Cross-Cultural TOC VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION Peter N. Peregrine hy are social classes prominent in most of the world’s soci- eties today? It is an intriguing question, particularly because humans lived in egalitarian groups (which lack W 1 social classes) for most of our genus’s two million year existence. It was only about eight thousand years ago that class-stratified soci- eties began to develop, first in the Middle East, then in East Asia, India, Africa, and later, in the Americas.2 For example, in the period between 8000 and 5000 B.C. many of the people living in the Euphrates River valley altered their ancient lifestyle of semi- nomadic hunting and gathering in small, egalitarian groups to one centered on urban life under the rule of powerful kings.3 Why did this lifestyle change happen? Why, as the anthropologist-philoso- pher Maurice Godelier put it, did “social groups and individuals … cooperate in the production and reproduction of their own subordi- nation, even exploitation”?4 We need to have a basic understanding of what stratification is before we try to answer this question. Stratification, as I use it, refers to the extent to which a society maintains institutionalized differ- ences in individuals’ access to resources, prestige, or power.5 By institutionalized I mean that stratification is built into the institutions or social structures of a society. In any society there will be differ- ences between individuals—some will be stronger, faster, brighter, more charismatic—but while those personal differences may lead to differences in access to resources, prestige, or power, they are not the basis of stratification; nor are the virtually universal differences based on age and sex. Rather, stratification refers to the differentia- tion of individuals on the basis of social criteria, often the family they were born into, and not on personal abilities or biological char- acteristics.6 There is extensive variation in stratification among soci- eties in the contemporary world, and it might help us better under- stand the origins of stratification if we first have some understanding of this diversity. CONTEMPORARY VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION The most common scheme used for classifying cross-cultural varia- tion in stratification was developed by anthropologist Morton Fried. Fried’s scheme organizes societies into three types: (1) egalitarian; (2) rank; and (3) stratified.7 In egalitarian societies there are many indi- vidual differences in access to resources, prestige, and power, but 3 4 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH these differences are based solely on personal abilities, and not on any formal social criteria.8 They are, in essence, non-stratified soci- eties by the definition I gave above. The !Kung people of the Kalahari desert in southwestern Africa are a good example of an egalitarian society.9 Political life revolves around water holes that are controlled by a group of siblings, but in practice no one is denied access to water. Those who control the water hole are seen as leaders of a sort, but they have no real political power. What leadership does exist (and it is minimal) is based solely on perceived wisdom and charisma. Like leadership, prestige is minimal and comes from abil- ity, usually in hunting. Sharing characterizes social relations, and when scarce resources (particularly meat) come into the group, they are distributed to all. Significant “leveling-mechanisms” are in place in !Kung society to ensure that no individuals are able to gain eco- nomic or political advantage over others.10 For example, boasting is met with active ridicule and, in extreme cases, aggression. These lev- eling mechanisms prevent individuals from gaining differential access to prestige, power, or resources in egalitarian societies.11 Rank societies have some institutionalized means of allowing particular individuals more access to prestige. However, individuals given a position of social prestige in rank societies must generally earn political power, and even individuals with great prestige or political power (or both) have to make a living for themselves; they have no special access to resources.12 On the island of Tikopia in east- ern Melanesia, for example, being the first born son conveys a spe- cial prestige to an individual, but does not convey any particular political power or access to resources.13 This simple system of primo- geniture creates a complex system of social ranking among the Tikopians, for not only are individuals ranked based on birth, but so are the island’s four primary lineages.14 Members of the oldest and hence highest ranking lineage have greater prestige than members of younger lineages. Elder males of each lineage are given a special rank of chief, and the chief of the eldest lineage is the highest rank- ing individual on the island.15 Again, this position conveys only prestige, and no special political power or access to resources. It does, however, convey a special status that makes the chief the cen- ter of ritual life on the island and the focus of a complex set of taboos.16 The chief’s body is sacred and cannot be touched; he may not do heavy work; he must not use an oven or cook food; above all, he must be treated with extreme deference and respect.17 However, the chief must still plant his own garden, build his own house, make his own utensils, and basically function as others in terms of making VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 5 a living. Thus he does not differ from others in basic access to resources. He is like others in terms of his political power as well, for he cannot force or coerce others into doing things, beyond threaten- ing to make a behavior (or lack of it) taboo. If people want to violate the taboo and do not fear supernatural punishment for their trans- gression, the chief has no power to stop them. Stratified societies have some institutionalized means of allow- ing particular individuals more access to prestige, power, and, most important, special access to or control of resources (although ability often plays a role in the degree to which they actually maintain access to these).18 Usually there are well-defined strata (or classes) of differential access in these societies, which is why they are called stratified. The United States, even though it maintains the ideal that “all men are created equal,” is a stratified society.19 A child born into a poor, urban, minority family is likely to have very little access to resources, prestige, or power, even though he or she might have out- standing abilities. On the other hand, a child born into a wealthy, white, suburban family has better resources at hand (particularly educational, recreational, and medical) than the other child, is born with more social prestige, and will likely have more political power, regardless of his or her abilities. Of course, it is possible (although unlikely) for a poor urban child in the United States to acquire resources, prestige, and power. There are rare individuals who do move between classes in most stratified societies. Societies with castes represent stratification where movement between social classes is virtually impossible.20 Castes are often based upon an occupation or a group of occupations. Individuals in the caste are trained in that occupation and are prevented from learning another one, essentially freezing them into a particular place in society. If their occupation does not convey prestige, if it conveys no political power, if resources available to a person in that occupation are limited, then the person will never have access to them, for their occupation will never change. In addition, most castes are endogamous, that is, people marry within them exclu- sively. This means that marriage out of a caste is not an option for one to change social position. M. N. Srinivas describes the caste sys- tem in the south Indian village of Rampura as containing three pri- mary levels (Brahman, “Tradesman” and Untouchable) and eighteen specific castes.21 While each caste has a traditional occupation associ- ated with it, in practice there is quite a bit of variety in the occupa- tions of specific caste members, and virtually all castes have some members who are priests (at least serving the other caste members) 6 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH and agricultural workers. However, caste endogamy is strict. Familial interaction with lower-ranking castes is repressed, and interaction with the Untouchable castes (who carry out “unclean” tasks such as sweeping streets) by Tradesman or Brahman caste members is virtually prohibited. These restrictions make movement between castes almost impossible. In many cases, societies with slavery also represent stratifica- tion where movement between classes is impossible, for slaves are frequently unable to release themselves from their position without being released by their owner (known as manumission).22 There are, however, some situations in which slaves are released after serving a particular period of time or in which freedom can be pur- chased or won. In either case stratification is clearly present, for the slave’s position conveys with it a particular access to resources, a particular prestige in society, and a particular set of powers. These are not always low, and there are some societies in which slaves have a wealth of resources, high status, and extensive political power. In early imperial Rome, for example, slaves of the Emperor held some of the most vital positions of power, including secretary of state and secretary of the treasury.23 Perhaps a more extreme example are the janissaries of the Ottoman empire, slaves who became the direct representatives of the Sultan and second in power only to him.24 But even in these cases it is clear that slaves have a social existence only through their owners, that it is because of their owners that slaves have any resources, prestige, or power.