Politics and Social Control

Politics and Social Control

The ethnographic study of the Ju/ ′hoansi community in Botswana by Lee, reveals fascinating truth about a clan in the middle of Africa with unique political and social organizations. Lee has explored both the social and political organization of this community in the context of resource ownership, social stratification, political organization levels such as bands, chiefdom, tribe, and confederacy (Lee, 123).  From Lees’ case study among the Ju/ ′hoansi hunting and gathering community, various concepts of anthropology learned in class are evident in this community. In terms of political leadership and social organization of the community, the community had social organizations known as bands, which were responsible for ownership and administration of resources (Lee, 125). Another concept that came out clearly in Lee’s work is the issue of social stratification in terms of wealth, ethnicity, and gender. The community has also adopted the Fry’s strategies of conflict resolution and conflict avoidance. These concepts and theories are of significant interest in defining the community’s political and social control. A critical analysis of the case study by Lee has been presented in this paper with a particular focus on the political and social orientation of the Ju/ ′hoansi.

Analysis

In chapter eight, (Lee, 121) discusses at length politics conflicts and exchange of the Ju/ ′hoansi people in Botswana. He first acknowledges the peace and tranquility that reigns over the community. Notwithstanding the lack of proper political leadership and a system for conflict resolution, the community has managed to coexist peacefully amidst different communities with various leadership approaches (Lee, 122). According to Lee, the clan is well organized in bands, and resources community stores (n!ores) are shared among the different living groups. The n!ores were in charge of resources, including the forest for hunting and gathering. Hunters and gathers who sought to hunt in a neighboring n!ores had to ask for permission and strike a deal with the people in whose n!ores, they were to hunt. This way, there were minimal cases of conflict. This organization in the Ju/ ′hoansi people was effective in conflict prevention and was made more effective by respect to the various social organizations in the community. The communal resource ownership by the Ju/ ′hoansi was contrary to the Bondei people who lived in Tanzania (Bonvillain, 2018, Ch 14.1). People had a different approach to the issue of leadership and conflict resolutions. The Bondei community had community leaders known as elders. Another striking difference between the Ju/ ′hoansi and the Bondei community was the mode of resource ownership.

Property ownership among the Bondei people was on a personal level, and everyone had rights to their property, including food. There were no community-owned resources like in Ju/ ′hoansi. This approach to property ownership is a potential cause of conflicts and disputes in the community. The community elders devised ways to circumvent this challenge by forming a system for conflict resolutions, where people in conflict reported to seek justice. People who got into trouble with each other in the community consulted the elders to determine who was on the wrong (Bonvillain, 2018, Ch 14.1). This structural organization among the Bondei people significantly differed from what was presented by Lee in the Ju/ ′hoansi community. The Bondei people are reported to adopt the structural stratification social organization. The leaders, who were mainly the elders, occupied the upper strata in the social hierarchy. Elders were the leaders and considered as wise and able to lead the community. In the context of politics and social control, Bonvillain majors on the issue of leadership and the role of the elders in society and individual-level conflict resolution. To achieve their conflict resolution goals, the elders adopted the “The finder keepers, loser weepers” principle of conflict resolution. This principle permitted anyone who found anything to keep it as their own (Bonvillain, 2018, Ch 14.1). This principle was, however, biased to one of the parties involved in the conflict and did not consider the plight of the loser. Thus, the community experienced an endless series of interpersonal conflicts. The conflict resolution approach of the Bondei people in Tanzania was a representation of selfish people who only thought of their interest vis-à-vis the good of the majority.

Bondei’s way of life was based on personal interest and demonstrated the implications of such a personal approach to life had more significant harm than good on the overall society. It showed the kind of social norms and rules that people try to reaffirm for them to justify their unjust actions (Bonvillain, 2018, Ch 14.1).

The first level of dealing with conflicts among the Ju/ ′hoansi people was the prevention approach. This community was well aware of the severe implications of disputes, and considering their crude and inconsistent leadership structure, the community settled on conflict prevention as their immediate method for conflict resolution. For instance, in page 122, Lee gives an account of his conversation with one of the people from the community, /Xashe, who explains to him that if one wanted to hunt in another clan’s n!ore, they would seek permission and agree on the way the hunt would be shared among themselves. This approach was critical in conflict resolution, and the fact that the community lacked designated leaders, conflicts were scarce among the community members.

