Strouthes D.P. Law and Politics: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
LITIGATION
If a
person puts
an
inadmissible petition
into
the
Plaint-box
in
front
of the
High
Court
he
shall
be
handcuffed
and put in
charge
of a
security [generally
the
keeper
of his
provincial
hostel
in
Yedo];
and if his
security (the land-
lord
of the
hostel
at
which
his
provincials
put
up)
petitions
a
second time
for his
forgiveness,
he
shall
be
directed
to
caution
the
offender
that
if the
offence
be
repeated
he
will
be
sub-
jected
to a
public rebuke
(togame\
and the of-
fender
himself must sign
a
bond pledging
himself
not to
repeat
the
offence
under
the
said
penalty. Thereupon
he may be at
once
released
from
the
handcuffs,
whatever might
be
the
number
of
days
for
which
he was
sen-
tenced
to
wear them.
If the
improper petitioner
be an
ecclesi-
astic
(Buddhist)
he
shall
be
given
in
charge
to
his
head monastery
or to the
Noticiary
(fure-
gashird)
of his
sect:
if he be a
free
lance (liter-
ally
a
waveman
[ronin],
i.e.
a
samurai
no
longer
in
the
service
of a
feudal lord),
he
shall
be se-
cured
by the
landowner
or the
householder
of
the
place where
he is
stopping;
and
when they
petition
for his
forgiveness they shall
be di-
rected
to
caution
him in the
same terms
as in
the
former
case,
and
when
his
bond
not to re-
peat
the
offence
has
been given
in, he
shall
be
released.
(1741)
Appendix: same
year.—A
person who,
for
persistently petitioning through
the
Plaint-
box,
has
been
handcuffed
and who
after
being
forgiven
again puts
his
plaint into
the box is
to be
expelled
from
Yedo, whether
he be a
resi-
dent
in the
city
or in the
suburbs.
Any
person who,
for
bringing
an
inad-
missible plaint before
the
High
Court
direct
(not through
the
Plaint-box),
has
been
put
under
bail
or
been
handcuffed,
and yet
will
not
cease
from
urging
his
suit,
is to be
dealt
with
in the
same
way as
above (i.e. expulsion
from
Yedo). (Customary)
Hall,
John
Carey. (1906)
Japanese
Feudal
Law:
The
Institutes
of
Judicature:
Being
a
Transla-
tion
of
"Go
Seibei
Shikimoku";
The
Magisterial
Code
of
the
Hojo
Power-Holders
(A.D.
1232).
162
MARRIACI;
Marriage
is the
legally
recognized union
of a
man and a
woman
for
the
purpose
of
producing legitimate children.
Among societies, laws
on
marriage
differ
con-
siderably,
from
what
is
necessary
to
create
a
genu-
ine
marriage
and how a
marriage
is
dissolved
to
the
kinds
of
behavior
in
which married people
may
engage
with
respect
to
each other
and
each
other's
families.
The
Laws regarding mar-
riage
are
part
of the
larger
field
known
as
fam-
ily
law.
In
many societies,
the
couple
who is to
marry
must become formally
betrothed
before they
can
be
married. Betrothal
is a
formal contract
to
marry
in the
future.
In
some societies, betrothal
is
made
by the
parents
of the
male
and
female
who are to
marry;
in
some cases, when
the
people
betrothed
are but
small children.
In
some societies, marriage
is at
least
as
much
of a
union between families
as
between
a
man
and a
woman. Traditionally, among
the
Cheyenne Indians
of the
Great
Plains,
the
fam-
ily
of the
bride would decide whom
a
young
woman
was to
marry, oftentimes regardless
of
her
wishes.
They
had the
authority
to
make
a
contract
to
marry
by
accepting horses sent
by
the
groom's
family.
Also among
the
Cheyenne,
the
decision
as
to
whom
a
young woman would marry
was
left
to her
brothers,
and if she had
none,
to her fa-
ther.
If a man
promised
his
sister
to a
particular
man,
and his
sister
ran
away
to
elope with
an-
other man,
then
the
sister
was
disowned
by her
family
and the
brother
was
disgraced.
It
some-
times happened that
the
brother committed sui-
cide,
so
great
was his
disgrace.
Such arranged marriages were common
among
the
Micmac Indians
of
eastern Canada
until
the
1970s.
