Political Anthropology: Manipulative Strategies Author(s): Joan Vincent Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.

7 (1978), pp. 175-194 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155692 . Accessed: 22/10/2012 15:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1978. 7:175-94 Copyright 0 1978 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: MANIPULATIVE STRATEGIES

Joan Vincent
Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

*9612

The approach to the study of politics to be reviewed in this essay is characterized essentially by a focus upon individual actors and their strategies within political arenas. In its earlier formative phase, the approach which, following Cohen (41) we shall call action theory, was associated with a range of theoretical frameworks, among them those built around transactions, symbolic interaction, systems analysis, methodological individualism, game theory, interaction theory, and political clientelism. Today action theory relates most closely to dialectical theory and the general sociology of Marx and Weber (24, 35, 51, 98, 130). Action theory in political anthropology differs from behavioralism in social psychology and from the behavioral approach in political science, although it has sometimes been confused with both. In these disciplines, analysis begins with the individual and his motives, proceeds to emphasize choice, and concludes by inferring structural limitations from behavior. Action theory in anthropology begins by locating the individual within the framework of both formal and interstitial social organization and then proceeds to the analysis of political action and interaction. Within political anthropology itself, the approach differs from evolutionary and structural anthropology by virtue of its attention to processes, to political formations other than categories and corporate groups and, above all, by its underpinning in a particular mode of fieldwork (50, 80, 85) that resulted in a distinctive form of finely grained political ethnography (25, 43, 46, 71, 76, 80, 118). Deriving explicitly from social anthropology, the action approach within political anthropology developed largely in conjunction with the analysis of
175

0084-6570/78/1015-0175$0 1.00

176

VINCENT

"social change" in the Third World. In Africa, an emphasis was laid on the contemporary social situation in which political actors met in face-to-face encounters (59, 60, 62). A coherent body of literaturedeveloped around the theme of the village headman and the conflict of roles arising out of his intercalary position in the colonial administrative structure (16, 111). In India, the problem of relating the village to its wider administrative and political context, and the task of studying national political parties, elections, and structuralchange inspired both a comprehensive systems analysis of political action within the nation-state (6-8) and a conceptual tool kit for the elaboration of principles of competitive political behavior in discrete arenas (11-13, 15). In Latin America, where emphasis had long been placed on the national context and historical conditions (126, 127), the marginalization of rural communities and the role of cultural brokers were major interests (128). It was argued that the anthropologist had a "professional license" to study the interstitial (85, 129), supplementary, and parallel structures in complex societies-the peripheral grey areas surrounding Lenin's strategic heights of sovereign power (129). From this common concern with the substantive conditions of societal change, two themes emerged which came to dominate this approach within political anthropology: 1. the face-to-face encounters of particularindividuals and 2. the particular setting of these encounters within encapsulated or closed communities. Both themes were brought together in Bailey's Stratagems and Spoils: A Social Anthropology of Politics (12). By the 1960s, political anthropology, which had been dominated by the synchronic study of political structures in a state of assumed equilibrium, saw the development of a theory "which could deal with faction, party, and political maneuver" (46, p. 190). During these years a series of related concepts was developed. Some concerned the political forms generated out of the coalescence of individual actors: among these were quasi-group, action-set, clique, gang, faction, coalition, interest group, and party. Others related to modes of political behavior:choosing, maximizing, decision-making, strategizing, interacting, transacting, manipulating, career-building,spiraling, recruiting, excluding, maneuvering, competing, fighting, dominating, encapsulating. Still others related to the context (both spatial and temporal) of political action: chief among these were event, situation, arena, field, political system, environment, and power structure. Criticisms that the exploration of political manipulations in such microcosmic settings worked only within the confines of formal sociology (130) were met with the observation that this kind of analysis could equally well be applied to powerful, "high level" groups. It was also argued that political relations are, after all, simply between men and only "alienated

POLITICALANTHROPOLOGY

177

thinking ... persuades us, fetishistically, that we have relations with reified 'things' or 'forces' " (130). Nevertheless, tensions developed among practitioners between those who considered the multistranded political relations of the locality to form a viable closed system for analysis [beyond which the limits of naivete were reached and analysis left to other disciplines (9)] and those who considered the analysis of a wider political economy necessary even to begin to understandthe forms that local level politics took (106, 108, 126-128). At its widest extent this involves viewing encapsulated politics as a reflection of national dependency relations within a global economic system (4, 76, 92, 114, 130). This development, too, is bound to have its critics. Yet, as Worsley puts it:
This is not to say thatwe cannotdescribe a flowerwithout,everytime,havingto recite or construct a philosophy of Natureor a theoryof biology.It is not to say thatwe must alwaysstudythetotalmacro-structure of a society(a diseasethataffects LatinAmerican for instance). Marxists, But it is to say that the analysisof situations has alwaysto be informedby an awareness of the world within which situationsand encounters are located,and morethanthat, requires an explicitconceptualization of whatthat world looks like (130, p.10).

The history of action theory in political anthropology has been of a movement toward a more and more explicit statement of this position. In the pages that follow we first trace the roots of the action approach and note certain misgivings about it. We then review recent developments in the field and assess the degree to which these misgivings have been laid to rest. Finally, through a consideration of three major themes in the work of action theorists-political leadership, factionalism, and power-brokerage -we suggest certain shifts that have occurred, and are occurring, in the utilization of this approach.

THE ROOTS OF THE APPROACH

The approach to political anthropology through the manipulative ploys of individuals contains its own dialectic: the manipulation of "symbols" and the manipulation of "materialresources." Underlying both is what has been called "the Malinowskian impulse": "early programmatic exhortations to record ordinary day to day activities ... and to search for explanations by the way of evident facts of observable behavior before invoking the weight of the past to account for the actions of the present" (50, p. 7). The roots of the approach may be traced back to the formative influences of Mair, Leach, and Firth in the late 1930s. Completely absent from what is generally taken to be the seminal classic in the field of political an-

178

VINCENT

thropology, African Political Systems, published in 1940, action theory is sometimes assumed to have emerged in opposition to the structural-functionalism so well represented in that volume (118). In fact, the approach has been traced back by its practitioners (34, 68) to Spencer and Marrett. Thus Marrett is reported as having observed in 1912:
constantlyadapts Even wherethe regimeof customis most absolute,the individual with moreor less or ratheradaptstheseto his own purposes himselfto its injunctions, The immobility of customis, I believe,largely conscious andintelligent discrimination. modification in the effectof distance.Look more closely and you will see perpetual dynamicbe partlydue to physicaland quasi-physical process;and, if the underlying itselfthrough at workthroughout the will to live,manifesting causes... thereis likewise one with the other(68, p.31). individuals as they partlycompeteand partlycooperate

