So I Had This Anthropology Essay

There is a long standing debate among anthropologists on the question of how organized governments came into existence. Many wonder what would cause the early humanity to abandon the egalitarian life style of hunter-gatherer societies in favor of governments which were decidedly non-egalitarian. Two dominant theories have emerged. The first, the Theory of Conflict, holds that the rights of these egalitarian societies were taken away violently, by armed force or the threat of armed force to which resistance was futile. The second, the Theory of Integration, argues that these rights were voluntarily relinquished by the society as a whole. Like much in the field of anthropology, the answer most likely lies somewhere in between the two extremes. Historical evidence suggests that rights were given up voluntarily at the beginning of civilization but these rights were not returned as the leaders of these new societies gained more power.

In his seminal work Leviathan, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote about a “state of nature” in which humanity existed before governments were formed. He described this state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and stated that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.[i]" He further argued “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself."[ii] This is a very compelling argument for the integration theory and history supports it. The idea of the strongest in combat leading the nation has roots in many cities. Clear examples can be seen in pre-Homeric Greece, where kings not only lead their armies in battle but many times were the chief combatants, fighting one on one against the royalty of the opposing armies, as seen in the duel between Hector and Achilles in the Illiad[iii]. Other examples exist among the Celtic and Germanic tribes, where a king had to win the loyalty of the chieftains and warlords in order to control a kingdom because the warlords controlled the armed men of the region. Frankish kings like Clovis and Charlemagne gained power by their ability to control these armed men and this system later evolved into feudalism.[iv] It is most likely, that as men began to emerge from the savage “state of nature” they handed over autonomy for the purpose of survival. To this end, they elected chieftains to protect them and lead them in combat, leading to the beginnings of government.

The people soon found out that it is extremely difficult to convince someone to give up power, especially when that person has armed men at his disposal. The Roman Republic, having successfully deposed a monarchy in 509 B.C. knew well the dangers of absolute power. They also knew however that times of crisis required quick and decisive action by a single leader and for this reason the Senate reserved the right to select a dictator to lead the Republic in times. One such man was Cincinnatus, a farmer, who was selected as dictator in 458 B.C. Cincinnatus led the Roman forces to victory over the attacking forces in the span of sixteen days and immediately stepped down, despite the fact that his term lasted for six months[v]. Cincinnatus, a man who withstood the temptation of absolute power, was held up as a model for succeeding generations of Roman statesmen but, sadly, few followed his example. By the first century before Christ, Rome was a Republic in name only and a succession of dictators such as Lucius Sulla and Gaius Marius and carried out bloody civil wars and proscriptions which culminated in the installment of Julius Caesar, dictator for life, whose successor Octavian became, Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor.[vi] A similar fate awaited ancient Israel. Initially the twelve tribes of Israel were autonomous and led from time to time by Judges, men like Gideon, Jepthah and Samson, who would rise up to lead the Israelites in combat against foes such as the Philistines and than return to ordinary life. Around 1024 B.C. the Israelites decided that they wanted a king and compelled Samuel, the last of the judges, to anoint Saul as the first king of Israel.[vii] Samuel warned against the possible tyrannies of a monarchy citing a long list of rights that would be taken away but complied with the request.[viii] Rehoboam, only the fourth king after Saul, is quoted, “My father put on you a heavy yoke, but I will make it heavier. My father beat you with whips but I will beat you with scorpions.[ix]” By this time, no doubt, most Israelites wished their ancestors had listened to Samuel.

In light of the historical evidence from many different cultures, it becomes clear that a composite of the conflict theory and the integration theory most accurately describes the process by which egalitarian societies acquired the leaders we now refer to as chieftains and kings. The relinquishment of sovereignty to these men was a necessary evil for survival but once these men had the power securely in the grasp, the instruments of survival became the chains of slavery. This situation is summed up succinctly by the old adage of Winston Churchill, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

---

[i] Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan. 1651 Edwin Curley (Ed.) 1994. Hackett Publishing.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Professor Thomas Brennan, US Naval Academy, The West in a Global Context, Fall 2008

[iv] Brennan

[v] Sherman , Dennis. "Pride in Family and City: Rome From Its Origins Through the Republic." The West in the World. /'Ed/' . Joyce Salisbury. Boston: McGraw Hill , 2006. p. 106

[vi] Ibid, 127-128

[vii] Ibid, 26

[viii] The New American Bible, 1 Samuel, Chapter 8, verses 11-17

[ix] The New American Bible, 1 Kings, Chapter 12, verse 14