Parents
of
children
of
marriage-
able
age
would decide whom
their
children were
to
marry.
The
prime consideration
was
that their
children marry
a
mate
who was not
lazy. Many
of
the
prospective brides
and
grooms disliked
this system intensely,
but had no
choice
but to
accept
it.
They
had no
choice because, unless
their circumstances were very unusual,
the
young
people depended upon their parents
for
food
and
shelter
for a few
more years
at
least.
The
system
only began
to
change
in the
1960s,
when young
adults began
to go in
significant numbers
to the
state
of
Maine
in
August
to
harvest
the
blue-
berry crop. From there, they
found
that
they
could easily
go to
Boston, where they could
readily
find a job and a
place
to
live.
There,
they
were beyond
the
control
of
their parents.
They
could
use
their
source
of
livelihood
in
Boston
to
force
their parents into dropping their insistence
on a
choice
of
mate.
The
laws regarding marriage among
the
pre-
Soviet
Russians
are
also
of
interest. Marriage
was
considered
a
religious
affair
as
well
as a
legal one;
no
marriage
was
legally binding unless
it was
performed
by
church authorities. Marriage
was
also
indissoluble; divorce
was
impossible.
In
Russia, marriage also gave
men a
great deal
of
power over their wives.
Men
could abuse
and
163
M
MARRIAGE
beat
their wives
so
long
as
they
did
nothing
to
endanger
life
or
limb,
and if
they
did
they were
punished
with
a
prison term. Otherwise,
the le-
gal
authorities would
do
nothing
to
help
an
abused
spouse.
Among
the
Yoruba people
of
Nigeria, mar-
riage
is
very much
different.
In
that
society,
a
bride-price
is
traditionally paid
to
complete
a
marriage,
and the
payment
assures
that
any
chil-
dren born
of the
union
are
considered
the
husband
s
legitimate
offspring.
However,
a man
has
the
right
to
give
his
daughter
or
niece
in
marriage
to a
friend
or
benefactor
without requir-
ing a
bride-price.
The
Yoruba
practice polygyny.
Yoruba
law
does
not
recognize divorce.
If a
woman
decides
that
she
would
prefer
to be
with
a
man
other than
her
husband,
she may
sepa-
rate
from
her
husband
and
live with
the man
whom
she
prefers.
The
second
man
must
pay to
the
husband
the
bride-price
that
the
husband
originally paid, though none
of
this money goes
to the
woman
s
family.
The
woman
is
still con-
sidered
married
to her
husband,
and her
chil-
dren
are
still regarded
as
his.
The
Yoruba traditionally took
the
matters
of
adultery
and of the
seduction
of
betrothed
women
and
girls very seriously.
If a man
seduced
a
woman
or
girl
who was
betrothed
to
another
man,
then
he
must
pay
whatever bride-price
was
asked,
and pay to the man
originally
affianced
to the
female
whatever expenses
he had
paid
in
the
courting
of the
female;
after
this
was
done,
the
seducer
and the
girl
or
woman were mar-
ried.
If a man
seduced
a
married woman
and
then walked near
the
house
of the
husband,
the
husband
had the
right
to
seriously wound
the
seducer
with impunity.
It was
also legally appro-
priate
for the
seducer
and the
husband
to fight
over
the
wife.
If one of the
combatants became
scared
to fight, he
relinquished
his
claim
on the
woman,
and the two men
became lifelong
friends.
If the two
fought,
and one man was
killed,
then
the
survivor could claim
the
woman
as
his.
If
both
men
died
as a
result
of
their duel,
then
the
woman
was
punished with
the
death pen-
alty
as a
murderer
for
having caused
the
deaths.
Among
the
Kuria people
of
Tanzania,
the
law
regarding husbands
and
wives provides
that
a
woman
who
divorces
her
husband
to
marry
again
may
return
to her first
husband
if her
sec-
ond
marriage produces
no
sons.
This
is
because
sons
support their parents
in old
age,
and
such
support
is
crucial
if the
parents
are to
survive
when they
get
old.
Kuria
law
does prohibit adultery,
but
gener-
ally
no
legal cases concerning adultery
are
brought
to the
attention
of
legal authorities
un-
less
it is a
case
of a
woman
who
commits
adul-
tery
in a
flagrant manner.
