Social Control

The transitional process is considered to represent amalgamation of all aspects of life strategically exploited ideologically in pursuit of social control — control viewed in terms of the generally accepted notion of ‘social power’ defined as the control of energy in its various forms and flows (Mehrer 1995:27). Individuals and groups with this power have, in one way or another, control of energy production, storage, transfer or

expenditure in the societal environment (Adams 1977:388). Barker and Pauketat (1992) considered this to be the case particularly with subsistence resources, tribute of

commodities or labour, local and regional trade, and ideology. Such a view fits well with the perceived behaviour of high-status individuals with privileged access to basic

subsistence resources. Surplus production, in making significant addition to energy available, would play into their hands by establishing the need for more complex

organisation to ensure its control, as well as providing the opportunity to capitalise on the potential additional power, status and wealth that came with it. (To be noted is that ‘surplus’ can also equate with the portion of normal production communities are prepared/can be convinced to give up for particular purposes.)

2.4.2.1 Individuals

Recent studies into social inequality emphasise that individual self-aggrandisement and self-interest on the part of some community members was a major force behind the

emergence of socioeconomic inequalities (Hayden 2001a:246). If aggrandisers could not initially gain advantage coercively, their undertakings would be tolerated only if

everyone in a community felt secure in terms of access to adequate food (locally produced or otherwise). Aggrandisers would have to achieve acceptance and some support of aggrandizing activities. A critical point is that these usually involve the use of surpluses, whether for feasts, gifts, creation of alliances, trade, commissioning of prestige items, rituals or other activities. Early aggrandisers must have realised very quickly that achieving wealth or power by force alone not only could have the wrong outcome, but was not nearly as effective as devising schemes that promised to benefit other

community members. This might be combined with judicious use of force when it could be used with impunity. Advantages that aggrandisers proffered to early transegalitarian community members probably included the establishment of defence alliances with other strong communities, sponsorship of major social events such as feasts with nominal gifts of food or exotic items, wealth acquisition and investment opportunities, acquiring more suitable mates, intensified development of productive resources (usable by non-owners after peak seasons), and the storage of surpluses or wealth accessible through begging or debt by non-owners in times of critical need. Once the gambit of aggrandisers is

tolerated, refusal to co-operate leads to marginalization, and difficulties are created for those people to live within their community (Hayden 2001a:247-248, 262-263).

While control over trade or food resources may make it appear as though the acquisition of material goods was an end in itself, this is not necessarily the case. Underlying such proximate values was the ultimate purpose of displaying and using success and power in whatever way this is given material expression by a particular culture. Strategies used in any given situation would depend on the opportunities for creating control that emerged from the cultural and natural settings. None, however, would appear to have been sustainable without the appropriate economic underpinnings of a secure and surplus- oriented economy (Hayden 2001a:250-251).

One of the most common, if not universal, strategies that aggrandisers use to consolidate and justify their political power is to claim and orchestrate privileged access to

supernatural messages and powers — that is, privileged supernatural superiority. In agricultural communities this takes the form of direct communication with the most powerful ancestors through claims of descent, ritual knowledge, and the ability to offer expensive sacrifices. Among complex hunter-gatherers only the wealthiest obtain the most potent guardian spirits, enter into the most powerful secret lodges, and participate in rituals held in particularly remote locations. In societies that develop more complex organisations, only the most supernaturally powerful elites endure the pain of elaborate

scarification, tattooing, or bloodletting by which powerful ancestors may be accessed. Typically, effective communication with ancestors or other spirits, and the extent of ancestor power, is ultimately associated with the consumption of wealth, often in the form of domestic animals such as pigs and cattle, or the killing of dangerous wild animals such as aurochs and leopards, and possibly in cave rituals. They may also take advantage of catastrophes in order to increase their grip on surplus production, the surrender of surpluses, and indebtedness. Aggrandisers also try to isolate themselves from other people to consolidate claims to privileged supernatural and worldly power. They have idiosyncratic practices: consumption rituals employing the most valuable prestige items; manners and dress; linguistic forms; and display feasts, and distinctions in most other aspects of life (Dietler 1996:98; Hayden 2001a:261-262; Leach 1954:47; Owens and Hayden 1997; Schulting 1995).

Aggrandiser success results in a positive feedback situation in which power is predicated largely on the production and control of surpluses; and this is used to establish control over further surpluses, creating even more power and wealth. In non-industrial societies, human labour is often the limiting factor in surplus production, so human reproduction also is increased wherever possible. The only factors to have generally limited these increases have been the environment, technological skill to produce and transform surpluses, and ability to arrive at new solutions to productivity constraints (Hayden 2004:263-264).

2.4.2.2 Groups of Individuals

Hayden (2001, 2004, 2017; Owens and Hayden 1997) noted that ethnographers refer to particular associations — ‘secret societies’ — being common in transegalitarian

communities, emerging as a means for high status, dominating and ambitious individuals with aggrandisive and competitive tendencies to control, among other things, access to the supernatural and to shamanistic rituals and playing important related roles. The Owens and Hayden data show strong association between secret societies and the most complex hunter-gatherer communities.

As well as concentrating political and economic power in the hands of members, these societies generate and maintain hierarchical esoteric knowledge available only to them. They are seen as a key strategy of particular individuals to acquire power for themselves or their corporate groups, and restricting access of others to it. The meeting places of these groups are sometimes in special structures in the middle of the communities concerned, as in the case of the Hopi great kivas; often, however, they are on the periphery or in more remote places, such as deep caves. The location of ritual and art

(pictographs, petroglyphs, and incised and painted designs on utilitarian objects) in such places is seen to reflect their esoteric nature. Owens and Hayden (1997:154) stated that their analysis shows the existence of secret societies to be consistent with indicators such as the appearance of abstract symbols, the occurrence of mythical animals, ‘ghosts’, and therianthropes; and an emphasis on dangerous prey animals rather than those killed for food. Activities involve ritual and ecstatic altered state of consciousness (ASC), and elaborate costuming. Other evidence considered to indicate the existence of such societies prehistorically is the perceived restricted distribution of non-utilitarian objects as seen, for example, in the burial of elaborately carved antler spoons with selected Chumash individuals (Owens and Hayden 1997:156).