THE ECOLOGY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Topics covered in this lecture:
1) What is stratification?
2) What are the main ecological explanations for stratification?
3) Illustrative examples: Pomo Indian trade feasts; role of irrigation in state formation
What is Stratification?
Stratification can be defined various ways, but most commonly refers to institutionalized inequalities in power, wealth, and status between categories of persons within a single social system (e.g., classes, castes, ethnic groups)
Status inequalities between individuals are found everywhere, so how much inequality does it take to qualify as a stratified society?
On one hand, inequalities based on personal qualities (charisma, economic or social skills, etc.) do not constitute stratification, since they aren't defined by membership in a particular category
So, if in a hunting band the best hunter or the healer/shaman is held in high regard and has preferential access to some resources, this ain't social stratification
On other hand, all human societies known to date exhibit institutionalized inequalities based on age, and most (all?) have gender-based inequalities as well; so by the general definition given above, all known human societies are stratified
But most students of social stratification are interested in differences between categories of persons other than age-classes or genders -- i.e., they treat inequalities based strictly on age and gender in separate categories
Thus, its common to see some societies classified as "egalitarian" even though they may be patriarchal gerontocracies (e.g., some Australian aborigines, many pastoralist groups), where the elder males have considerably more power and control substantially more wealth than do others (women, younger men) in the society
Social scientists disagree about "intermediate" cases such as chiefdoms (e.g., NW Coast Indians, various Polynesian societies) -- are they stratified, or merely "ranked"?
By narrower definition, where stratification is defined by socioeconomic class, "stratified society" is essentially limited to nation-states
States have some additional characteristics besides socioeconomic stratification:
1. Centralized and hierarchical/bureaucratic political organization
2. Highly codified legal system of decision-making and enforcement
3. Governmental monopoly on use of lethal force (police, armies)
4. System of economic expropriation (taxation) and redistribution
5. Dense population
6. Large scale (population generally well over 100,000)
7. Complex economic division of labor (occupational specialization)
Even by narrow definition, all people are now incorporated into stratified societies (nation-states), though even 100 yrs ago there were many autonomous small-scale societies (e.g., Amazonian Indians, highland New Guinea, Borneo, central Arctic Inuit), and 5,000 yrs ago states were virtually nonexistent
Though arising relatively late in human history, stratification involves a massive transformation of socioeconomic systems, with profound ecological consequences
For example, only with stratification do we find the socioeconomic integration of large regions embracing millions of people; this shift from local resource utilization and self-sufficiency to production for regional markets seems to be associated with increased resource depletion and ecological instability (an issue we return to later in the course)
Causes of Stratification
Understanding origins of stratification is difficult, in part because we are virtually limited to archaeological record for direct evidence on the process
Reason for this is that written records only emerge with stratification (in fact, evidence suggests that in most cases writing was first developed in order to carry out two specific functions of stratified societies: maintain tax records, and record genealogies and histories of hereditary rulers)
Although there is much that we don't know about origins of stratification, it is clear that it is a relatively recent development (e.g., as revealed through study of grave goods, and historical record of state expansion and conquest of more egalitarian societies)
Once they arise, stratified systems tend to expand at expense of egalitarian systems, but this cannot explain origins of first stratified systems (i.e., cases of "pristine" state formation)
What drives egalitarian societies towards stratification? Are there ecological explanations?
It is not simply subsistence mode, since some foragers are less egalitarian than many agricultural and most pastoralist societies
Attempts to explain cultural evolution of social stratification in ecological terms generally rely on one or another of 2 basic approaches:
1. Stratification = solution to an ecological problem
2. Stratification = system by which one class extracts resources from another
These 2 approaches often termed functional and conflict theories, respectively
Functional theories focus on benefits to all parties; in contrast, conflict theories argue that elites benefit at expense of commoners
(Note: These divisions run very deep in social science -- not confined to ecological analyses of stratification)
These 2 views give diametrically opposite interpretations of most aspects of social stratification (see Table)
Functionalist Theories
Functionalists see rise of state systems as driven by reciprocity, a "social contract" (as Hobbes argued over 300 yrs ago)
In this view, centralized rule is a bargain that benefits everyone: citizens pay taxes (share of crops, labor, etc.) and give up some freedom, and in return the state provides public order, military security, various public works (e.g., irrigation, highways, public buildings)
Conflict theorists (of whom the most famous/influential is Marx) see states as essentially exploitative, primarily benefiting ruling elites, and arising only when masses must submit to dominance & exploitation, or else face starvation and repression
Functional theories emphasize mutualistic relations between elites and commoners; elites are seen as providing managerial benefits, and the commoners' part of the bargain is to produce the surplus necessary to adequately reward these services
Conflict theories by contrast see elites as parasitic, extracting surplus from commoners by various means: ideological control (patriotism, theocracy, etc.), monopoly on technical knowledge, and (if necessary) force
What about more specific scenarios of the development of stratification?