In
other words,
husbands
do not
mind that their wives have
af-
fairs
with other
men so
long
as
they
do not do so
in a way
that embarrasses
the
husband publicly.
Under
Muslim
law
(Islamic law),
one may
divorce
one's
spouse
by
repeating
the
words
of
repudiation
or
divorce, known
as the
Talak,
three
times.
Ajisafe,
A. K.
(1946)
The
Laws
and
Customs
of
the
Yoruba
People.
Kovalevsky,
Maxime. (1966
[1891])
"The Mod-
ern
Russian
Family."
\nAnthropology
and
Early
Law,
edited
by
Lawrence
Krader,
148-170.
Llewellyn, Karl
N., and E.
Adamson
Hoebel.
(1961
[1941])
The
Cheyenne
Way.
Rwezaura,
Barthazar Aloys.
(1985)
Traditional
Family
Law and
Change
in
Tanzania:
A
Study
of
the
Kuria
Social
System.
Strouthes, Daniel
P.
(1994)
Change
in the
Real
Property
Law
of
a
Cape
Breton
Island
Micmac
Band.
164
MARXISM
MARXISM
Karl
Marx
had two
main
objectives
in his
writ-
ings.
The
first
was to
help bring about
a
Communist revolution.
He
made this call most clearly
and
expressly
in
1848
in The
Communist
Manifesto,
which
he
cowrote
with Friedrich Engels,
and
called for, above
all
else,
the
abolition
of
private property,
the
dicta-
torship
of the
working class,
and
particularly
the
control
of the
means
of
production
by the
work-
ing
class
and the
abolition
of
capital.
The
second, which
is of
interest
to us be-
cause
of its
bearing
on the
cross-cultural study
of
society,
was to
provide
a
scientific
analysis
of
human economic, political,
and
social evolution.
Marx developed
a
novel
form
of
scientific
analy-
sis
that
used historical, political, economic,
and
anthropological data,
and
analyzed them
to
dem-
onstrate their intimate connections
to
each other,
particularly
with respect
to
nineteenth-century
Europe.
Scientific
analyses provide generalizations
and
predictions. Marx, along with
his
collabo-
rator, Friedrich Engels, made
specific
social gen-
eralizations
and
predictions.
As a
general
principle
of
social evolution,
Marx
and
Engels
advanced
what they called
"the
materialist con-
ception
of
history," saying
that
the
true analysis
of
social evolution should concentrate
on the
production
of the
goods
that
support human
life
and
the
exchange
of
those goods, which they
called
"the
basis
of all
social structure" (Marx
and
Engels, 1968: 417).
With
regard
to the ac-
tual progression
of
social evolution, they said that
after
a
long period
of
social
and
technological
development, mankind reached
a
stage
in
which
civilization
was
formed,
at
which time socioeco-
nomic
classes
and the
state came into being.
At
first, the
state
is
feudal,
and the
aristocracy,
or
upper
classes,
is
dominant. Later,
as
technology
advances
with
the
invention
of
productive
ma-
chinery,
capitalism develops,
and the
capitalist
middle
class
(or
bourgeoisie) becomes dominant.
Marx
and
Engels also made
the
prediction that
as
society
further
developed,
the
working
class
(or
proletariat) would become dominant, com-
munism would destroy capitalism,
and the
state
would "wither away."
Marx
and
Engels devoted much
of
their
ef-
forts
to
understanding capitalism
and
evaluat-
ing its
moral implications. Capitalism
has
been
defined
in
several ways,
but to
Marx
and
Engels,
it is
"living labour serving accumulated labour
as
a
means
for
maintaining
and
multiplying
the
exchange value
of the
latter" (Marx
and
Engels,
1968:82).
In
this definition, Marx
refers
to
capi-
tal as
accumulated labor, though capital
is
usu-
ally
defined
as
collected accumulated
wealth.
The
capitalist reproduces
his
capital
by
hiring work-
ers,
whom
he
pays
with
his
capital,
and who
cre-
ate for him
additional capital.
Marx
and
Engels,
and
later Lenin, were
clearly
opposed
in
their writings
to the
moral
implications
of
capitalism.
Their
principal
ob-
jection
to it is
that
it
denies
the
wage laborer
the
full
measure
of the
value
of his
labor,
but
gives
part
of it
instead
to the
owner
of the
capital.