For fieldwork training, Marrett, the "office-bound" Oxford don, sent his students (including Max Gluckman) to Malinowski at the London School of Economics, and it was there that the individual-action-orientedapproach to politics was formulated. Appearing early in the work of Mair and Leach, it was later given expression by Firth in his 1954 essay, "Social Organisation and Social Change" (54). Not, however, until the publication of Nadel's The Theory of Social Structure in 1957 (86) and Firth's Essays on Social Organisation and Values in 1964 (56) were its theoretical underpinnings made apparent. What strikes one in retrospect is the extent to which both were dialogues with Weber and Marx. Both marked, as major works often do, the end of one era and the beginning of another. In America, Chapple and Arensberg's delineation of interaction theory was a contemporaneous trend (3, 38) but, whereas the Harvard scholars explored the microsociology of emergent structures and industrial relations, those at the London School of Economics were concerned above all with Third World Societies and social change. Given their expertise in empirical field research, an emphasis on individual choice and action, and strategies of manipulation, the emergence of a distinctive approach within political anthropology now appears almost inevitable. The appointment of Mair as Reader in Applied Anthropology in 1956 (before this she had been Reader in Colonial Administration) gave institutional recognition to the study of complex society, the impact of governmental policies, and social change (80, 92). From 1934 to the present, Mair has reiterated the necessity of studying individuals within a "constitutional" framework (80). Changes in society imply "changes in the rules that govern social relationships-rules about the ownership of property, the right to exercise authority, the duty to cooperate with particular people in particular circumstances" (79, p. 21). Roles allow players room for maneuver, a freedom of choice which they use to further personal interests. Mair asks what they may be expected to aim

POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

179

at in the choices they make. Her answer is power, the ability to control the actions of others. It can be obtained both by holding officeand by possessing wealth. This is a general phenomenon.
Whatever kindof societywe are lookingat, we see peoplefacingalternative coursesof action and choosingwhich they will follow. They may be choosingbetweenequally legitimate alternatives; theymaydecideto breaka ruleor neglectan obligation andtake theconsequences, or hopeto evadethem.Theymakethechoicein accordance withtheir of relativeadvantages-one advantage of one's calculation beingalwaysthat approval neighbors whichis gainedby conforming to the rulesthat are generally accepted(79, p. 28).

Leach took a somewhat different tack. As early as 1940 after field research in Kurdistan, he began questioning anthropology's emphasis on social forms: "interest tends to be so exclusively on the abstract concept of social structure, that the co-existence of a formal material structure is sometimes forgotten" (69, p. 47). He concluded that, since "structural pattern affects the interests of different individuals in widely different ways ... there can never be absolute conformity to the cultural norm, indeed the norm itself exists only as a stress of conflicting interests and divergent attitudes" (69, p. 62). In a study often considered a classic, The Political Systems of Highland Burma (70), Leach toyed, like Mair and Firth, with the relationship of "customary" rules to regularities of social behavior. Finally, after a decade of excursions into structuralism, fieldwork in a Singalese village reinstated his earlier materialism leading him to ask once more: "Why should I be looking for some social entity other than the individuals of the community itself?" (71, p. 300). Few anthropologists have been willing to follow Leach this far. Black, a notable exception (25), surpasses the mentor since Leach, having ultimate recourse to explanations in terms of environmental adaptation, fails to make the materialist dialectic. Leach's model, in all its manifestations, while further establishing choice-making individuals and their purposive actions within political anthropology, remains essentially consensual, equilibriated, and overly concerned with "rational" man. It was under the cover, as it were, of Firth's formulation of social organization that action theory in political anthropology finally emerged. Thus in 1968 an anonymous reviewer of the field (whom we may take from internal evidence to be Bailey) wrote of a political anthropology that viewed political activity as essentially competitive. "Sometimesreferredto as 'social organisation,' he noted, "this is best perceived by considering the actors not to be so many faceless automata, moving to and fro at the behest of structural rules, but as manipulators choosing within a range of possible tactics and asking themselves not only what they ought to do, but also what they can do" (109, pp. 19-20; emphasis added).

180

VINCENT

Firth distinguished between two aspects of social action: structure and organization. "The structure provides a framework for action. But circumstances provide always new combinations of factors. Fresh choices open, fresh decisions have to be made, and the results affect the social action of other people in a ripple movement which may go far before it is spent" (56, p. 35). Structure and organization are complementary, standing respectively for form and process in social life. Structure involves role-playing; organization involves both roles and more spontaneous, decisive activity which does not follow simply from role-playing. Social organization is ordered activity. The translation of the acts of individuals into the regularities of social process Firth sees as the greatest problem in anthropologya perception in marked contrast to those who, following Simmel and Durkheim, consider it to be that of social order. Many of the ideas crystallized by Firth can be seen to have contributed to the yet amorphous action theory of political anthropology. Processes, contradictions, choices, above all, the purposive goal-oriented actions of individuals, characterizedthe developing field from the beginning. Here we would note that in the work of all three contributors considered hereMair, Leach, and Firth-a complementary stress on structure (constitution) and organization was always present. Critics of this view of society point to its tendency to foster a consensual equilibrium model of political society, overly dependent on notions of "rational" man (2). Dangers of "methodological individualism" (77); its tendency to sink into ethnomethodology (108) and a microsociology devoid of any concept of level (52, 53, 130) have also been noted. Finally, its neglect of history-a result, perhaps, of its initial Malinowskian impulse-has also been remarked. "However much men think and act for themselves, as Marx observed in The Eighteenth Brumaire, they do not make (history) under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past" (130). The major contribution of this approach for political anthropology, as it developed, lay in its focus on purposive action.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE APPROACH

Out of the beginnings sketched in the previous section there developed in the late 1950s in the work of Bailey (6-15) and Turner (116) and in the early 1960s in the writing of Boissevain (29) and Cohen (39) action theory in political anthropology. From initial field research into economic and political change, they moved toward a more explicit concern with structural principles ordering action [i.e. of systems (7), nongroups (31, 33, 34), "invisible organisations" (41), and conflict (1 16)] to comparison and thence to

