by s0cks » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 18:26:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JeeBoomba', 'O')h, come *on*. Hierarchy has always existed and there have always been people more "equal" than others. This is a natural element of human interaction. Even monkeys have a pecking order and clearly defined hierarchy.
Actually, as I understand it, the degree of hierarchy, and power imbalance, within a society relates directly to the amount of resources available. Writing in 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond uses the Polynesian settlement of the Pacific Islands as an illustration of this phenomenon.
"Social complexity was similarly varied...the Chathams and the atolls[those places being most limited in resources]had the simplest, most egalitarian societies. While those islands retained the Polynesian tradition of having chiefs, their chiefs wore little or no visible signs of distinction,lived in ordinary huts like those of commoners, and grew or caught their food like everyone else. Social distinctions and chiefly powers increased on high-density islands with large political units, being especially marked on Tonga and the Societies[those places being rich in resources]".
So maybe hierarchy, and it's associated injustices, are as much a function of the environment as of innate human nature. Who knows, maybe in the long term, as resource constraints become apparent, hierarchies will become harder to maintain?
As I undertand it Chiefs were just appointed representatives and were usually older and wiser. They recieved no special authority over the rest of the tribe. They didn't tell them waht to do, they suggested what could be done.