Thus,
the
capitalist's
capital grows,
but the
wage
laborer
may
have
no
benefit
from
his
relation-
ship with
the
capitalist (the owner
of the
capital
and
the
employer) other than
to
acquire enough
material goods
to
survive. Finally,
as
Marx
and
Engels discovered
and
described, capitalism can-
not
exist without
the
wage laborer.
Several other
features
of
classical capitalism
(capitalism
as it was
practiced
in
nineteenth-
century Europe,
before
the
advent
of
significant
social
welfare
legislation) drew
fire
from
Marx
and
Engels. First, they attacked
the
great dis-
parities
in
wealth between
the
wealthy classes
and
the
working class. Second, they decried
the
wretched living conditions
that
faced
many
of
those belonging
to the
working class; this
was a
special interest
of
Engels,
who
described
it in
some detail.
Third,
they described
the
competi-
tion among workers
for
employment; when there
165
KarlMarx (1818-1883)
MARXISM
are
more workers
than
available jobs,
as is
usu-
ally
the
case
in
capitalist societies, employers
can
keep
wages
low and
still
be
able
to
acquire work-
ers,
since workers will work
at low
wages
to
avoid
starvation. Fourth, Marx
and
Engels criticized
the
automation
of
industry, which serves
to
reduce
the
skills required
of
workers
and to
reduce
the
number
of
workers needed,
both
of
which they
claimed lead
to
reduced wages.
Marx
and
Engels were primarily interested
in
technological
and
economic data
in
their
analyses.
Marx called
his
style
of
analysis
"ma-
terialist."
He
paid especial
attention
to
which
people
or
groups
of
people
in a
society
had
con-
trol
of the
majority
of the
society's
material
wealth and, even more importantly,
who had
control
of the
ability
to
produce
that
material
wealth, which
he
called "the means
of
produc-
tion."
Marx's
theory
of
materialism argued
that
relations between
different
components
of
soci-
ety are
material
in
nature
and not
primarily reli-
gious, kinship-related, geographic, political,
or
legal.
For
example,
in The
Communist
Manifesto,
Marx
and
Engels went
so far as to say
"The bour-
geois [man]
sees
in his
wife
a
mere instrument
of
production."
In
making their argument
in
favor
of a
Com-
munist
revolution, Marx
and
Engels
faced
many
problems,
the
chief being
the
then commonly
accepted
idea
that
the
social
and
economic sys-
tems
in
place
in
Europe
had
been there
all
along
and
were timeless
and
immutable
save
for mi-
nor
technological advances. How,
the
problem
seemed
to be,
could Marx
and
Engels convince
people
that
a new
social-economic
system—
communism—could
come about
if
they believed
that
no
other social-economic system other than
capitalism
had
ever existed.
Marx
and
Engels began attempting,
as
much
as
possible,
to be
scientific
in
their analysis
and
rely
upon empirical evidence.
They
opposed their
approach
to the
religious, which depends upon
faith.
This
made them
two of the
world's earli-
est
social scientists.
They
gathered primarily his-
torical
data, intending
to
prove
that
other
forms
of
social-economic systems had,
in
fact,
existed
in
Europe,
and
that
therefore still other
forms
(particularly communism) could exist
in the fu-
ture. Marx
was
interested
in the
data collected
by
the
national governments
of
Europe
at the
time, especially British data.
He
assembled data
on
production, technology, wages,
and
wealth
accumulation
in his
book
Das
Kapital.
He
also
undertook studies
of
medieval history
and
wrote
about
feudal
society.
Marx
and
Engels also made
use of
philoso-
phy
to
support
their
arguments
in
favor
of
his-
torical materialism/political economy
as a
means
of
analysis,
as
well
as to
support their arguments
that social-economic systems change,
as do all
natural phenomena.
They
used
a
special
form
of
philosophical inquiry known
as
dialectics, which
originated
with
Plato
and the
Platonists.
Dia-
lectics
is
concerned primarily with distinguish-
ing
truth
from
error.
In the
nineteenth century,
a
major
thinker
in the field of
dialectics
was the
German philosopher
Georg
Wilhelm
Friedrich
Hegel.
For
Hegel,
truth
was to be
found
in the
mind
and in
ideas,
not in the
objective world.