POLITICALANTHROPOLOGY

181

processual and developmental or historical analysis (13, 35, 40, 117). Their adoption of a common terminology, a fair degree of cross-referencing to each other's work and, above all, their overall impact on political anthropology made for a coherent and incrementally growing body of conceptualization and theory. While all provided finely grained ethnographies, Bailey also contributed a tool kit, as he put it, for general discourse on the principles of routine competitive political action (12). Boissevain presented the field with a taxonomy of noncorporate political action-sets (34) and recently began to relate the emergence of particular political forms to historical processes of political development (35). Cohen (with a somewhat restricted view of the role of political anthropology) began to delineate informally organized interest groups in complex society which, since they do not operate openly, engage in the manipulation of symbols or "mystification"(41). Turner (with perhaps the most ambitious view of the possibilities of political anthropology) moved from the analysis of phases of processual conflict per se to an analysis of a broad sweep of historical materials within the framework of an anthropological approach (117). It does not seem necessary to spell out here details of the contributions of these four eminent political anthropologists (nor, given limitations of space, to account for neglect of others). Of the two aspects of manipulation noted in the preceding section-the manipulation of "rules" and of "material resources"-only the former received much consideration. Indeed, so extensive has this been that subtopics may be delineated under "the manipulation of symbols," Cohen's umbrella phrase for "rules, culture, norms, values, myths, and rituals" (41, p. 10). Symbols, as Cohen observes, while they can be said to be "phenomenon sui generis existing in their own right and observed for their own intrinsic values ... are nearly always manipulated, consciously or unconsciously, in the struggle for, and maintenance of, power between individuals and groups" (41, p. xi). Much current attention is focused on the manipulation of legal rules (for reviews see 44, 45, 84). With our brief, we note that Gluckman (63) on the manipulation of judicial processes appears to be better known than Leach (72), suggesting the primacy of situational over positional analysis in the political anthropology of law. The adoption of economist Hirschman's analysis of "exit" and "voice" (66) is paralleled by the work of anthropologists and political scientists influenced by Bailey at Sussex (97, 103) and may be related to a renewed interest in Weber's politics of access and exclusion. Leach, on the other hand, notes how the malleability of law preserves the powerful and further incapacitates the underprivileged.The best political ethnography of law remains historian E. P. Thompson's Whigs and Hunters.

182

VINCENT

Ethnicity is another current focus for political anthropologists interested in the manipulation of symbols and the presentation of self. Consideration of ethnicity as a social phenomenon to be studied in terms of individual strategies [the approach taken in the Barth (21) and Cohen (42) collections] has given way to analyses of the structuring of ethnicity (121) and the relation of emergent ethnicity to economic and political development (40, 119). This trend reflects the more general movement within action theory away from situational and transactional analysis toward positional and historical frameworks. In the study of ethnicity, too, we observe another characteristic of the field in general: a concern with competitive intraclass phenomena and a neglect of interclass conflict. The literature on the political manipulation of ethnicity is now sufficiently large to call for an independent review: astute observations on its shortcomings are contained in Hansen (65). Cohen's own work on the manipulation of symbols attempts to reconcile what he perceives as two opposing camps in social anthropology: action theorists and thought structuralists. Although both camps include established practitioners of the "holistic" study of the interdependence between power relations and symbolic action who can now afford to concentrate on only one variable, Cohen deplores the fact that "their disciples tend to become one-sided and thus lose track of the central problem of the discipline, the dialectical interdependenceof power and symbol" (41, pp. 45-46). Those who concur in Cohen's observation on trends may not agree with his prescription.Turner recently presented a model interrelatingthe manipulation of symbols and the struggle for power which is considerably more embracing (117). It also permits the incorporation of a range of structural elements-position, status, and class-which have been somewhat neglected. This study of the Hidalgo insurrection in Mexico (117, pp. 98-155) may.be used to display the working definitions adopted (with a few idiosyncratic variations) by scholars working within this genre. Turner provides an extended case history of the insurrection, a sequence of social dramas (36, 116) taking place in a series of arenas (12, 88, 90, 111, 112) in an expanding socialfield (59, 60, 111, 112). Arenas are frameworks -whether institutionalized or not-which manifestly function as settings for antagonistic interaction aimed at arriving at publicly recognized decision with respect to prizes and values (117, p. 133; 12, 111, 112). Social dramas are units of aharmonic or disharmonic process arising in conflict situations; harmonic processual units are termed social enterprises(117, p. 34-35). A political field, "the totality of relationships between actors oriented to the same prizes or values" (117, p. 127) is constituted by "purposive goal-directed group action, and though it contains both conflict and coalition, collaborative action is very often made to serve the purposes of

POLITICALANTHROPOLOGY

183

contentious action" (117, p. 128). Political fields overlap and interpenetrate: some are organized and purposive; others contain much that is arbitrary and accidental. This important notion allows for the manipulation of the ambiguous so important for successful political action. Turner adds to Bailey's tool kit the concept of the "primary political process" (in the Mexican case, the power of myth) which so influences political behavior that it "acquires a strange processual inevitability over-riding questions of interest, expediency, and even morality, once it gains truly popular support" (1 17, pp. 110-11, 122-23). One is reminded of a bon mot of Elias: "Underlying all intended interactions of human beings is their unintended interdependence" [quoted in (27), p. xxvii]. As anthropologists, Turner notes, we are interested in interdependencies, concatenations of facts, events, relationships, groups, social categories, and so on. When characterizing a political field "relations of likeness such as classes, categories, similar roles, and structural positions" are of prior sociological importance. When successive arenas are to be characterized,systematic interdependencies in local systems of social relations, going from demography, to residential distribution, religious affiliation and genealogical and class structure become significant. Corporate groups, factional quasi-groups and the ego-centered networks of leaders are also important aspects of arena analysis (124, 125). On the national level, fields, category, class structure, cultural universals, and church, state, sect, and party are the subjects of inquiry. At the regional and township level, arenas, corporate groups, alignments cutting across class boundaries, cultural specificities and patterns of local hierarchies, and factionalisms have greater analytical relevance. The challenge is to grasp, coherently express, and analyze the interdependence of field with arena. Turner provides a paradigm that moves the anthropologist beyond the confines of transactional analysis and game theory (18). The latter he considers "an excellent tool for interpreting some kinds of gentlemanly competition" but "impotent before those social changes that shake the very premises and foundations of the social order" (117, p. 141). Turner concludes with the potent observation that "in historical practice, it is, as Weber would agree, the educated middle classes that in their competition whether violent or peaceful, like to introduce rules to which both parties subscribe. But the politics of class struggle does not go according to commonly accepted rules" (117, p. 141) -a maxim he proceeds to demonstrate in an analysis of the abortive nineteenth century Mexican insurrection. The interested reader may care to turn back a few pages to the criticisms leveled against action theory during an earlier phase in its development to see how adequately Turner's framework of analysis sets at rest earlier misgivings about this approach within political anthropology.

