Download Resource Structure and Scalar Stress

Resource Structure and Scalar
Stress
Resource structure, scalar stress,
and the development of Inuit social
organization -T. Max Friesen (1999)
Resource structure
• Resource structure is basically the relationship
between the size of a resource, and the societal
structure which occurs as a result of it.
• For example, big whale and little whale in Inuit
society…
• “The term 'resource structure' refers to
physiological and behavioural characteristics of
a given exploited resource which can affect the
manner in which it is acquired, processed,
distributed, stored, and consumed”
Scalar Stress
• Scalar stress is the effect of productivity and ability to
communicate and be efficient (scalar stress is also
often referred to as “communications stress”) within a
society.
• So, as a society gets bigger, decisions are harder to
make because you have to take into account more
opinions/desires, there is generally more information
to consider before making the decision.
• “The second factor, 'scalar stress', results from the
long-recognized relationship between increasing
population density and increasing social complexity “
Friesen’s Point of View
• Friesen based his resource structure thesis on the
Inuit, and says that the availability of resources
through the formation of various Inuit
settlements is what shaped them in terms of
their culture, political structure and other
characteristics.
• May not lead to an egalitarian society, but
hopefully a more democratic one
• There were also some other guys who had similar
opinions to Friesen: Jochim (1976), Yesner (1981),
Smith and Winterhalder (1992)
How can it work?
• Big resource – accept and need a leader
• Small resource – choose a leader
• If your resources are massive or small the resources will
impact directly upon the political and social organisation of
a society.
• An egalitarian society works if all can look after themselves
for example if they have equality of access for small
resources – Mackenzie Inuit’s are more egalitarian
compared to the North Alaskan Inuit’s in theory, because
their hunting does not permit individuals to have social
control. There is little exchange also, therefore more equal
Applying this to Inuit society…
• When Friesen’s theory is applied to Inuit society,
there is a clear divide between the groups of Inuit
who hunt large or small prey.
• Inuit groups who hunt large prey such as big
whales tend to be very hierarchical due to a
leader being needed to co-ordinate such a large
scale hunting operation. This manifests itself as
the same leader becoming a political figure back
in society because he has proven himself capable
as a leader and a hunter, the second of which
gains him respect and admiration from the group.
Applying this to Inuit society…
• However, when we apply Friesen’s theory to a
group that hunts smaller prey such as seal,
there is less need for a co-ordinated hunt, and
this reflects in the society as a more
egalitarian, democratic political structure
where generally no single hunter is “put on a
pedestal” above the rest of the group.
Differences in the two
• The main difference between the two societies is that there
is far more competition and pride for hunted resources in
the groups that hunt smaller prey. Despite the more equal
political structure within the society, because the hunters
hunt only for themselves (the resources are not large
enough for whole villages), there is competition between
hunters for prey.
• “When two of the Kogmolik [Mackenzie Inuit] happened
to single out the same whale (for these mammals swim in
schools) they turned their spears upon one another - a
feat which requires no little dexterity in so flimsy a boat as
a kayak; and whichever of the twain successfully 'spiked'
his rival, to him the spoil was assigned. (Harrison 1908:
79)”
External Constraints
• External constraints are more generalised across societies;
usually relate to universal phenomena
• Due to common external constraints there must have been
primary factors contributing to the differences in social
organization between north Alaska and the Mackenzie
Delta.
• Both lived in seasonably variable environments – major
prey only available for short periods of time
• Both depend on marine mammals
• In both societies, the large aggregation sites were first
subdivided into named house clusters, known as 'upsiksui‘
• People living in each cluster were probably linked by
kinship
Internal Constraints
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internal Constraints are specific to a particular society
The Alaskan Inuits relied primarily on the bowhead whale, a species in which even
the frequently-hunted yearlings average approximately 10,000kg.
The Mackenzie Inuit relied mainly on beluga whales, which occur in large,
concentrated pods, but which average only approximately 400kg each in weight
Thus showing particularism due to different environmental factors
North Alaska a degree of social hierarchy developed. This centred around the
whaling crew led by an ‘umialik’. This was reinforced through redistribution of
whale meat and blubber – money and the exchanging of goods
In the Mackenzie Delta, on the other hand, the nature of beluga hunting did not
allow any individual to exert such great social control
‘Chiefs', or family heads in the Mackenzie Delta existed, their leadership carried
less authority, because it did not incorporate such an important redistributive
economic role.
It is important not to overemphasize the differences in social organization between
the two groups - strong differences do not exist on all levels