The
dialectics
of
Marx
and
Engels
was a
reac-
tion against Hegelian dialectics,
and
they named
their theory dialectical materialism. Dialectical
materialism
holds
that
the
only truth
is the ma-
terial truth,
and
that
matter
is
always changing.
Matter,
in
fact,
says
Marx,
is the
source
of all
change; change cannot occur without matter,
and
matter cannot exist without change. Change
occurs
through
a
struggle
of
opposites. Marx
called these opposites contradictions.
Any
par-
ticular socioeconomic system, such
as
capital-
ism, produces
its own
contradictions
that
inevitably cause
it to
fail
and to be
replaced
by a
more advanced system.
For
capitalism, Marx
said,
one
major
contradiction lies
in its
need
for
growth.
As
technology improves
due to a
desire
among capitalists
for
greater productivity
and
thus greater
profits,
competition among produc-
ers
actually results
in a
lowering
of
profits
and a
167
MARXISM
reduction
in the
number
of
capitalists,
as the
smaller
capitalists'
enterprises
are
swallowed
up
by
those
of the
larger capitalists.
The
contradic-
tion that Marx
saw as
most damaging
to
capi-
talism
was the
ever-increasing development
of
technology; here again,
Marx's
materialistic
emphasis
can be
seen.
As
technology improves,
and
the
smaller capitalists lose
out to the
greater
productive power
of the
large capitalists, wealth
becomes concentrated
in
fewer
and
fewer
hands,
and
the
working
class
grows larger
and
larger.
The
increase
in
technology allows members
of
the
ever-larger
and
ever-poorer working class
to
communicate
with each other,
to
unite
and co-
operate
in a
revolt against
the few
remaining
large capitalists
and
thus bring about
a
Com-
munist revolution.
The
process
that
Marx
be-
lieved
would bring about
the end of
capitalism
was
the
same general process
by
which
capital-
ism
brought about
the end of
feudalism.
Engels
(Marx
and
Engels 1968: 625) gave
the
follow-
ing
example
of the
latter:
At a
certain stage
the new
productive
forces
set in
motion
by the
bourgeoisie—in
the
first
place
the
division
of
labor
and the
combination
of
many detail laborers
[Teilarbeiter]
in one
general
manufactory—
and
the
conditions
and
requirements
of ex-
change, developed through these productive
forces,
became incompatible with
the
existing
order
of
production handed down
by
history
and
sanctified
by
law, that
is to
say, incompat-
ible
with
the
privileges
of the
guild
and the
numerous
other personal
and
local privileges
(which were only
so
many
fetters
to the un-
privileged estates)
of the
feudal
order
of
soci-
ety.
The
productive
forces
represented
by the
bourgeoisie rebelled against
the
order
of
pro-
duction represented
by the
feudal
landlords
and
the
guildmasters.
The
result
is
known:
the
feudal
fetters
were smashed, gradually
in En-
gland,
at one
blow
in
France.
In
Germany
the
process
is not yet finished. But
just
as, at a
definite
stage
of its
development,
manufacture
came
into
conflict
with
the
feudal
order
of
production,
so now
large-scale industry
has
already
come into
conflict
with
the
bourgeois
order
of
production established
in its
place.
We see
also
in the
quote above
one of the
hallmarks
of
Marx
s
and
Engels's
theory,
that
social evolution proceeds
in
stages, just
as
does
biological evolution,
as
shown
by
Darwin,
and
the
history
of
ideas,
as
shown
by
Hegel.
In all
cases,
more complex
and
advanced stages replace
the
simpler
and
less-advanced stages that pre-
ceded
them. Evolution, whether biological,
in-
tellectual,
or
social,
is
thus seen
by
Marx
and
Engels
as
both revolutionary
in its
character
and
unstoppable.
However,
the
philosophical theories
of
Marx
and
Engels have
a
logical inconsistency. Marx
and
Engels
said
that
everything
is
always
in a
state
of
change
and
that
there
is a
struggle
of
opposites. Marx
and
Engels apparently
did not
mean
that
these processes continue
to
operate
once
human society entered
the
stage
of
devel-
opment
of
communism.
At
that
time, there
would
be no
more struggle
of
opposites
and no
more changes.
They
did not say why the
laws
of
nature
as
they described them would suddenly
cease
to
operate when communism came about,
though
it is
obvious that they believed
that
com-
munism
is the
most
perfect
state
for
humanity.