184

VINCENT

If the contribution of African Political Systems to the study of politics was the delineation, in 1940, of non-State political structures, the contribution of action theory since 1960 has been to delineate forms of competitive political organization. This is as important for the study of parapolitics and the "grey areas" of modem, industrial capitalist and socialist states as it is for the study of encapsulated communities and marginal politics in preindustrial nations. A fear has been expressed that the "microscope" of action theory is "so powerful in disclosing the details of face-to-face political interaction that it is powerless, or out of focus, to reflect the wider structural features of society" (41, p. 41). (This fear would be less well grounded were as much attention paid to the last two chapters of Stratagems and Spoils as to the first seven; or were the contributions of Latin American and European scholars more widely recognized). In the section that follows, we shall review three core problems in the field of political organization: political leadership and patronage, factionalism, and power-brokerage.This entails making explicit [as Worsley requested (130)] the fact that most work in political anthropology has been done in the rural sectors of Third World countries. Most followed upon, or was concomitant with, the penetration of industrial capitalism into these peripheral regions of an European-dominated political and economic world system.

LEADERSHIP, FACTIONALISM, AND BROKERAGE: CASE STUDIES

An approach within a discipline is well on the way to becoming established when reevaluationsof its earliest efforts begin to appear. Barth's early study of the manipulative strategies of power-holders, Political Leadershipamong the Swat Pathans (17), has been subjected to three such critiques. Although its intellectual ancestry invoked Weber and de Jouvenal, Barth's study epitomized, above all, a transactional approach to politics. His analysis treated what he perceived to be the acephelous political organization of a Swat valley in Pakistan. His argument was, briefly, that against the formal frameworks of society, the network of kinship and locality ties, dyadic relations linked paired individuals in relations of dominance and submission. Primary political groups developed around single leaders who were aligned, along with their followers, into a larger political system. All relationships implying dominance were dyadic and contractual in nature. Political action was the art of manipulating dyadic relations to create corporate political followings. Paine's criticism (94), a comment from within the fold of transactionalism, was of Barth's general model of society (20) and its neglect of power

POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

185

as a variable of exchange. Attention to the different contexts of power, dependent upon the positions of actors in the power structure, could lead to a perception of the strategies of underdogs as well as the powerful. Paine also comments on the "market philosophy" and "normative morality" of transactional theory. Ahmed's critique (2) is also launched, although in a differentsense, from within since he representsone of those specters that haunt the anthropologist, a "native" of the society being studied. Ahmed's monograph attempts to restore to political ethnography the Swat state. He maintains that Barth's work is ethnocentric in its reliance on the notion of "social contract" and related concepts central to the understanding of Western democratic capitalist society but inapplicable to preindustrial Swat. Ahmed argues further that Barth's work was reductionist and synecdochic-Swat man being seen through the eyes of the Khan. He also comments on the short duration of Barth's field research (in Swat and elsewhere) and his "thin" ethnographic data-a not inconsequentialmatter since action theory rests on high caliber political ethnography. Asad (5) lays bare the theoretical assumptions underlying Barth's model of politics in Swat (18). It consists of:
a number of closely interconnected theoretical elements: (1) rules (legal, moral and prudential);(2) individual motivations (specific purposes and general strategies); (3) the formation of fluid interest groups through multiple dyadic transactions (as in a free market place); (4) the systematic compulsion to expand one's control of resources in order to survive (as in a self-regulating capitalist system); (5) a dynamic equilibrium underlying the concrete manifestations of political strength and weakness (5, p. 80).

To the question "Who defines and applies the rules of the game?" the answer, for Asad, is clearly a dominant class of landowners who exploit the landless. The agrarian class structure is the fundamental political fact. Opportunities and disabilities are structured by an individual's class position. Small landowners are being progressively eliminated; the class structure, based on the ownership of land, is revealed in the historical process of polarization. Asad's own study (4) of the Kababish Arabs of the Sudan, where a princely dynasty dominates and exploits a mass of pastoralists, is an advance on the "consensual model" of Barth and his fellow transactionalists. It arrivesat the ratherunhappy conclusion, however, that although political relationships are based on domination and exploitation, the subordinate majority simply do not see it as such-and so the contradiction is sustained. Asad does not explore mechanisms of mystification (25, 41, 51); nor does he sufficientlyappreciate,as both Marx (82) and Black (25) have remarked, the extent to which particular circumstances have shaped the particular

186

VINCENT

persons with whom he is concerned. The Kababish princely dynasty arose in direct response to colonial pressures and was maintained in a familiar manner, as Wolf has pointed out in a more general analysis (129) as a tool of central government policy. Black's own work on Luristan (25) demonstrates how local leaders manipulate their structural position to control the masses while at the same time profiting from privileged access to scarce resources. Questioning the tenacious legend that Middle Eastern societies are basically egalitarian, Black suggests that this "myth was inadvertently created in the first instance (or at very least fostered) by a number of British-trainedanthropologists who, carried away by their enthusiasm for unraveling social structure in the abstract, remained relatively insensitive to the analytical potential in structural studies of quantitative data gathered in the related domains of ecology and economics" (25, pp. 617-618; cf 50, 80, 86). The materialist view that the social structure is primarilya set of practical rules for organizing human beings to exploit a particular range of resources by means of a given technology permits Black to demonstrate how 3 percent of the Luri maintain themselves as an elite excluding others from access to scarce resources. "Luristan presents a perfect marxist paradigm of capitalist exploitation" (25, p. 628). The difficulties in the way of challenging an "establishment" of this nature has been demonstrated by Dalton (47) in a study of political brokerage in the Sawknah oasis. In the face of challenges from younger, technologically oriented men, long established "tribal" groupings maintained themselves in power through coercive sanctions reinforced by patronage allocations from the Libyan government. A reexamination of other studies of local level leadership (19, 30, 57, 75, 91, 102, 106, 110, 114, 115, 119) might lend itself to similar conclusions. [For an interesting Latin American development see Dennis (49).] A large body of literature revolves around competition for followers (23, 28, 30), the study of patron-client relations, and clientelism (37, 104, 123). Again a distinction is to be observed between those who emphasize the reciprocal and transactional nature of such relations (17, 19, 93, 101) and those who emphasize positional attributes and lopsidedness (26, 67, 71, 72, 79, 80, 129). Again there is apparent, too, a shift in focus from the "particular persons"-patrons, clients, brokers- to the "particularcircumstances" under which factionalism occurs. Several studies have been made of what political entrepreneurs can do with the manipulation of symbols and material resources; this has been recognized as a promising avenue of advancement for action theory (41, 81, 109). Paine has made a useful distinction between "big men" and "patrons"

POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

187

(93), in my own workseen to be a matterof institutionalization (119). The "bigman"conceptwas excellentlydelineatedby Sahlins(100) and Oliver (91). Historical analysessuggestthe emergence of patron-client in relations Europewith the breakup of the Roman Empire,nearanarchyproducing feudalism.Mair has suggestedthe emergenceof Africanclientelismwith insecurity(80). Ahmed'swork suggeststhat feudalismmight betterhave approximated politicalrealityin Swat than Barth'sdyadiccontract(17). The most creativestep in recent years has been the questioningof the conditionsunderwhich patronage,regionalelites, and coalitionsemerge and maintainthemselves(105). Not insignificant has been the perception thatthe community-nation matrixis less usefulthana transnational matrix in this analysis(106). The authorityof a local patron or big man is derivedfrom personal is a creationof followership powers;leadership (100). Aroundhimself,as he competes, he gathers a following,structurally, a faction.Sincethe acquisitionof spoilsinvolvesthe manipulation of resources, is required; flexibility factionstendto be quasi-groups or coalitionswhosemembers are recruited on diverseprinciples (26, 32, 33, 34, 55, 58, 83, 87-90). Whatmust not be lost sight of, however, is the power of the faction leader, despite an egalitarianethos, and his disproportionate profitfrom greateraccess to scarceresources. Althoughthe literature indicatesthat factionsare ephemeral, the leadershipof successive factionsremains in the handsof the samefamilies. Attention to processes of consolidation of powershiftsthe focusfromindividual actorsto families."Differential accessto resources... leads to differences in the capacityfor maneuver,a differential capacity which is, in turn, reflectedin differential patternsof marriagechoice" (129). Families,not are the units of class analysis. individuals, Factionsemergewhenthe environment somenew kindof politiprovides cal resourcewhichexistinggroupscannotexploit(12, 37, 87). Oftenthey derived alignthemselves andso may alongthe linesof historically cleavages be viewedas "processes whichparticipate in movement in time"(51).These are globalprocesses. For example:an increasein intravillage factionalism since independence has been noted throughoutthe Indian subcontinent. Robinson'sstrikingmonograph(99) describeshow, with independence, leadersin a Sri Lankavillagelost accessto urbanpowerholders. The vacuum was filledby politicalpartyfactions(cf 23, 89; 34, 75). Alignments followedthe divisionswithinthe ruralpopulation that had developed during the previouscentury: the wealthysupported the "capitalist" party,the the opposition. the villagewasdismembered underprivileged, Subsequently Theadoption by revolution. by villageyouthsof Maoistgoalsrevealed both

188

VINCENT

the extent of State penetration into the countryside, accompanied by the increased marginalization of the village,andthe availability of globalpolitical forcesfor adoptionand manipulation. Factionalism is an intraclassphenomenon (37) and not necessarily the most important organizing featureof the arenasin whichit is to be found (89). Real powerresideselsewhere. Factionalism thus appears as an emerthe marginalization of ruralcommunities gent phenomenon accompanying and the global duringcertainphasesin the development of Statecapitalism economy. in action theorymost The study of brokerage bringsout developments and Mesoclearly. Paine's review (93) of writingsof Mediterraneanists on the Canadian americanists, alongwithcontributions Arctic,accentuates action:the acquisition of accessto, and controlof, resources not purposive otherwiseavailable.Appreciatingthat analysis must be intersubjective, and developmental cross-cultural, (130), Boissevain'sFriendsof Friends (34) providesa primer. The earliestworkon brokers by Wolf(126-128) andGeertz(61) focused on individuals who connectedlocal with nationalaffairs.Multifaceted careerswererelatedto the changingpoliticaleconomyof the locality,region, and state (1, 70, 73, 107, 110, 120). Brokerswere usuallylocatedin small towns-as werethe marginal men of Paine'svolume(93), Euro-Canadian "in-between" and "on-the-edge-of" missionaries, and officials storekeepers, locatedat the frontierof economicexpansion(6). overlapping structures, The antagonism of town and country(the small town a node in a field has been the subjectof of tensionsgenerated by emergentcontradictions) severalstudies(36, 92, 96, 114, 122).One that adoptsdialectical theoryto of ThirdWorldsocietiesis Bond's capturethis phasein the transformation ruralcenter.Dialecticaltheoriesinsiston the reality analysisof a Zambian of conflict without reconciliation. Only they, it has been argued, "take seriously... power,violence,decision.Othermodelsprovidefor 'happenings';but not for actions,decisionsor victories"(78, p. 57). At one level Bond'sethnography between an established elite analyzeslocalcompetition and the "NewMen"who challengeit. At anotherlevelit exploresthe rural and dependencyon new national population'sincreasingsubordination politicalelites. The emergenceof rural capitalism(95, 119, 122) and the actions of elites invite more attentionto materialresources[cf Leys manipulative (74)]. Thodenvan Velzen,who earlierdescribedTanzaniankulacksand levellers(113), recentlystudieda coalitionof civil servantsand wealthy farmerswho rakedoff nationalinvestment funds intendedfor agricultural level was development(114). A similar occurrenceat the international analyzedby Gonzalezin the DominicanRepublic(64). Therethe Develop-

