The Rise and Fall of Ancient Civilizations

Notes to Lecture #6

---

Origins of the State: Conflict vs. Integration Theories

Introduction
There are unresolved debates at the heart of any field of inquiry

Compare rights of individuals in band- or tribe-level societies vs. early state societies:

• More rights in simpler societies--rights LOST in evolution of state
• A major thrust of Western democratic tradition has been attempt to recover rights
• Much concern over how lost: given away or taken away?

Many different theories on origins of state and civilization, but two major categories:

• CONFLICT THEORIES (rights taken away) vs.
• INTEGRATION THEORIES (rights given away)

 

Conflict and Integration Theories Defined

CONFLICT THEORIES (also called "coercion," "class" theories):

• Governing institutions of the state initially developed to repress intra-societal conflict arising out of economic inequality--state is REPRESSIVE
• To protect own property and interests, some people take rights away from others and impose themselves as rulers over others
• Maintain their positions by FORCE--conflict theories emphasize coercive force

INTEGRATION THEORIES (also called "consensus," "benefit," "managerial" theories)

• Governing institutions of the state initially arose to coordinate and regulate the different parts of complex societies--state is INTEGRATIVE, beneficial
• Some people voluntarily cede rights to others in return for having those others serve some widely recognized need or solve some widely perceived problem
• Potential source of confusion: one of needs or problems often cited is chronic WARFARE
• (Argument that centralization leads to greater efficiency in warfare)
• Theories of this sort that deal with conflicts among different societies are usually INTEGRATION theories
• Conflict theories deal with conflicts WITHIN a single society

Both conflict and integration theories have respectable antiquity in Western political thought
(See handout, Schools of Thought on the Origins of the State)
 

Modern Conflict Theory

MORTON FRIED: most influential modern conflict theorist in anthropology

• The Evolution of Political Society, 1967

Different levels of evolution based on degree of inequality within society

• Societies are:
• Egalitarian (Least inequality: age and sex distinctions only; as many positions of valued status as individuals capable of filling them)
• Ranked (More inequality: fewer positions of valued status than individuals capable of filling them)
• Stratified (Even more inequality: division into classes = groups with unequal access to the basic resources necessary to sustain life)

Multiple pathways from egalitarianism to ranking to stratification

• (Influence of Steward's multilinear evolution)
• Depend on material factors: environment, technology, demography, etc.
• Environmental change affecting resource base, development of irrigation or other technological innovation, etc., allows a group of people to get control of something others need

Two points to note:

• Stratification begins with kin-groups, not individual entrepreneurs (as in Morgan or Marx and Engels)
• Entire kin-groups have better access to basic resources than other kin-groups
• Stratification in and of itself is not enough to produce the state
• Stratified, non-state societies exist (handout) but are inherently unstable; their kinship-based forms of organization cannot cope with the emerging conflicts
• A stratified, non-state society will either:
• collapse and return to a simpler level (probably happened many times in prehistory, according to Fried) OR
• develop new, non-kinship-based, repressive institutions to stifle class conflicts = THE STATE

To conflict theorists, when the state arises, it tends to happen quickly--"revolutionary" change
 

Modern Integration Theory

Governing institutions of the state arise to meet widespread needs or solve widespread problems

• Elevation of certain individuals or groups to positions of authority for the common good
• Change tends to be gradual, not "revolutionary"
• Voluntaristic, not coercive

ELMAN SERVICE: most influential modern integration theorist in anthropology

• Origins of the State and Civilization, 1975

Tests modern conflict theory against data from early civilizations and finds three major weaknesses:

• According to Service, early civilizations were not divided into propertied and non-propertied classes
• "Stratification" solely in terms of unequal political power, not unequal access to basic resources necessary to sustain life
• That is, no real "stratification" as conflict theorists define the term
• According to Service, there were no true class conflicts in early civilizations
• Only "palace wars"--power struggles among the political elite
• According to Service, there was no reliance on physical force as a governing mechanism in early civilizations
• Sanctions against wrongdoing were still largely supernatural (punishment by the gods, not the government)

Instead, strong centralized government evolved gradually as an adaptive response to the need for greater integration of the different parts of increasingly larger, more complex societies

• Centralized government had PERCEIVED benefits
• Economic benefits through redistribution and trade
• Greater efficiency in war
• Ability to construct useful public works, both "utilitarian" and religious

Points to note:

• Again, multiple pathways--influence of Steward's multilinear evolution
• Gradual development through different levels of integration band--tribe--chiefdom--state scheme presented in Lecture 3 is based on Service
• BUT for Service "state" and "civilization" not synonymous (unlike Lecture 3)
• The state arises only when secularization and reliance on force are introduced
• Happens relatively late in each civilizational tradition--only in secondary civilizations, not primary/pristine ones
• Intermediate stage of "archaic civilization": still has kinship-based organization; no separation of religious and political power; no reliance on coercive force
• According to Service, all primary/pristine civilizations and many secondary ones fit this category of "archaic civilization," including all the ones we'll study in this course
• (That is, in Service's terms nothing we'll look at was actually a state)
• Service's "archaic civilization" is equivalent to Fried's "stratified, non-state society" (see handout)
• But Fried sees this kind of society as unstable, while Service sees it as very stable

 

Conflict Theorist's Criticisms of Service's Integration Theory

• Service can't prove absence of coercive force in early civilizations
• Can't show that supposedly "integrative" public monuments such as temples and pyramids were constructed voluntarily
• Service doesn't really understand coercion
• Coercion doesn't happen only through physical violence--can be applied by withholding essential benefits (for example, irrigation water)

 

Concluding Remarks
Now move on to archaeological cases, starting with ancient Near East

Offer data for assessing general features of conflict and integration theories, as well as specific versions

BUT will not yet resolve the debate

• Conflict and integration positions both tenable as logical constructs
• Both positions also tenable on basis of consistency with available data

 

Return to the Take Home Final (Essay #5)

Return to Course Syllabus

Return to Ancient Civilizations Homepage
 

---

Last updated: 28 November 2000
URL:http://www.indiana.edu/~ancient/6notes.html
Comments: jakirk@indiana.edu
Copyright 2000, The Trustees of Indiana University