The
third
major
source Marx
and
Engels
used
to
assist
their arguments came
from
an-
other
branch
of the
social sciences,
anthropol-
ogy.
Marx
and
Engels
had
wanted
to be
able
to
show
that
all
societies
go
through
a
series
of
stages
of
development, ending
up
with capital-
ism
and
then,
of
course, communism.
But
they
had no
data
for
societies
before
the
period
at
which
the
Greeks
and
Romans began writing
down their history.
They
turned
to the
writings
of a man
whom many consider
to be
America's
first
anthropologist,
Lewis
Henry
Morgan.
In
his
bookdncient
Society
y
Morgan
had
attempted
168
MARXISM
to
trace
the
development
of
mankind's
society
from
its
earliest beginnings
to
modern European
civilization (note that Morgan believed
in a
single line
of
social evolution,
and
that
Euro-
pean
society represented
the
most advanced
so-
ciety). Morgan noticed
from
the
accounts
of
various
societies written
by
missionaries
and ex-
plorers
that people
in
these societies were
at
dif-
ferent
levels
of
technological development
and
had
different
systems
of
classifying
kin by the
terms
of
address
they used. Morgan believed that
these levels
of
technology represented levels
of
social
evolution.
He
argued that technology
al-
ways
advanced
from
the
simple
to the
more com-
plex,
and
that
thus peoples
with
simple
technologies were
less
advanced than peoples
with more complex technologies. Each society
passed through
a
single line
of
stages
of
tech-
nology,
he
argued, graduating
from
one
level
to
the
next most complex; this kind
of
theory
is
known
as a
unilineal theory
of
social evolution.
Morgan described three stages
of
savagery
(lower,
middle,
and
upper), which
are
followed
by
three stages
of
barbarism (lower, middle,
and
upper),
which
are in
turn followed
by
civiliza-
tion (which begins with
the
invention
of an al-
phabet).
For
example,
the
middle stage
of
savagery
begins with
the
invention
of
fishing
and
fire,
and the
upper stage
of
savagery begins with
the
invention
of
archery. Morgan claimed
that
by
studying other societies with less-advanced
levels
of
technology,
we can see in
them
the
same
stages
of
social evolution
that
Europeans must
have
passed
through
before
reaching
the
stage
of
civilization. Morgan tried
to tie
levels
of
tech-
nology
to the
evolution
of
social organization
by
using data
on
kinship terminological systems.
Engels used
the
data
and
analysis that Morgan
supplied
to
trace
the
social evolution
of all
peoples
and to
show
how the
European civiliza-
tions
of his
time were
the
product
of
long peri-
ods
of
social evolution.
This
he did in a
work
called
The
Origin
of
the
Family,
Private
Property
and the
State
in
Light
of
the
Researches
of
Lewis
H.
Morgan
(Marx
and
Engels 1968:
468-593).
The
conclusion that
one
should draw
from
the
fact
that European civilization
was the
product
of
a
long period
of
social evolution, Engels
ar-
gued,
is
that
further
social evolution will
occur,
and
that
it
will
be in the
direction
of
communism.
Marx
s and
Engels
s
analyses
and
predictions
may
be
criticized
on
several grounds.
With
re-
gard
to
their analyses
of
non-Western peoples,
the two men may be
criticized
for
using data
insufficient
for
their purposes.
At the
time,
little
data
was
available
on
non-Western
societies,
and
much
of
what
was
available
was
simply incor-
rect
due to
poor collection methods.
This
same
problem hampered
the
work
of
other early
so-
cial
scientists, including Montesquieu, Morgan,
and
Durkheim.
Thus,
for
Marx
and
Engels
to
make
generalizations
and
predictions about
hu-
mankind
in
general,
as
they purported
to do, was
impossible since they were essentially limited
to
data
from
Europe.
For
Marx
and
Engels
to
pre-
dict human social behavior
on the
basis
of Eu-
ropean social behavior alone
is
comparable
to
the
biologist
who
would
try to
explain
the be-
havior
of all
mammals using
as his
source
of
data
only rats;
it
cannot
be
done.
Another critique that
may be
offered
is
that
Marx became emotionally attached
to the
sub-
ject matter
of his
analysis. Scientific analysis must
be
pursued dispassionately,
for if a
scientist
is
not
dispassionate
in his or her
work,
the
scientist's
generalizations cannot
be
trusted,
and
the
results will show what
the
scientist wishes
them
to
show rather than
the
truth.
