Chapter Seven - The Age of Chiefdoms

When philosophers of the eighteenth century made religion out to be an enormous error conceived by the priests, at least they were able to explain its persistence by the interest the sacerdotal caste had in deceiving the masses. But if the peoples themselves had been the artisans of these systems of erroneous ideas, at the same time that they were their dupes, how has this extrordinary hoax been able to perpetuate itsself throughout the course of history? -- Emile Durkheim

In all studied cases, state-level societies are preceded by chiefdoms, where a set of villiages are subordinate to a strict central leadership. The leader, or chief, almost always invokes divine right to his power. Farming is usually a prerequisite for a chiefdom (though natural bounty will work, too), but the deveolpment of farming can precede chiefdom society by a very long period. Chiefs, claiming their divine rights, usually act in a totalitarian manner, capriciously executing rivals and dissodents and ammasing great wealth for themselves. At the extreme viewpoints regarding chiefs, some see them as a purely beneficial force, integrating a society for its greater good, and others see the chiefs as a parasite, dupeing the public with religion and feeding off the work of the group.

The Polynesian Chiefdoms

A human expansion between 200 b.c. and 1000 a.d. brought people to nearly all of the Polynesian islands. Some, such as Hawii, were then isolated from the other societies. This gives an interesting case study for chiefs and chiefdoms chiefdoms. It can reasonably be asked why, if the chief was a god (or at least demigod), he would bother with equity at all. As it turns out, the life of a chief can be a precarious one. First, chiefdoms across the world have existed in a constant state of warfare. If a chiefdom loses a war, the chief is always the first to be executed. Second, and more important from our view, is that even the subserviant population will rise up and overthrow the chief if he is truly becoming a parasite. Game theory studies have shown that people won't accept a truly bad deal, and are willing to hurt themselves for the sake of 'justice'. In one case, two participants, a 'chief' and a 'commoner', are given a sum of money. The chief decides how to split the money between them, and the commoner can either accept the split, or reject it in which case neither side gets any money. If given $100, an offer of $20 or less to the commoner is almost sure to be rejected. Chiefs maintain their power by appeasing the masses, through public works, public feasts, and stores of food in times of famine. They also manage to increase their barganing power, though, so that they can offer as little as possible to the commoner. As chiefdoms grow, it is harder and harder for a dissatisfied person to shift allegiance to another leader, and in times of famine it is hard to reject even a tiny offer of food.

A Few Kind Words About Chiefs

It is worthwhile to note how difficult it can be to get things done in a moneyless economy. In order to manage public works projects, a chief must be able to 'pay' the workers, and make sure those who contribute are rewarded. For instance, a dam may be built by feeding the workers from the king's stores during construction, and then be given a piece of land irrigated by the new dam upon completion. For all the good that chiefs may have done, though, they were generally purely self-interested -- just like most of us would be in a similar situation. They had the power, because before money, large projects (and most other transactions) had to be managed by a central leadership, giving the chief great power. To legitimize this power, most chiefdoms had some form of the idea of 'mana', or divine power of the chief. This mana flowed from him to his subordinates, creating a hierarchy. The mana of a chief was supposed to be manifested in the fate of the chiefdom, however, so an ineffective chief (who lost wars or didn't protect against famine) could be said to have low mana, and could be overthrown. In this sense mana acts as a feedback mechanism, balancing power to create the best NZS relationship for all.

A Few Kind Memes About Memes

A 'meme' (pronounced meem) is a term coined by Richard Dawkins to describe a unit of cultural belief. The term meme was chosen to evoke the parallel to genes, because to Dawkins they could be viewed in similar ways. An idea, from a dinner ritual to a song to a religious belief, is not 'conscious' of itsself, but can spread by acting almost as if it were conscious. As genes that promote sex get passed on more, a meme that promotes discussion gets passed on more. Dawkins, however, goes on to equate memes for religion to viruses, who also replicate but do harm to the individual perpetuating them. It is the view of the author that while there are 'viral' memes, they are few compared to the host of positive memes because our minds have developed an effective 'immune system' against destructive memes.

Non-Zero-Sumness Wins Again

Much of the fervor against religion stems from the fact that it is not necessarily 'true'. This does not, however, mean that it cannot be good for a society. Religion can integrate a group and reduce parasitism, among other benefits. It has certainly contributed to large NZS interactions within groups, which is a major reason for its spread across groups. Any meme that promotes NZS relationships tends to be spread, either through emulation or domination. The ideas of mana and tapu were useful in organizing groups, and therefore spread across Polynesia, and helped create more integrated societies, even if the chiefs were not sun-gods in any 'true' sense.

Chiefs as Soul Savers

In the evolution of a densely-packed 'global brain', the religion of chiefdoms played as great a role as agriculture. Agriculture made it possible to pack more people together by creating enough food for them, but the chiefs with their divine authority and control over an afterlife were able to control people and reduce the social friction which comes from living far more closely with others than we are naturally predisposed to do. Cheifs managed to crowd people together in close proximity with a minimum of conflict, which reduced the cost of information exchange and started us on the road to greater ideas and larger societies.