Internal Differentiation and Specialization
G. Kent Flannery
Kent Flannery suggests a more explicitly systems-oriented perspective and notes that what produces surplus is the coercive power of real authority. He focuses on something he refers to as "segregation." This involves internal differentiation and specialization of subsystems within a society and the appearance of new institutions or new levels in the control hierarchy.
Flannery believes that centralization is the strengthening of higher-level controls. This creates linkage between the subsystems and the highest-order controlling apparatus in the society. Every thing in the society leads to a controlling central feature. Flannery see the hallmark in the evolution of such complex systems as the state with its increased centralization and interdependence of societal subsystems. He believes a powerful centralized management often evolves at the top of the hierarchy to offset the instability that would occur if one subsystem affected all other subsystems.
He believes that one of the most important institutions is that which regulates the flow of information to constituent groups within a society. Central development in the rise of civilization was the increasing necessity for mechanisms with which to communicate information. Societies with organization based on kinship or religion could handle a considerable amount of detailed information, but highly formalized institutions of early civilizations carried information regulation and dissemination much further than had heretofore been done. These formalized institutions enabled the scale of organization to develop into the state.
Flannery envisioned two evolutionary mechanisms. The first is promotion. This is a process by which a low-level special purpose institution becomes a higher level institution serving a more general purpose during a time of stress. Amilitary coup would be an example. At first, military was special-purpose arm of the theocratic state. Later, men who had risen in the military seized or acceded to kingship. The legend of Gilgamesh is a classic tale of promotion.
The second force is linearization. This is a process by which low-level controls are permanently bypassed by higher-level controls. A takeover of local irrigation management by the state government is an example of linearization. This process of change involved the bypassing of local headment by the state or some other higher authority. One example of linearization would involve the payment of taxes by each citizen directly to the federal government, instead of the payment of tribute to local chiefs. Linearization heavily contributes to centralization, and according to Flannery can have negative consequences, when buffering elements of local control are not present to temper big government.
The following sections outline these two processes more completely.
Linearization
Takeover of local regulation
Bypassing local headmen
Promotion
A new institution rises out of
an existing one
Seizing control opportunistically
Traditional canal irrigation in the Valley of Oaxaca was a small-scale affair managed autonomously by each community in its own way. Allocation of water was handled by a variety of methods. No advantage was gained along the canals by this control. The canals were viewed as "public".
This form of management was replaced by governmental control when the Mexican government took over mmanagement. A special-purpose arm of a higher-order system simply began to make decisions. This higher-order system could not have known or understood the local environment sufficiently to keep the old ways of "public" canals.
Consider the following hypothetical case: Flash floods damage several government built dams downstream along a canal system. News travels to the centralized government directly. A directive is issued to the entire system - a set quantity of water will be released each day to avoid potential for more damage. Portions of the larger system desparately need water because of a local lack of rain. Out-of-the-way villages simply ignore the directives thus reducing linearization - linear flow of information. This leads to something Flannergy calls HYPERCOHERENCE which can be detrimental to the society and eventually lead to loss of leadership and control.
Cargo Systems
In tribal societies, potential is held in check by leveling mechanisms. Prestige cannot exist with equal access. Even with Bigmen, the obligation is to give away. This obligation of giving is seen by anthropologists as a "cargo" that one carries - leadership is not for power necessarily. Evolving institutions may be led by individuals who care to give more than to exercise control. It is possible that some individuals view their role differently and turn away from the obligations of the office to gain greater control through power. In the following example, one sees the swing from a "cargo" type leadership to one where an individual or group of individuals gain control by manipulating circumstances...this is usurpation in Flannery's sense.
Usurpation
Individuals may meddle and thereby usurp or elevate
one's self in the process.
Mayordomos example in the Valley of Oaxaca, 300 miles south of Mexico City. San Juan Guelavia was a village of small property holders, voerned by a council of elders and regulated by two mechanisms - cargo and mayordomia. Rotation of village governmental offices among responsible citizens of the town. The Mayordomia included financial responsibilites for fiestas and festivals. Those who could afford this were given the responsibility.
Enterprising villager named Marcial Lopez converted this system into a means of taking over the lands of his neighbors. With the aid of some friends in the clergy he forced the council of elders to desgnate majordomos without taking into account whether or not the person was sufficiently solvent to carry the financial obligations. When they could not, Lopez stepped in to take their land thru foreclosure. In a few short decades a few families - many named Lopez, owned 92.2% of the land in the region.