That
Marx
and
Engels passionately wished
for a
Commu-
nist revolution
is
made clear
in The
Communist
Manifesto.
It
also cannot
be
doubted that this
emotional attachment
to
their cause
was one of
the
main
factors
for
their prediction
of
inevi-
table Communist revolutions
in
industrialized
societies
and the
"withering away"
of the
state,
predictions that have
not
come true.
169
MILITARY
SOCIETIES
Marx
and
Engels
may
also
be
criticized
in
two
respects
with
regard
to
their
theory
of
unilineal
evolution.
The first is the
theory itself.
Societies change,
it is
true,
but not in
orderly
and
predictable
fashions,
and
certainly
not in the
stages
Morgan outlined. Various peoples
may
have
used
at the
same time technology
specified
as
characteristic
of
several
different
stages,
and
may
have technology
of a
more advanced stage
but not the
technology associated with
a
lower
stage. Take,
for
example,
the
Micmac Indians
of
Nova Scotia,
who at
contact with white people
had
domesticated dogs
(a
characteristic
of the
middle stage
of
barbarism),
but
knew nothing
of
pottery
(a
characteristic
of the
lower stage
of
barbarism).
To
which stage
of
social evolution
would
we
assign them?
This
was a
serious
flaw
in
the
theories
of
Marx, Engels,
and
other
unilineal
evolutionists.
The
consequences
of
this
flaw
may
be
seen
in
most
of
Soviet anthropol-
ogy,
which
was
dedicated
to
categorizing groups
of
people
by
stage
of
development. Soviet
an-
thropologists,
who
were expected
to be
consis-
tent
in
their
work
with
the
principles Marx
and
Engels laid down, spent much
of
their time try-
ing to
justify
the
classifications
of
peoples
into
stages
they
had
made. Western anthropologists
long
ago
cast aside theories
of
unilineal social
evolution
and
their stages
of
development
as
useless.
The
second aspect
of the
theory
that
has
been
proven invalid
is its
reliance
on
measures
of
technology
as the
decisive characteristic
for
judging social progress
or
level
of
advancement.
This
itself
is a
characteristic
of
Western
ethno-
centrism.
Because many
of us in the
West like
to
think
of
ourselves
as
more advanced than
the
people
in the
rest
of the
world,
we
judge
all
peoples
on the
basis
of
what
we do the
best,
namely
create
new
technologies.
For
example,
we
can say
that
the
United States
has the
most
advanced
technology.
But can we say
that
the
United States
is the
most advanced nation when
it has not
been able
to
produce philosophy
as
great
as did the
ancient Greeks
or the
nine-
teenth-century Germans?
Our
legal system
is
far
less logically elaborated than
that
of the an-
cient Romans.
We do not
even have
as
effective
a
nonlegal
means
of
controlling damaging
be-
havior
as the
Micmac Indians
of
Canada.
In
other words, technological advancement
is but
one
way to
measure social progress,
and we
can-
not say
that
any one
society's
social progress
is
greater than
another's
if we
only measure
one
criterion,
as did
Marx
and
Engels.
Kolakowski,
Leszek.
(1978)
Main
Currents
of
Marxism:
Its
Rise,
Growth,
and
Dissolution.
Vol.
1.
Lenin, Vladimir
I.
(1976
[1917])
The
State
and
Revolution.
Marx, Karl. (1906
[1883,1885,1894])
Capital:
A
Critique
of
Political
Economy,
edited
by
Friedrich Engels. Translated
by
Samuel
Moore
and
Edward Aveling.
Marx, Karl,
and
Friedrich Engels. (1968) Karl
Marx
and
Friedrich
Engels:
Selected
Works
in
One
Volume.
Morgan, Lewis Henry. (1963
[1877])
Ancient
Society.
Military
societies were
voluntary associations
of
men
among many
of the
Indian societies
of the
North American Great Plains.
Men of all
ages
could join simply
by
volunteering
to do so. The
military societies coordinated hunting
and
raid-
ing
parties, made decisions
on
less-important
day-to-day matters,
and
acted
as the
tribe's
law
170
MILITARY
SOCIKTIKS
MILITARY
SOCIETIES
enforcement
apparatus.
