UNDERSTANDING CULTURE, SOCIETY, AND POLITICS

MODULE 6: HOW SOCIETY IS ORGANIZED

PART III: POLITICAL AND LEADERSHIP STRUCTURES

INTRODUCTION:
This module discusses the different forms of social and political organization. It also analyzes
the characteristics of the political leadership per organizations. The learner will expose and think
critically on the issues related to authority, legitimacy, and power in the Philippine context.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• Identify the different forms of social and political organizations
• Evaluate the political leadership that characterizes each organization
• Analyze issues related to authority, legitimacy, and power

READ! READ! READ!

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
BANDS AND TRIBES
Bands and tribes are considered as the simplest political systems. They are often perceived to
be "acephalous" or without a well-defined system of leadership.
A band is typically formed by several families living together based on marriage ties, common
descendants, friendship affiliations, and members usually have a common interest, or enemy. Thus,
the main source of integration is kinship either by blood or affinity. The power structure within a band
is less hierarchical as member families are seen to be equal and there is no class differentiation based
on wealth. Status, if present, is a function of age (elders are accorded respect) or of gender. There is
evidence that women have higher influence in bands that are considered pedestrian foragers
(gatherers), while men tend to end up having more leadership roles in bands whose livelihoods depend
on hunting, or in pastoralist-agricultural bands where food is produced by cultivating the land.
Informal leadership is accorded to members who possess certain skills and knowledge such as
the gift of memory, hunting or healing skills, or those other special ability. For example, being a gifted
speaker can elevate a band member to the status of being an informal leader. In any event, accession
to the status of informal leadership is reached by consensus rather than by a formal process of an
election. The small size of a band enables this relatively informal process. An informal leader does not
possess absolute political power and could not compel others and can only give advice. Decision
making is often done by consensus.
 As bands increase in size, the tendency for conflict increases, which lead to the band splitting
along family lines. This process is known as "band fissioning." Eventually, this could lead to some
leaving the band to form their own, which is referred to as "social velocity." Evidence suggests that
while food scarcity can be a trigger for conflict, what usually leads to fissioning and eventual break-
up is the presence of social discord that the informal leadership system could no longer contain. At
present, there is practically no band that remains intact.
A band that survives fissioning and social velocity, even as it experiences increasing population
and a shift from a foraging and hunting community, to one where there is now a presence of multiple
communities engaged in pastoral or horticultural forms of livelihood, eventually becomes a tribe. A
tribe is still considered an acephalous political system, even if it is more complex than a band. This
complexity results from the fact that the source of integration is no longer simply by informal forms
of leadership presiding to govern kinship ties or friendship, but by a more elaborate way of organizing
to settle conflicts to prevent the society from breaking apart.
The manner by which tribes are organized is through the presence of pantribal associations,
or what anthropologists refer to as "sodalities." These come in the form of councils or tribal elders. It
was noticed that the emergence of more complex ways of organizing a tribe eventually led to the
eventual displacement of women leaders. This is also partly due to the shift from foraging to
agricultural forms of livelihood which even in bands earlier were seen to naturally give men more
leadership roles. Tribes are often headed by a village headman, even though such a role does not have
absolute political power. A village headman derives his authority from having a senior position,
coupled with an ability to force others to obey him. Most tribes remain egalitarian, where families and
groups are considered politically and economically equal, even those of the headmen Tribes are also
seen as economically self-sufficient and are larger and more integrated than bands. However, contact
with modern societies led to the eventual collapse of tribal systems as tribes were unable to maintain
their traditional political systems.

CHIEFDOMS
Bands and tribes are characterized by the relatively informal political structures that rule them.
A chiefdom, on the other hand, is defined as a political organization that is more defined. In a chiefdom,
formal leadership exists and authority rests solely on the members of a select family. It is composed
of a number of communities that is ruled by a permanent paramount chief coming from this elite
family. Power is thus inherited in chiefdoms.
The social structure in chiefdoms is hierarchical. Social classes exist and are differentiated
according to the level of their power in relation to the permanent ruler. However, class mobility can
exist. It usually happens when one performs an extraordinary task or achievement. Furthermore, social
status is affected by marriage, age, and sex.
Chiefdoms can either be simple or complex.
 A simple chiefdom is characterized by a central village or community ruled by a single family.
A number of smaller communities surround this smaller community, with each being headed by a
subsidiary leader subservient to the central ruler.
A complex chiefdom is composed of several simple chiefdoms ruled by a single paramount
chief residing in a single paramount center. This is a highly structured and hierarchical political system
characterized by a class system where the elites demand tributes in the form of agricultural crops and
produce from the commoners to a system that is called a "tributary system." Lesser chiefs are then
obliged to give tribute to the paramount chief. In return, the paramount chief carries out rituals and
performs functions over which he has sole authority, such as the conduct of symbolic redistribution of
material goods, and the awarding of titles and other symbolic rewards.
Research shows that chiefdoms are highly unstable and are prone to cycles of disintegration
and reintegration.

