(Feder Chapter 10, § “Why Did State Societies Develop?”) In this section Feder discusses three widely-accepted anthropological/archaeological models explaining the conundrum (stated in the current buzz-phraseology): why did the “99-percent” in these early states (Feder: “civilizations”) we’ve studied apparently sit still and do nothing while the “one-percent” captured and kept 99% of the wealth and power?
Feder discusses three models, classified into two categories: conflict and integration. Conflict: This is a Marx-based modeling that focuses on internal conflict that occurs within large-scale societies. 1. Feder cites Joseph Tainter’s characterization of the Conflict view’s focus on the rise of agriculture, which “…led to surplus, which led to wealth, which produced socioeconomic classes within Neolithic societies” (and then new institutions and bureaucracies emerged to mediate or suppress the inevitable conflict between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’). 2. In the paragraph in Feder above the “Conflict Models” section, he cites Thomas Patterson’s characterizing rulers of state societies as “bullies” (Tom was my Thesis advisor at Temple until he took a position at Cal-Riverside). So, a second possible dimension of “conflict” modeling: “Bullies” become possible (theoretically) when the increased size and density of a population causes social relations in a burgeoning society to become less intimate/more impersonal—most of us are more likely to take advantage of or fail to help someone we don’t know or someone who we see as being “Other” than who we are. With this dynamic in place, some groups in larger, more complex societies who can a) gain control of some necessary resource, or b) attain a position of power (e.g., head of the military force) will be more likely to leverage that control/power to their advantage, even to the extent of feeling no compunction about visiting violence on others in the society to protect and maintain their advantageous position.
Integration: “Functionalist” modeling (Powell, invoking sociology texts) based on the assumptions that, to maintain social order in burgeoning, more unwieldy societies, a) states “…evolv(e) from the need for increasingly complex integrative mechanisms in increasingly complex situations” (Feder, citing Haas 1982) and that b) naturally, it’s ‘the best and the brightest’ who elevate themselves to the top and assume leadership (Powell, describing purist Functionalist theory). 1. “managerial” (e.g., Wittfogel, “hydraulic hypothesis” (applies where irrigation is necessary for crops) (workings described, pp. 396-7). 2. “external conflict” (e.g., Carneiro, the mechanism of warfare, and the instruments of destruction and institutions of hierarchy associated therewith) (described, pp. 397-8). THE ASSIGNMENT: As a scholarly exercise, answer the question at the top of the page, applying it to early state formation in the Sumerian region, first using conflict modeling, and then integration modeling. Finally, explain which modeling makes more sense to you and why. REQUIREMENTS: Minimum 800 words/Maximum 1600 words. Cite sources and include a Bibliography as given in the “Triple A Style Guide” link in the Assignments link in the Course Menu. You’ll submit your paper to a Turn It In, also located in the Assignments link.
