8.1 Colonialism and the Categorization of Political Systems

Political anthropology emerged during European colonialism, influencing research with colonial biases. Early anthropologists viewed non-Western societies through a Eurocentric lens, assuming European systems were superior. This led to a focus on studying "primitive" societies, overlooking the diversity of non-Western political structures.

European colonizers misunderstood non-Western political systems, assuming lack of centralized authority meant no political organization. These misconceptions justified colonial domination, undermining indigenous institutions and imposing Western-style governance. The consequences continue to impact postcolonial political landscapes, creating ongoing challenges of legitimacy and stability.

Colonial Roots and Misconceptions in Political Anthropology

Colonial roots of political anthropology

Top images from around the web for Colonial roots of political anthropology

• 

  Leopold II of Belgium - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Colonialism - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  resourcesforhistoryteachers - WHII.38 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Leopold II of Belgium - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Colonialism - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Colonial roots of political anthropology

• 

  Leopold II of Belgium - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Colonialism - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  resourcesforhistoryteachers - WHII.38 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Leopold II of Belgium - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Colonialism - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Political anthropology emerged during European colonialism
  • Anthropologists often employed by colonial administrations
  • Research influenced by colonial agendas and biases
• Early anthropologists viewed non-Western societies through Eurocentric lens
  • Assumed European political systems were superior and more evolved
  • Sought to understand how to govern and control colonized peoples
• Colonial roots led to focus on studying "primitive" or "stateless" societies
  • Assumed these societies lacked complex political structures
  • Overlooked diversity and sophistication of non-Western political systems
• Legacy of colonialism has lasting impacts on political anthropology
  • Need for critical reflection on discipline's history and biases
  • Ongoing efforts to decolonize anthropological research and theory

European misconceptions of non-Western politics

• European colonizers misunderstood and misrepresented non-Western political systems
  • Assumed absence of centralized authority meant lack of political organization
  • Failed to recognize alternative forms of political structure and leadership
• Misconceptions used to justify colonial domination and intervention
  • Portrayed non-Western societies as "primitive" and needing "civilizing"
  • Enabled imposition of colonial rule and disruption of existing political systems
• Consequences of misconceptions:
  • Undermined and destabilized indigenous political institutions
  • Imposed ill-suited Western-style governance structures
  • Marginalized traditional forms of authority and leadership
• Misconceptions have lasting impacts on postcolonial political landscapes
  • Legacy of colonial borders and administrative units
  • Ongoing challenges of political legitimacy and stability in some postcolonial states (Congo, Iraq)

Key Developments and Concepts in Political Anthropology

Significance of "African Political Systems"

• Groundbreaking 1940 edited volume by Meyer Fortes and E.E. Evans-Pritchard
  • Challenged assumptions about African societies as "stateless" or "primitive"
  • Demonstrated diversity and complexity of African political systems
• Introduced key concepts and typologies for analyzing political structures
  • Distinction between "centralized" and "acephalous" societies
  • Identification of different bases of political authority (lineage, territory)
• Emphasized studying political systems in specific cultural contexts
  • Rejected applying Western political categories to non-Western societies
  • Argued for approach grounded in ethnographic fieldwork and cultural relativism
• Laid foundations for more nuanced, comparative political anthropology
  • Influenced subsequent generations of anthropologists studying politics cross-culturally
  • Contributed to development of key theoretical frameworks (structural-functionalism)

Acephalous vs centralized political organizations

• Acephalous societies:
  • Lack single, centralized authority or leadership structure
  • Political power diffuse and decentralized, often based on kinship or lineage
  • Examples:
    • Nuer of South Sudan: Segmentary lineage system, political authority in kinship groups
    • Igbo of Nigeria: Decentralized system based on village assemblies and title societies
• Centralized societies:
  • Have single, overarching authority structure (king, chief)
  • Political power concentrated in central figure or institution
  • Examples:
    • Ashanti of Ghana: Centralized kingdom headed by Asantehene (king)
    • Zulu of South Africa: Centralized state under Zulu king, with complex bureaucracy
• Some societies exhibit elements of both acephalous and centralized organization
  • Example: Yoruba of Nigeria, centralized city-states coexisting with decentralized lineage-based politics

Subsistence strategies and political structures

• Subsistence strategies can shape political structures and organization
  • Different modes of production associated with different forms of political authority
  • Access to and control over resources a key factor in political power dynamics
• Foraging societies tend to have more egalitarian, decentralized political structures
  • Example: !Kung San of southern Africa, fluid leadership based on individual skills and influence
• Pastoral societies may have more hierarchical structures based on control over livestock
  • Example: Maasai of East Africa, political authority in age-sets and clan elders
• Agricultural societies may develop more centralized structures to manage land, labor, surplus
  • Example: Inca Empire, highly centralized bureaucracy and redistributive economy
• Industrialized societies tend to have complex, differentiated political structures and institutions
  • Example: Modern nation-states, with formal bureaucracies, legal systems, representative governments
• Relationship between subsistence and politics shaped by cultural, historical, ecological factors

Weber's authority types in political systems

• Max Weber identified three ideal types of legitimate authority:
  1. Traditional authority: Based on long-standing customs, traditions, hereditary rights
     • Example: Divine right of kings in medieval Europe, monarchs ruled by birthright and religious sanction
  2. Charismatic authority: Based on exceptional personal qualities and leadership of an individual
     • Example: Mahatma Gandhi's leadership of Indian independence movement, based on moral and spiritual charisma
  3. Legal-rational authority: Based on system of rules, laws, bureaucratic procedures
     • Example: Modern democratic states, authority vested in elected officials and constitutional principles
• Weber's types used to analyze and compare different political systems
  • Traditional authority in chiefdoms and kingdoms (Ashanti, Buganda)
  • Charismatic authority in revolutionary or independence movements (Zulu under Shaka)
  • Legal-rational authority in modern nation-states and international organizations
• Political systems may exhibit elements of multiple types of authority
  • Example: British monarchy combines traditional hereditary rights with legal-constitutional limits
• Weber's framework highlights diverse bases of political legitimacy across societies and history

Colonialism, Imperialism, and Political Power

• Colonialism and imperialism as systems of political domination and economic exploitation
  • Colonialism: direct political control and settlement of territories
  • Imperialism: broader system of economic and political influence, often without direct rule
• Impact on indigenous governance and power structures
  • Disruption of traditional political systems and authority
  • Imposition of new administrative structures and hierarchies
• Decolonization processes and challenges
  • Struggle for political sovereignty and self-determination
  • Negotiating new forms of governance in postcolonial contexts
• Legacy of colonial power structures in contemporary global politics
  • Ongoing economic dependencies and political influences
  • Efforts to reclaim and revitalize indigenous forms of governance