grabbing. But
happened sometimes.
b. not totally uncontrolled. peace in feud.
c. but very very few really nonviolent people.
ii. There was always feud, war, personal violence but it was
aggravated by colonialism.
1. Iroquois, and other Northeast Indians competed for who
could get guns first.
2. Also competition for furs.
3. Also epidemics wiped out populations, desperate attempt to
keep up through adoption
c. Can also look at differences among prestate societies.
i. nomadic societies everywhere are famed as warriors.
12. VIOLENCE IS.NOT THE ONLY POLITICAL QUESTIONS:
13. In 1940, same year as The Nuer came out, first real anthropological book on
politics was published, African Political Systems, EP and Meyer Fortes (name not
hyphenated)
a. This book set the agenda for anthropological study of African politics,
challenging old views
i. 19
th
century views came from explorers like Livingston, Stanley,
Richard Burton, Speke,
ii. Even more than stateless, they saw the typical African system as
despotic, violent, savage kingdoms
iii. We now know there were great kingdoms in Africa’s past, many
good sized ones in 19
th
b. EP and MF took pains to correct this stereotype.
i. Claimed there were actually checks and balances in African
kingdoms.
1. Not like judicial review, but regular rebellion or fighting
among potential heirs.
2. Also strength of ritual in controlling king.
ii. said African politics were much like England, with controls,
checks
1. Went so far as to say that overall, ruled by consent
2. We would now say they overstated case, but it was
important that they took this corrective stance
14. Another point to correct:
a. There’s a long-standing idea that political centralization is linked to
population density
i. Goes back to 18
th
century but there are famous 19
th
century
versions, Comte, others
ii. Beginning 20
th
century, Durkheim & Mauss
1. Durkheim claimed, in Division of Labor in Society, that
control is a function of pop growth
iii. Durkheim and Mauss, though, into 20
th century
, were evolutionists
1. As in “The Gift”, Mauss traces growth of society from
earliest beginnings to modern complexity
2. The idea of social evolution was one of the great ideas of
19
th
century anthropology
a. It was the notion that surviving “primitives”
representatives of diff stages of human evolution
iv. Boas reacted against evolution, especially because it was tied with
racism and prejudice
b. EP not nearly so political, but also part of reaction to evolution
i. So in the intro to African political systems, he said there was no
correlation between population density and political centralization
ii. Looked at societies treated in chapters of that volume.
1. In acephelous, headless societies, population density was
higher than those of states.
2. Not only did this not confirm the hypothesis, turned it
upside down.
a. States: people per sq mile
i. Zulu, 3.5
ii. Ngwato 2.5
iii. Bemba 3.75
b. Acephelous
i. Nuer 7
ii. Tallensi 171
iii. Logoli 391
c. This was pretty devastating. It destroyed an accepted idea, but turns out to
be illusion. Reanalyzed by a scholar named Stevenson
i. Partly matter of difficulty of estimating pop:
1. Conqueror comes, looks around, gives guess off the top of
his head, and says so many thousand people.
2. It is difficult to estimate crowds at demonstrations, e.g. Red
Sox parade
ii. Also a question of when you count.
1. e.g. The Pilgrims arrived right after smallpox from
fishermen decimated the native population. The found the
place emptied. This is not typical of past.
iii. Systems are also a function of when you look
1. De Soto, early explorer of south, saw centralized
chiefdoms, maybe states in south, but left smallpox etc
behind. By the time real colonial settlement arrived, not
only had there been a great population reduction but great
chiefdoms had mostly collapsed
d. Means of organization must see in terms of historical changes.
i. A society may now be acephelous because a kingdom collapsed or
because it is an outgrowth or colony of a kingdom.
ii. So if we readjust their figures and cases, you can rearrange the data
to look like this: People – Population – Type of Political System
1. Nuer 7 acephalous
2. Ngwato 15-20 chieftanship
3. Zulu 20 small state
4. Bemba 15-20 small state
5. Logoli 50-70 borders of state
iii. There is no perfect correlation, because population density is not
the only cause of political centralization
1. but figures now make more sense
2. They make even more sense if we add other cases at each
end of really small acephalous societies: foragers. They are
much lower density than Nuer, and also high density huge
kingdoms at other end
a. foragers:
i. bushmen .25
ii. pygmies .66
b. great states:
i. Hausa-Fulani 100
ii. Ruanda-Burundi 187
iii. Bunyoro 766
e. If we’re going to make comparisons and draw wide causal conclusions, we
have to do it seriously. We need to control our sample as well as data.
f. This is not something that EP ever did. He was a great ethnographer but
not much at making comparisons.