They
were also social
clubs
for the
men.
One of the
best-described systems
of
mili-
tary societies is that of the Cheyenne Indians.
The
Cheyenne
had six
military societies:
the Fox
Soldiers,
the Dog
Men,
the
Northern Crazy
Dogs,
the Elk
Soldiers,
the
Bowstring Soldiers,
and
the
Shield Soldiers. Some
of
these societies
were
known among
the
Cheyenne
by
other
names
as
well.
With
the
exception
of the Dog
Soldiers,
the
members
of
each military society were spread
among numerous winter bands (the Cheyenne
congregated
as a
single group
in the
warm
months
and
spread
out
into
forty-four bands
during
the
winter months
to
hunt
the
smaller
bison herds).
The Dog
Soldiers, members
formed
a
band
of
their
own and
lived
in
that
band
only.
They
were
led by
military
chiefs
rather
than
by a
civil
chief,
as in
other bands.
In
addi-
tion,
some military societies were limited
to
bands
of a
particular geographic range.
For ex-
ample,
the
Northern Crazy
Dogs
only lived
among northern Cheyenne bands, whereas
the
Bowstring Soldiers only
had
members among
southern
Cheyenne bands.
Each military society
had two
"headmen"
and
two
"servants"
or
doormen.
These
four
men
were
also
war
chiefs
of the
Cheyenne tribe.
The
headmen were
the
ones
who
made
the
decisions
for
the
military society unless they were dead-
locked
on a
particular matter,
and
then
the two
servants
would make
the
decision.
Military society
chiefs
held
office
for
life,
although
the
chances
of
being killed
in
battle
were
rather high.
In
such
a
circumstance,
the
office
was filled by a
member
of the
society
who
had
been elected
by all
members
of the
society.
Further,
if a war
chief decided that
he had be-
come
too old for the
job,
he
could bestow
his
office
on a
younger
man of his own
choosing.
Finally,
a
military society chief could
be
removed
from
office
if he
broke
the
laws pertaining
to his
duties.
Take,
for
example,
the
case
of
Buffalo
Chief,
a
chief
of the Dog Men
society.
A
Chey-
enne
man had
gone hunting bison during
a
time
in
which
the
Cheyenne
had
prohibited bison
hunting.
Buffalo
Chief
was
supervising
the
pun-
ishment, which
was to
destroy
the
offender
s
tipi,
when
the
offender
decided
to fight
back
by
hit-
ting
one of the
people destroying
his
tipi. Buf-
falo
Chief
saw
this
and
wrongly shot
and
killed
the
offender.
When
the
offender
s
wife
then
ran
to him
with
a
knife,
he
wrongly shot
and
killed
her
too.
Buffalo
Chief
not
only lost
his
office
for
the
murders,
but was
exiled
from
the
Chey-
enne
tribe. Another military society chief, Last
Bull,
was
removed
from
office
for
dealing
too
harshly with
offenders
while carrying
out his
police duties.
Military
society members could become civil
chiefs
as
well, though they
had to
relinquish their
military society memberships
to do
so.
This
kept
the
military societies
from
gaining undue influ-
ence
over
the
most important decisions
affect-
ing the
tribe
as a
whole, since
it was the
duty
of
the
civil chiefs
to
make decisions
that
would
affect
the
strategic
future
of the
entire Cheyenne people.
One of the
principal duties
of the
military
societies
was to
make
and
enforce
the law
with
regard
to
certain types
of
behaviors.
They
made
sure
that
no one
spoiled
the
large tribal bison
hunts
by
scaring away
the
bison
by
hunting them
before
the
rest
of the
tribe
was
ready.
They
would
whip
or
destroy
the
tipi
of one who
hunted
with-
out
permission.
They
also policed
warfare
activi-
ties.
In one
case,
men who
failed
to
kill
an
enemy
warrior were whipped severely.
They
also pun-
ished
a
young woman
who had
aborted
her
fetus
by
banishing
her
until
the
tribe
s
sacred arrows
had
been
renewed;
in
Cheyenne society,
all
Chey-
enne
have
the
right
to
life,
even
the
unborn.
Llewellyn, Karl
N., and E.
Adamson
Hoebel.
(1961
[1941])
The
Cheyenne
Way.
171