NATIONS AND STATES

The advent of modernity has made the process of consolidating different individuals into one
political community more difficult and complex. The expansion of chiefdoms was punctuated by their
collapse. Out of the breakdown of political organizations, what emerged was the presence of groups
of people that shared a common history, language, traditions, customs, habits, and ethnicity. These
groups are conscious of their identity and of their potential to become autonomous and unified. These
groups are collectively referred to as nations.
Scholars refer to nations as either "imagined" or "abstract."
Benedict Anderson considers a nation as imagined in the sense that nations can exist as a state
of mind, where the material expressions seen in actual residence in a physical territory becomes
secondary to the common imagined connections emanating from a common history and identity. Thus,
even if people may be scattered in different places, they have this self-consciousness that they belong
to a particular nationality, as what is typical of nations in diaspora. Filipinos, for example, live in
several parts of the world but remain conscious of their being Filipinos.
Paul James considers a nation as abstract. He argues that a nation is objectively impersonal
even if each individual is able to identify with others. This argument however may not be true for
Filipinos, as Filipinos identify strongly with other Filipinos, especially when they are in other
countries.
A nation, despite its being historically constituted and having a common sense of identification
among its members, as well as the consciousness of having the potential to be autonomous,
nevertheless does not possess political sovereignty. As such, it remains a political entity that does not
possess the status of being recognized as an independent political entity.
 A state, on the other hand, is a political unit consisting of a government that has sovereignty
presiding over a group of people and a well-defined territory. It is thus the highest form of political
organization. What makes a state sovereign is its capacity to maintain order within its territorial
boundaries, and that it is recognized by other states as an independent member of the community of
states. The people that comprise a state are referred to as its citizens.
When the citizens of a state belong to only one nation, such state is called a nation-state.
However, the reality is that there are many states that govern peoples who have different
cultural identities and who are conscious of their being distinct. Thus, they become nations within
states. This becomes a problem when these nations are treated unequally, and where a dominant group
or nation rules the state and subjects them to discriminatory practices. The cases of the American
Indians or the Native Hawaiians in the US are examples of this. It can also be argued that the Moros
in Mindanao are technically considered as a nation within the Philippine state since they have a distinct
cultural identity and history. Hence, clearly the Philippines could not be considered as a nation-state.
The discrimination of nations within states is an offshoot of the desire of many states toward
nation building. By cultivating a sense of nationalism which may establish a common and homogenous
national identity, like a national language and national symbols, groups may not take into consideration
the existence of the unique cultural attributes of other national groupings. This leads to discrimination,
and in some instance, it could lead to forced integration into the culture of the dominant national
identity and even to actual genocide.

POLITICAL LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY

The task of organizing a political community requires the existence of leaders. Leaders, in order
to be effective, need to possess authority that is considered legitimate by the members of the
community.
AUTHORITY VIS-À-VIS LEGITIMACY
Authority is the power to make binding decisions and issue commands. It is necessary for a
leader to possess authority. What makes authority binding and worthy of obedience is its legitimacy.
Legitimacy is a moral and ethical concept that bestows one who possesses power the right to exercise
such power since such is perceived to be justified and proper. Legitimacy is not automatically acquired
just because one has authority. This occurs when the authority was obtained through improper means
such as through violence or when one commits cheating in an election, or when one is perceived to be
undeserving of power due to lack of qualifications. Hence, for authority to be binding and stable, it
must be legitimate.
WEBER AND THE TYPES OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY
Max Weber identifies three types of authority based on the source of their legitimacy. There is
traditional authority whose legitimacy is derived from well-established customs, habits, and social
structures. Monarchical rule or the rule of elites in a chiefdom are examples of leadership systems that
have traditional authority. Then there is charismatic authority whose legitimacy emanates from the
charisma of the individual, which for some can be seen as a "gift of grace," or the possession of
"gravitas" or an authority derived from a "higher power," such as those that are associated with the
divine right of kings. The possession of this charisma enables one to be accorded authority despite of
the absence of cultural or even legal justification. In some instances, charismatic authority is even able
to negate the standards provided by culture and tradition, or by laws. Religious leaders, or even popular
icons such as movie actors, are examples of people who may end up possessing charismatic authority.
Then there is rational-legal or bureaucratic authority. This kind of authority draws its legitimacy from
formal rules promulgated by the state through its fundamental and implementing laws. This is the most
dominant way of legitimizing authority in modern states, and this is from where government officials
draw their power.

REFERENCE/S:
Contreras, A. P., Dela Cruz, A. R. D., Erasga, D. S., Fadrigon, C. C. (2018). Understanding Culture,
Society, and Politics. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines