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
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
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:
[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
Much as I love the romance of ancient history, I wonder if the real explanation isn't simply evolution. In every animal "society" males engage in combat for the right to breed. Females let them do it because it keeps them busy and serves the females' needs of weeding out the weakest genes. Like many behaviors with simple straightforward origins, humans took this to its convoluted and not always logical extreme.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that, I do appreciate your comments about the origins of the Roman Empire in the time of Marius.
Judith Geary
www.judithgeary.com