Life continues and even prospers without the state with its accompanying mechanisms of professional armies, bureaucrats, prisons and the like. Collective activities also occur on a spiritual level. In these tribal ‘stateless societies’, then, there is law rather than anarchy (in the everyday sense of no guarantees of law and order) equally, collective decisions on self-defense and economic cooperation are also made – but in a decentralized fashion. Such authority figures might be known by a title which translates into English as ‘chief’ – but their powers were often far from the absolute despotisms. In such societies skill in magic or warfare might be rewarded by promotion ‘on merit’, or promotion might depend upon seniority.Īuthority in such societies might rest upon a variety of foundations – a reputation for wisdom in settling disputes, knowledge of traditional remedies for illness, ability as a war leader or merely being the grandparent of a very large (polygamous) family. In some groups important functions connected with warfare, law and order, or magic might be vested in secret or title societies. Other societies practised a division of functions on an ‘age grade’ basis in which, for instance, the oldest men might collectively manage relationships with the gods, another male age group constitute the leaders of the hunt, the oldest women practise medicine, and so on. Disputes might be settled by resort to oracles like the famous classical Greek oracle at Delphi, in which disputes were arbitrated using magical signs resulting from sacrifices. Many have used some variation of the combination of ‘feuding’ and informal reconciliation systems practised by them. There are numerous tribal societies that exist without centralized governmental institutions. Thus living human beings only interpret and enforce the authority of the ancestors and no legislature is necessary. Tribal societies see law as a part of the way of life inherited from their ancestors. Western societies tend to see law as the creation of a sovereign representative legislature. How can centralized political institutions be avoided in such societies? One explanation lies in the attitude to law found in most tribal societies. While the absence of a chief or council is not so strange in tiny groups such as the !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari desert, it seems almost incredible in groups numbering as many as a million or more such as the pre-colonial Tiv of Nigeria.
Still more startling to the modern Western citizen is the absence in some of such groups of anything resembling a fixed governmental organization. It is the basis of the idea of the ‘blood brother’ – to become a member of the group it is necessary either to marry into it or to be adopted as a member of a particular small family group. Such groups think of government as the kin group – all those people descended from a common ancestor or married to such persons. The Kalahari Bushmen and similar groups range broadly over deserts or forests which may also be used by other groups. Groups like the Fulani of northern Nigeria herd cattle through lands partially cultivated by others. While many of such groups have what they regard as their own territory, some are so nomadic that they can make no such claim. One way in which these groups differ from the state model of government is in terms of territory. Following Weber, the defining characteristic of such societies may be a claim to common ancestry. one religion and language), undifferentiated role structures (most people do a small range of similar jobs), with strong emphasis on kinship and custom. ‘Tribal’ is used here as an easily intelligible synonym for what anthropologists frequently term ‘simple societies’ – those having common cultures (e.g. Many of the groups concerned have sophisticated cultures, high levels of artistic achievement and admirable ways of life. Social anthropologists often avoid the use of ‘tribal’ in this context. However, social anthropologists who study such groups in detail have shown that tribal societies may differ radically from the state model of government. Of course such tribal groups may be thought of merely as traditional ‘mini-states’. Until very recently ‘tribal’ groups have been ‘discovered’ in the forests of Papua New Guinea and Brazil living apparently undisturbed by the governments.