Older theories (popular in 19th century) viewed social stratification as a manifestation of the general "progress" & increase in complexity characteristic of sociocultural evolution
Modern scholars dismiss these arguments as teleological (societies don't have any automatic tendency to become more complex), tautological (they simple re-label what needs to be explained, and call it the cause), and ethnocentric (they position modern states as proper culmination of last 40,000 yrs of human history)
Following the discrediting of these "social progress" explanations, many social theorists sought to isolate a "prime mover" (key variable, primary cause) responsible for development of stratification
As table shows, favored prime movers (and associated ecological, economic, and social prerequisites) differ between functional & conflict theories of stratification
On one hand, functionalists point to benefits obtained through stratification:
1) Conflict reduction (state as police force to prevent anarchy, quell the Hobbesian "warre" of all against all): in this view, individuals voluntarily sacrifice some freedoms in order to obtain benefits of safety & domestic order
2) Redistribution: ruling elites as (benevolent?) economic administrators who manage redistribution networks that buffer disparities in resources due to environmental & socioeconomic fluctuations or heterogeneity
3) Military defense: effective defense from enemies favors hierarchical organization, larger social unit (® bigger army), surplus production to support military and administrative specialists
Conflict Theories
In contrast, conflict theories see stratification as driven by resource competition, with elites establishing themselves whenever ecological and socioeconomic conditions permit:
Since resource competition of some form is ubiquitous, convincing conflict theories must explain why competition leads to stratification in some instances and not in others
One influential argument proposes a combination of 1) economies of scale and 2) environmental circumscription
Economy of scale refers to situations where per-capita economic efficiency is greater at larger scales (number of people cooperating, area under production, size of factory, etc.); for example, using a few large ships to carry out trade between islands, rather than many small ships
Circumscription refers to environmental or economic heterogeneity that imposes very high costs for leaving an area (for example, a river floodplain with rich, well-watered soil surrounded by desert)
Given severe circumscription (or really any situation of extreme environmental heterogeneity), there's a higher chance that a segment of society can monopolize or dominate access to resources, and use this control to extract value (in form of taxes, labor, military service, etc.) from other members of society
In the typical scenario, population growth ® intensified resource competition ® development of incipient hierarchical social organization within local groups for more effective competition; permanent stratification occurs when one segment able to effectively control access to resources, and subordinates cannot afford to emigrate because surrounding area much poorer in resources (circumscription), or occupied by other groups unwilling to allow immigration
This scenario fits the 6 accepted cases of "pristine" (independent) state development: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley, Shang/central China, Valley of Mexico, coastal Peru, all river valleys or basins ringed by arid land and/or mountains; it also fits areas that were on threshold of state formation prior to European colonization (NW Coast, parts of Polynesia, etc.); but in addition seems to fit some areas lacking stratification
Technological complexity provides an alternative reason elites are able to control means of production & extract surplus from producers, and this is central to Marx & Engels' model of the emergence of stratification (see "hydraulic hypothesis" below)
Examples
When we examine specific instances of stratification, usually find that the rigid dichotomy between functional and conflict theories does not hold up very well, nor does one factor usually emerge as a "prime mover" (unitary cause)
Example 1: Pomo Trade Feast illustrates incipient stratification, functional role of elites in managing economic redistribution
Pomo Indians were the indigenous inhabints of an extensive area of northern coastal Calif (currently = Sonoma & Mendocino Counties)
This area stretched from ocean to interior over coast range, covering 3 zones:
1) coastline & redwood forest (marine foods, salmon runs, but least favorable habitat for human subsistence)
2) interior valleys (grassy, oak groves--abundant acorns & game)
3) Clear Lake area (fish, waterfowl, much game, roots, etc. -- most favorable)
Prior to European colonial intrusion, Pomo were divided into at least 34 politically autonomous groups (termed "tribelets") of a few hundred members each
Because of environmental diversity just noted, as well as seasonality of some resources, adjacent tribelets often had access to very different sets of resources
