Types of societies
Anthropologists tend to classify different societies according to the degree to which different groups within a society have unequal access to advantages such as resources, prestige or power. (Useful definitions.) Virtually all societies have developed some degree of inequality among their people through the process of social stratification-the division of members of a society into strata (or levels) with unequal wealth, prestige or power. Differences lie in how societies treat the inequalities. Some may downplay them so they become transparent and insignificant (egalitarian societies) while others will accent inequalities (ranked and class-based societies). Three different types of societies can generally recognized: egalitarian societies, ranked societies and class-based societies.
Egalitarian societal members tend to treat each other as equals. Wealth differences are few as is the amount of power available to any individual or group. The people possess norms that emphasize sharing and ideals of interpersonal equality. This is not to say that stratification is non-existent in these societies. In comparison with nonegalitarian societies, however, stratification is relatively insignificant. Even when someone like a bigman is present, prestige is important and linked to redistribution. However, the bigman gives more than he receives as his role as a redistributor is defined. If he hordes or possesses too much, he will lose the recognition as a bigman. In effect, he is a member of society as an equal who has a defined role that carries prestige but not wealth and recognition but not status. (See reading on egalitarian hierarchies.)
In ranked societies people are divided into hierarchically ordered groups that differ in terms of prestige, but not significantly in terms of access to resources or power. Within this context it is possible to identify persons we can label as chiefs whose inherited position and prestige is often linked to the redistribution of goods.
In class-based societies people are divided into hierarchically ordered groups that differ in terms of access not only to prestige, but also to resources and power. Western capitalist societies have distinct classes (e.g. upper class, middle class, poor), but mobility amongst the classes sometimes occurs through activities such as education, marriage or hard work. For similar reasons to those mentioned above, it is not appropriate to describe the Net as a class-based society.
Economics
Cultures can be characterized, in part, by the type of economic systems that they support. Three forms of economic exchange systems are typically recognized by anthropologists: reciprocity, redistribution and market exchange.
Reciprocity is the simplest form of economic exchange. It involves giving a product or service to another person in the expectation of receiving something of similar value in return. Reciprocal transactions are economic exchanges, but they are also personalized; they take place between people who have a bond, and they serve to strengthen these ties.
In a redistributive economy goods or labor are accumulated by a specific person, or at a particular place, and are subsequently redistributed back throughout the society. Such economies are found in all societies, to some extent, but they are "an important mechanism only in societies that have political hierarchies-that is, chiefs and other specialized officials and agencies" (Ember and Ember, 1990, p. 129).
Market exchange economies are associated with capitalist societies. In such economies producers send or take their goods to a marketplace where they are bid for by purchasers. The main feature of market exchanges is that goods and services are bought and sold at money prices determined by the impersonal forces of supply and demand.
There is one aspect of human economic systems that we should recognize. There are societies where it is more important to give everything away rather than acccumulate it. These societies are known as Bigman Societies. Influence and recognition is more important than being wealthy. Bigmen are redistributors.
Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, and States
Many anthropologists define four major types of political organization. From least to most socially complex they are bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states.
A band is a small, autonomous group of people (often as low as twenty, and never more than a few hundred) made up of nuclear families that live together and are loosely associated with a territory on which they hunt. A band political structure is typically found amongst societies with a hunter- gather economy. Band societies have no specialized roles. Social order is maintained through the informal mechanisms of gossip, ridicule and avoidance - in other words through public opinion.
The second of the major forms of political structure is the tribe. A tribe is of the order of a large collection of bands, but it is not simply a collection of bands. The ties that bind a tribe are more complicated than those of bands. Leadership is personal-charismatic-and for special purposes only in tribal society; there are no political offices containing real power, and a "chief" is merely a man of influence, a sort of adviser. The means of tribal consolidation for collective action are therefore not governmental. Technically, the tribe is a group of bands. The tribe is, of course, a larger society tied together by familiar bonds. Family structures known as lineages, clan, moieties, and phratries form the primary bonding mechanisms. The local groups that compose a traditional tribal society are communal and strongly social, with members linked by kinship ties. Tribes have developed kin-based mechanisms to accommodate more sedentary life, to redistribute food, and to organize some communal services. Public opinion plays a major role in decision making. Tribal people tend to think in certain ways. They tend to be egalitarian, think humans are part of nature itself, the world is composed of dualities that form a harmony, and life is designed to work for the good of the community - good of the whole. Tribal people also stress consensus in determing what is good for the whole. One of the easiest tribes for us to examine since we live in Arizona is the Hopi. Hopi traditional political organization can be called a theocracy. Traditionally, Hopi villages were ruled by established clan theocracies. The High Priest of a village was (and still is) called the kikmongwi and served as father of the village. The kikmongwi usually appointed at least one spokespman to make his wishes known to the outside world, and to serve as a source of information about the world. Various Crier Chiefs, Kiva Chiefs, and other leaders formed the village government; clan relationships usually dictated who would receive specific ceremonial and governing positions. Each Hopi village was autonomous with various villages having special clan and religious relationships with one another. In a sense, traditional Hopi government was not democratic. It is true that the priests, religious leaders, warriors, and kikmongwis would listen to various opinions before making decisions, but government was not necessarily by consensus. Yet Hopi are deeply tribal in the way they think and consensus was and is important. They would and do think in terms of what is good for the whole when leadership considers a decision. So they balance the need for leadership and their tribal ways of thinking.
The third form of political organization is the chiefdom. Chiefdoms are societies headed by individuals with unusual ritual, political, or entrepreneurial skills. The society is kin-based but more along hierarchical lines than a tribe. Chiefdoms are associated with greater population density and display signs of social ranking. The chiefdom society is also more complex and more organized, being particularly distinguished from tribes by the presence of centers which coordinate economic, social and religious activities. Whereas tribes have some grouping that can informally integrate more than one community, chiefdoms have some formal structure integrating multi-community political units. The formal structure could consist of a council with or without a chief, but most commonly there is a person-the chief-who has higher rank and authority than others. The position of chief, which is sometimes hereditary and generally permanent, bestows high status on its holder. Unlike a tribe in which all segments are structurally and functionally similar, a chiefdom is made up of parts that are structurally and functionally different from one another. A ranking system means that some lineages, and the individuals in them, have higher or lower social status than others. Chiefdoms can be divided into ones that take on a more simple, kin-based organization and those that are more complex where there is a more developed regional hierarchy with a paramount chief and lesser chiefdoms. The simpler form has centralized decision making for better mobilization of manpower and exploitation of resources than is possible in a tribal form of society. The more complex chiefdom has a greater measure of authority but still lacks a bureaucracy to administer food surpluses nor to distribute and store resources. The society is more divided along two lines - nobility and commoners. Nobility tends to compete for leadership, prestige, and religious authority making the chiefdom relatively unstable.
Anthropologist Robert Carneiro (1970) defines the state as "an autonomous political unit, encompassing many communities within its territory and having a centralized government with the power to collect taxes, draft men for work or war, and decree and enforce laws." Here again it is the notion of a centralized government that distinguishes the state from the decentralized type political organization. States represent highly complex organizational structures that function to control large societies. They are associated with large territories, administrative bureaucracies, a high degree of specialization, and large, dense populations. States represent a major departure from earlier kin-based societies. A non-kin-based relationship between rulers and those who are ruled marks a state as a major departure from other forms of societies.
Bands
Tribes
Chiefdoms
States