POLITICALANTHROPOLOGY

189

of powerful mentAssociation servedas an arenain whicha committee men with multifaceted careers exploitedrelationswith AID andwith theirlocal This exampleof the marginalization of clientsfor theirown advancement. within own the poor by power brokers their society illustrates,too, the of smallgroupanalysiswithinthe settingof the globaleconomy. usefulness underwhichdifferent Long (76), who analyzesthe circumstances types of brokeremergein Peru to occupy strategicpositionsbetweenlocal, national, and regionaleconomies,suggeststhat an "actor-oriented perspective" and detailedcase studiesare requiredto complement"dependency theory"which in itself is insensitiveto class analysis[cf Worsley(130)]. Insightcan be obtained into the mechanisms by whicheconomicsurplusis extractedand the extentto which it is investedin local production. Boisthe need to shift gearsin actiontheoryin orderto sevainalso appreciates and processesbeyond the communityat analyze political relationships regional,national,and supranational levels (35). Although the study of in andbetween of actiontheory[as forcesandmovement fieldscharacteristic in the work of Turner(117), Bond (36), and Long (76)] goes a long way Boissevainnotes, have increasingly"had to toward this, Europeanists, becomehistorians" (35, p. 15;cf 48). They turn now to "theoretical paraelements aregivengreater digmsin whicheconomic,politicalandhistorical prominence" (35, p. 15). Boissevain nominatesMarxand Elias;elsewhere, utilized. as we have seen, Weber'sinsightsare increasingly An interestingstudy over time of postindependence in the brokerage Republicof Ireland(22, 35) indicateshow parochial politicshavecome to in a mannernot unique,Bax suggests,to re-encapsulate ruralcommunities in Europeas the welfarestate develops,more political Ireland.Elsewhere fields are created in which brokers can operate. Class consciousness flourishes. Historicaldepththus adds to perceptions of the frequency and salienceof brokerage. This is even more evidentfrom Blok's historicalaccountof the violent of Sicily, 1860-1960 (27). The emergenceof the peasantentrepreneurs
Mafia is related to State efforts to check landlordism and emancipate the peasantry. Upwardly mobile themselves, they combine with landowners and local notables to hold others in check-by violence. Blok treats modes of production in Sicily and the rise and fall of specific interest groups; the

of marketforces and the encapsulating nation-state. He also penetration makesextensiveuse of Bailey'sconceptual tool kit. One reviewer has commentedmost aptly:
It is worthnotingthe conceptual eclecticism of Blok'sanalysis: with although prefaced fromMarxand Barrington extracts tantalizing Moore,the authordrawsfreelyfromF. and resources) G. Bailey(the brokermodel,the encapsulating state,leaders,followers to patron-client Eric Wolf (approaches NorbertElias (the processof state formation)

190

VINCENT

relations and peasant revolutions) and others. This range of sources ... is worth noting since there are those who insist that, for example, Marx and Bailey cannot both be right at the same time-indeed such a view is increasingly the topic ofjournal articles... (75a, p. 339).

At such a point this reviewof actiontheoryin politicalanthropologythroughthe analysisof individualactorsand their strategies an approach in politicalarenas-most honestlyrestsin the lap of Marx,Bailey,and the the dialectic.We have seen how in the variousphasesof its development, the study has moved from anthropology action approachwithin political strategiesof a rathernarrowrangeof politicalactors of the manipulative of the particular in middle) to a greaterclarification the men (i.e. the within which they operate.This has opened the door to circumstances inquiriesto supplementthose long regional,national,and transnational This wideningof the arenahas,in turn, level. at the local into politics made of fieldsanalysisand the adoptionof an fosteredthe furtherdevelopment of localizedindividuunitwhichis madeup not of the interaction analytical which andof actionsandenterprises als alonebut alsoof menin movement acrossspaceandoverconsidfor theirsuccesson operations aredependent that have long erableperiodsof time. Politicalsituationsand encounters are now meshed withinpoliticalanthropology this approach characterized with a concernwith emergentrelationsof dominationand exploitation way aheadsurelylies in the withina modemworldsystem.The immediate andinterclass political betweenintraclass fleshingout of interdependencies and analysisof action.This in itself will lead the fieldinto the observation and over undermoreand morevariedcircumstances politicaloccurrences greaterlengthsof time.
LiteratureCited 1. Adams, R. N. 1970. Brokers and career mobility systems in the structure of complex societies. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 26:315-27 2. Ahmed, A. S. 1976. Millenium and Charisma among Pathans: A Critical Essay in Social Anthropology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 3. Arensberg, C. M. 1972. Culture as behavior: structure and emergence. Ann. Rev. AnthropoL 1:1-26 4. Asad, T. 1970. The Kababish Arabs: Power, Authority and Consent in a Nomadic Tribe. London: Hurst 5. Asad, T. 1972. Market model, class structure and consent: a reconsideration of Swat political organisation. Man 7:74-94 6. Bailey, F. G. 1957. Caste and the Economic Frontier. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press 7. Bailey, F. G. 1957. Political change in the Kondmals. East. Anthropol. 11:88106 8. Bailey, F. G. 1960. Tribe,Caste and Nation. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press 9. Bailey, F. G. 1964. In Closed Systems

Minds:TheLimitsof Naivety and Open ed. M. Gluckin SocialAnthropology,

man, E. Devons. Chicago: Aldine 10. Bailey, F. G. 1966. Anthropology. In A Guide to the Social Sciences, ed. N. Mackenzie. New York: New American Library 11. Bailey, F. G. 1968. Parapolitical systems. See Ref. 111, pp. 28-94 12. Bailey, F. G. 1970. Stratagems and Spoils:A Social Anthropologyof Politics. Oxford: Blackwell 13. Bailey, F. G. 1971. Gifts and Poison:

POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
The Politics of Reputation. Oxford: Blackwell Bailey, F. G. 1972. Conceptual systems in the study of politics. In Rural Politics and Social Change in the Middle East, ed. R. Antoun, I. Harik. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Bailey, F. G. 1973. Debate and Compromise: The Politics of Innovation. Oxford: Blackwell Barnes, J. A., Mitchell, J. C., Gluckman, M. 1949. The village headman in British Central Africa. Africa 19:89106 Barth, F. 1959. Political Leadership Among Swat Pathans. London: Athlone Barth, F. 1959. Segmentary opposition and the theory of games: a study of Pathan organisation. J. R. Anthropol.Inst. 89:5-21 Barth, F. 1963. The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in Northern Norway. Bergen, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Barth, F. 1966. Models ofSocial Organisation. Occas. Pap. No. 23. London: Royal Anthropol. Inst. Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London: Allen & Unwin Bax, M. 1973. Harpstringsand Confessions: An AnthropologicalStudy of Politics in Rural Ireland. Amsterdam: Univ. Amsterdam Press Beals, A. R., Siegel, B. J. 1966. Divisiveness and Social Conflict:An Anthropological Approach. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Bendix, R., Roth, G. 1971. Scholarship and Partisanship: Essays on Max Weber. Berkeley: Univ. California Press Black, J. 1972. Tyranny as a strategy for survival in 'egalitarian' society: Luri facts versus an anthropological mystique. Man 7:614-34 Blok, A. 1973. Coalitions in Sicilian peasant society. In Network Analysis: Studies in Human Interaction, ed. J. Boissevain, J. C. Mitchell. The Hague: Mouton Blok, A. 1974. The Mafia of a Sicilian Village, 1860-1960: A Study of Violent Peasant Entrepreneurs.Oxford: Blackwell Boissevain, J. 1964. Factions, parties and politics in a Maltese village. Am. Anthropol. 66:1275-87 Boissevain, J. 1965. Saints and Fireworks. Religion and Politics in Rural Malta. London: Athlone Boissevain, J. 1966. Patronage in Sicily. Man 1:18-33

191

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19.