When an abundance of a particular resource was harvested in any one tribelet's area, a trade feast was held; these usually linked tribelets occupying different environmental zones (and hence enjoying complementary sets of resources)
As was typical throughout Native California, each Pomo tribelet was headed by a chief who lived in main village in largest house, had control over public storehouse with foodstuffs and other goods, supported a number of craft specialists, and was assisted by various administrative assistants and ceremonial leaders (many of these being close kinsmen of chief)
Position of chief was not strictly inherited, but tended to be monopolized by a few family lines who constituted local aristocracy
Power of chief did not come from force or divine sanction -- he had neither -- but rather from his control over economic, diplomatic, and ceremonial life of his group
Trade Feast exemplifies how this worked
Chief decided when to call a feast, and sent out a runner to a tribelet chosen to be guests
Guest chief decided whether to accept invitation, and if so sent word to all households of his tribelet that they should send him shell money
Guest villagers & chief then journeyed to host village on appointed date, and guest chief presented shell money to host chief
There followed several days of feasting, social and ceremonial activities
Meanwhile, host chief and advisers counted up shell money, and based on estimated amount of surplus food to be traded, established exchange value (e.g., string of 100 beads = 5 salmon); this exchange rate was not fixed, but rather fluctuated according to supply and demand
At conclusion of Trade Feast, exchange of shell money for surplus foods took place, supervised by host chief and his assistants; any shell money left over at end was appropriated by host chief for public coffers
Finally, guest chief redistributed food in equal shares to each of his tribelet's households; he kept some of the food as "fee" for his administrative labors
Note that because of rules governing exchange of beads for food, trade feasts resulted in reducing disparity of resources between tribelets, and reducing wealth diffs. within guest tribelets (except chief), but increasing it within host tribelet (though keep in mind that every tribelet got to play both roles over the years)
It appears that wealthier families were motivated to contribute a disproportionate share of shell beads because of the increased prestige for doing so (somewhat akin to charity galas attended by members of socioeconomic elite in modern states)
Trade feast also functioned to redistribute resource surpluses, allowing members of a tribelet (when playing the host role) to "bank" excess food resources by converting them into durable wealth; thus, it appears to have had functional (adaptive) value for all parties
Trade feasts also served as a prominent venue for chiefs to demonstrate their administrative & diplomatic skills, and to accumulate wealth in payment for this, thus creating or reinforcing political and socioeconomic inequalities (if not true class stratification)
Example 2. Hydraulic hypothesis of state emergence illustrates more intensive form of social stratification
This scenario propounded by Karl Wittfogel (historian) & Julian Steward (ecological anthropologist), who posited that large-scale irrigation requires centralized co-ordination & direction ® growth of administrative bureaucracy that lives off of agricultural surplus taxed from the producing (peasant) class
Thus, the monopolizable resource (and environmental circumscription) here is anthropogenic -- the irrigation system itself -- though of course there are environmental prerequisites (distribution of water, soil, topography, etc.) that make irrigation system more or less feasible and productive
Proponents of hydraulic hypothesis cite existence of waterworks in each of 6 earliest states in support of the hypothesis
However, critics of the hypothesis cite a) existence of irrigation networks before rise of states in some cases; b) existence of states before irrigation in others; and c) cases where irrigation systems never led to class stratification (e.g., Hohokam culture of prehistoric SW)
Nevertheless, most scholars agree than once both hierarchy & irrigation were present, positive feedback ensued and both increased thru mutual reinforcement
Conclusions
In evaluating alternative views on stratification, draw three conclusions:
1) Many, perhaps most, cases of stratification reveal complex mix of prerequisites and causal factors (some environmental, some sociocultural)
2) Whatever its causes, stratification associated with massive increase in rate of resource extraction (reflected in rapid & sustained population growth) so in Darwinian terms appears to be "beneficial" to masses -- but perhaps even more so to ruling elites, who pump off "surplus" to benefit themselves and their close kin
3) This increase in resource extraction and population ultimately has some serious environmental consequences -- a topic we return to in last week of this course