The path to leadership and conflict resolution were different between the two communities in the two readings. Bonvillain, in his account of conflict avoidance, explained the application of ethical, cultural values, and behavior in avoiding the occurrence of conflicts (Bonvillain, 2018, Ch 14.2). This concept also applied in the Ju/ ′hoansi community, where conflict prevention was a significant strategy. Fry’s conflict prevention measure implemented by the Ju/ ′hoansi was based on the peacemaker approach in which everyone in the community lived in harmony with the other in the community. The people were friendly peacemakers, all of whom attempted to prevent conflict from erupting into combat (Bonvillain, 2018, Ch 14.2). The other Fry’s conflict prevention approach adopted by the Ju/ ′hoansi was the “attention to the satisfaction of others.” This approach assumes a holistic approach to the prevention of conflicts such that people in the Ju/ ′hoansi community had the personality of ensuring the satisfaction and wellbeing of others in the community. The people shared and supported each other in terms of access to resources owned by different n!ore; hunters from various bands could seek permission to hunt in another band’s n!ore, and more often than not, they were granted permission to access the n!ore. The community’s approach to caring for each other by providing resources enhanced harmonious co-existence among the Ju/ ′hoansi people, thus preventing conflicts (Lee 2013 p122).

Leadership structures were not well established in the Ju/ ′hoansi community. Upon interrogation of various people from this community, Lee found that the reports and claims in previous literature (Marshall, 1960) about the chiefdoms and presence of chiefs in this community might not be accurate. The majority of the people who were interrogated about the presence of a chief (//kaiha) reported that there was no such a person appointed as a chief to rule over the community (Lee, 2013 p123).  Some people who were interviewed, however, offered some names they were not sure about while some talked about Isak, the Black headman who was sent by the Tswana chief to oversee the community. Lee reported that the concept of the headman and chief was borrowed from the blacks who interacted with the Ju/ ′hoansi. The Blacks wanted to have influence over the Ju/ ′hoansi and hence sent out a chief named Isak to rule over them. Some Ju/ ′hoansis who were not informed about the origin of the black chief speculated that he was the rightfully appointed headman. This concept of leadership confused the Ju/ ′hoansi community, especially the young men who did not correctly understand the history of the community. However, the elders were sure that there were no elders appointed in the community to rule over as the headman. The Tswana Blacks wanted to incorporate the Ju/ ′hoansi into their hierarchical system, and a strategy that would work for them had a Tswana chief to rule them. From the case study presented by Lee, it is evident that the Ju/ ′hoansi did not have headmen and chiefs as part of their indigenous politics.

The lack of proper leadership among the Ju/ ′hoansi people implies that their leaders were considered as first among equals and had no power and authority over the people. The groups were led by people who helped in decision making but worked in a subtle approach. They lacked the authority to command but could provide advice and proposals. In most cases, the shrewd leaders were people from outside the community who had married from the n!ore k′′ausi (landowners), and leadership was not hereditary. The absence of the leaders in the community had both advantages and disadvantages. For instance, in the case of a battle, there was no one single person who influenced the community to rally the majority of the people to reach an amicable agreement. This approach to community leadership demonstrated the characteristics of an egalitarian society.

The social organization of the Ju/ ′hoansi people regarding the division of chores between the male and female children was not clear. There was no such social norm delineating male and female children’s roles in the community. An example is given about N/ahka, who was a woman blessed with numerous children, both male, and female (Lee, 2013 p 116). She reported that she received care from both his male and female children in equal measures. To reaffirm this, she gives an example of another woman named N!ai, who has only male children but still receives proper care. The community has not adopted the division of responsibilities based on gender, and caregiving is not a feminine role. Both male and female are responsible in equal proportions. The issues around some families where the female children do more than the others remain unfounded and that it is due to individual personal behavior and not regarded as a social norm (Lee, 2013 p 116). Social pressure was, however, evident in some families where the female felt overworked. There were cases of conflicts erupting between male and female siblings who felt that their chores were not fairly divided between them (Lee, 2013 p117).

References

Bonvillain, N. (2018). Cultural anthropology. Pearson.

Lee, R.B. (2013). The Dobe Ju/’hoansi. (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Marshall, Lorna. 1960. !Kung Bushmen bands. Africa 30:325–355.