20. 21. 22.

23.

24. 25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

31. Boissevain, J. 1968. The place of nongroups in the social sciences. Man 14:542-56 32. Boissevain, J. 1969. Hal-Farrug, A Village in Malta New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 33. Boissevain, J. 1971. Second thoughts on quasi-groups. Man 6:468-72 34. Boissevain, J. 1974. Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulatorsand Coalitions. Oxford: Blackwell 35. Boissevain, J., Friedl, J. 1975. Beyond the Community Social Process in Europe. The Hague: Dep. Educ. Sci. The Netherlands 36. Bond, G. C. 1976. The Politics of Change in a Zambian Community. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 37. Bujra, J. 1973. The dynamics of political action: a new look at factionalism. Am. Anthropol. 75:132-52 38. Chapple, E. D., Arensberg, C. M. 1940. Measuring human relations. An introduction to the study of the interaction of individuals. Genet. Psychol. Monogr. 23:3-147 39. Cohen, A. P. 1965. Arab Border Villages in Israel: A Study of Continuity and Change in Social Organisation. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press 40. Cohen, A. P. 1969. Custom and Politics in Urban Africa. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 41. Cohen, A. P. 1974. Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropologyof Power and Symbolism in Complex Societies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 42. Cohen, A. P. 1974. Urban Ethnicity. London: Tavistock 43. Cohen, R. 1975. Where do we come from, where do we go: political anthropology looks ahead. Rev. Anthropol. 2:257-66 44. Collier, J. F. 1973. Law and Social change in Zinacantan. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press 45. Collier, J. F. 1975. Legal processes. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 4:121-44 46. Colson, E. 1968. Political anthropology: the field. Int. Encycl. Soc. Sci. 189-92 47. Dalton, W. G. 1973. Economic change and political continuity in a Saharanoasis community. Man 8:266-84 48. Davis, J. 1975. Beyond the hyphen: some notes and documents on community-state relations in South Italy. See Ref. 35, pp. 49-55 49. Dennis, P. A. 1973. The Oaxacan village president as political middleman. Ethnology 12:419-27

192

VINCENT
69. Leach, E. R. 1940. Social and Economic Organisation of the Rowanduz Kurds. LSE Monogr. Soc. Anthropol. 70. Leach, E. R. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma:A Study ofKachin Social Structure. London: Aldine 71. Leach, E. R. 1961. Pul Eliya: A Village in Ceylon. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 72. Leach, E. R. 1963. Law as a condition of freedom. In The Conceptof Freedom in Anthropology,ed. D. Bidney, pp. 7490. The Hague: Mouton 73. Leeds, A. 1964. Brazilian careers and social structure: an evolutionary model and case history. Am. Anthropol. 66:1321-47 74. Leys, C. 1967. Politicians and Policies: An Essay on Politics in Acholi, Uganda 1962-65. Nairobi: East African Publ. House 75. Loizos, P. 1975. The Greek Gift:Politics in a Cypriot Village. Oxford: Blackwell 75a. Loizos, P. 1975. Review of Ref. 27. Man 10:338-39 76. Long, N. 1975. Structural dependency, modes of production and economic brokerage in rural Peru. In Beyond the Sociology of Development: Economy and Society in Latin America and Africa, ed. I. Oxaal, T. Barnett, D. Booth, pp. 25382. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 77. Lukes, S. 1970. Methodological individualism reconsidered. In Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis, ed. D. Emmet, A. Maclntyre, pp. 76-88. London: Macmillan 78. Mackenzie, W. J. M. 1975. Power, Violence, Decision. Harmondsworth: Penguin 79. Mair, L. P. 1965. How small-scale societies change. In Penguin Survey of the Social Sciences 1965, ed. J. Gould, pp. 20-35. Harmondsworth: Penguin 80. Mair, L. P. 1969. Anthropologyand Social Change. London: Athlone 81. Mair, L. P. 1975. How far have we got in the study of politics? In Studies in African Social Anthropology, eds. M. Fortes and S. Patterson, pp. 7-20. London, New York, San Francisco: Academic 82. Marx, E. 1972. Review of The Kababish Arabs by T. Asad (Ref. 4). Man 7 83. Mayer, A. C. 1966. The significance of quasi-groups in the study of complex societies. In The Social Anthropologyof Complex Societies, ed. M. P. Banton. London: Tavistock 84. Moore, S. F. 1970. Law and anthropology. Bienn. Rev. Anthropol. 1969:- 252-300

50. Dyson-Hudson, N. 1972. The study of nomads. In Perspectiveson Nomadism, ed. W. Irons, N. Dyson-Hudson. Leiden: Brill 51. Elias, N., Scotson, J. L. 1965. The EsA Sociologitablishedand the Outsiders: cal Inquiry into Community Problems. London: Cass 52. Emmet, D. 1958. Function, Purposeand Powers: Some Concepts in the Study of Individuals and Societies. London: Macmillan 53. Emmet, D. 1960. How far can structural studies take account of individuals? J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 90:191-200 54. Firth, R. 1954. Social organisation and social change. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 84.1-20 55. Firth, R. 1957. Factions in Indian and overseas Indian societies. Br. J. Sociol. 8:291-95 56. Firth, R. 1964. Essays on Social Organisation and Values. London: Athlone 57. Friedrich, P. 1968. The legitimacy of a cacique. See Ref. 111, pp. 243-69 58. Gallin, B. 1968. Political factionalism and its impact on Chinese village organisation in Taiwan. See Ref. 111, pp. 377-400 59. Garbett, G. K. 1970. The analysis of social situations. Man 5:214-27 60. Garbett, G. K. 1975. Circulatory migration in Rhodesia: towards a decision model. See Ref. 96, pp. 113-25 61. Geertz, C. 1960. The changing role of the cultural broker: the Javanese kijaji. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 2 62. Gluckman, M. 1940. Analysis of a social situation in modem Zululand. Bantu Stud. 14:147-74 63. Gluckman, M. 1955. The Judicial Process among the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press 64. Gonzalez, N. L. 1972. Patron-client relationships at the international level. In Structureand Processin Latin America, ed. A. Strickon, S. M. Greenfield. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mexico Press 65. Hansen, H. B. 1977. Ethnicity and Military Rule in Uganda. Rep. 43, Scand. Inst. Afr. Stud., Uppsala 66. Hirschman, A. 0. 1970. Exit, Voiceand Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations and States. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press 67. Izmirlian, H. Jr. 1969. Structural and decision-making models: a political example. Am. Anthropol. 71:1063-73 68. Kuper, A. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology:the British School 19221972. London: Lane

POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
85. Nadel, S. F. 1956. Understanding primitive peoples. Oceania 26:159-73 86. Nadel, S. F. 1957. Theory of Social Structure. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 87. Nicholas, R. W. 1963. Village factions and political parties in rural West Bengal. J. Commonw. Polit. Stud. 2:17-32 88. Nicholas, R. W. 1965. Factions: a comparative analysis. In Political Systems of Power,ed. M. and the Distribution Banton. London: Tavistock 89. Nicholas, R. W. 1966. Segmentary factional systems. See Ref. 112, pp. 49-59 90. Nicholas, R. W. 1968. Rules, resources and political activity. See Ref. 111, pp. 295-321 91. Oliver, D. L. 1955. A SolomonIsland

193

Kinship and Leadership among Society: the Siuai of Bougainville. Boston:

Beacon 92. Owusu, M. 1975. Colonialism and Change:Essays Presented to Lucy Mair. The Hague: Mouton 93. Paine, R. 1971. A theory of patronage and brokerage. In Patrons and Brokers in the East Arctic, ed. R. Paine, pp. 821. St. John's: Memorial Univ. Newfoundland 94. Paine, R. 1974. Second Thoughtsabout Barth's Models. Occas. Pap. 32. London: R. Anthropol. Inst. 95. Parkin, D. J. 1972. Palms, Wine and Witnesses. San Francisco, London: Chandler 96. Parkin, D. J. 1975. Town and Country in Central and Eastern Africa. London: Oxford Univ. Press 97. Rew, A. 1977. Accumulating applicants: the State and shanty town property. Burg Wartenstein Symp. 73, Shanty Towns in Developing Nations 98. Rex, J. 1969. Max Weber. In The Founding Fathers of Social Science, ed. T. Raison, pp. 170-77. Harmondsworth: Penguin 99. Robinson, M. 1975. Political Structure in a Changing Sinhalese Village. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 100. Sahlins, M. 1962-63. Poor man, rich man, big man, chief: political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comp. Stud. Hist. Soc. 5:285-303 101. Sahlins, M. 1965. On the sociology of primitive exchange. In TheRelevance of Modelsfor Social Anthropology,ed. M. Banton. London: Tavistock 102. Salzman, P. C. 1973. Continuity and change in Baluchi tribal leadership. Int. J. MiddleEast.Stud. 4:428-39 103. Schaffer, B. B., Lamb, G. B. 1975. Exit, voice and access. Soc.Sci.Inf 13:73-90

104. Schmidt, S. W., Guasti, I., Lande, C. H., Scott, J. C. 1977. Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: Univ. California Press 105. Schneider, P. 1972. Coalition formation and colonialism in Sicily. Eur. J. Soc. 13:255-67 106. Schneider, P., Schneider, J., Hansen, E. 1972. Modernization and development: the role of regional elites and noncorporate groups in the European Mediterranean. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 14:328-50 107. Silverman, S. F. 1965. Patronage and community-nation relationships in central Italy. Ethnology 4 108. Silverman, S. F. 1974. Bailey's politics. J. Peasant Stud. 2:111-120 109. Social Science Research Council. 1968. Research in Social Anthropology: An SSRC Review of Current Research. London: Heinemann 110. Strickon, A. 1972. Carlos Felipe: kinsman, patron and friend. In Structure and Process in Latin America, ed. A. Strickon, S. M. Greenfield. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mexico Press 111. Swartz, M. 1968. Local-Level Politics. Chicago: Aldine 112. Swartz, M., Turner, V. W., Tuden, A. 1966. Political Anthropology. Chicago: Aldine 113. Thoden, B. V. V. 1970. The Condottieri and the Levellers. Presented at 1970 Ann. Conf. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., San Diego 114. Thoden, B. V. V. 1975. Controllers in rural Tanzania. See Ref. 96, pp. 178-89 115. Tuden, A. 1966. Leadership and decision-making among the Ila and Swat Pathans. See Ref. 112, pp. 95-106 116. Turner, V. W. 1957. Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press 117. Turner, V. W. 1974. Dramas, Fields and Metaphors:Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca, London: Cornell Univ. Press 118. Van Velsen, J. 1964. The Politics of Kinship. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press 119. Vincent, J. E. 1971. African Elite: The Big Men of a Small Town. New York: Columbia Univ. Press 120. Vincent, J. E. 1974. Visibility and vulnerability: the politics of pacemakers. Africa 44:222-34 121. Vincent, J. E. 1974. The structuring of ethnicity. Hum. Organ. 33:375-79 122. Vincent, J. E. 1974. The changing role of small towns in the agrarianstructure

194

VINCENT
of East Africa. J. Comp. Pol, Stud 12:261-75 Weingrod, A. 1968. Patrons, patronage and political parties. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 10 Whitten, N. E. Jr., Whitten, D. S. 1972. Social strategies and social relationships. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1:247-70 Whitten, N. E. Jr., Wolfe, A. 1974. Network analysis. In Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology, ed. J. Honigman. Chicago: Rand McNally Wolf, E. R. 1955. Types of Latin American peasantry. Am. Anthropo. 57:452-71 127. Wolf, E. R. 1956. Aspects of group relations in a complex society: Mexico. Am. Anthropol. 58:1065-78 128. Wolf, E. R. 1957. Closed corporate communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 13: 1-18 129. Wolf, E. R. 1966. Kinship, friendship and patron-client relations in complex societies. In The Social Anthropologyof Complex Societies, ed. M. Banton. London: Tavistock 130. Worsley, P. 1974. The state of theory and the status of theory. Sociology 8:1-17

123. 124. 125.

126.