Increasingly researchers tend to heed and adopt what are perceived as “non-western” approaches. In its current form, this inclination has been spurred by Samuel Huntington’s memorable provocation.^[1] In a similar fashion, although in a much more sophisticated and judicious manner, this suggestion has been elaborated recently by the venerable Donald Puchala.^[2] Thereby, one is tempted to gauge the gumption of the volume edited by Dmitry Bondarenko and Andrey Korotayev along the lines of this intellectual tradition. Civilisational Models of Politogenesis shares many of the features of this literature, especially in its presentation of views of “subaltern” and “marginalized” groups. However, the volume indicates a number of methodological problems: mainly it fails to present a convincing structure for the discussion of its topic and as a result undertakes a markedly unqualified approach-driven, rather than problem-driven research. This shortcoming effectively prevents Civilisational Models of Politogenesis to ask some of the main questions at the center of its analysis: how do individuals organize themselves in social groups? How do they establish control and power-relations? How is compliance with social rules achieved?
The bulk of those deficiencies stems from the theoretical section of the volume, comprising the first three chapters. In their introduction, Bondarenko and Korotayev explain that the term “politogenesis” defines not merely the process of state-formation, but the dynamics of production of “complex political organization” (pp. 16-17). However, this elaboration is obscured by the subsequent analysis, which fails to indicate the significance of such a distinction. The contradiction is made apparent in the chapter by Denis Vorobyov, who proffers the understanding that politogenesis suggests not only the formation (as the editors insist), but also the “change and development of a society’s political structure”, which “is also possible” on the “stateless” level (p. 157). As the volume makes apparent, the aim of the editors and most of the contributors is not so much to study “politogenesis”, but rather to unpack the notion of statehood and suggest the exegetical value of non-state-centric research. Regrettably, in their attempt they have been let down by their method. As Bondarenko and Korotayev indicate, the volume adopts an evolutionary process-tracing approach to the achievement of the “same level of system complexity through different pathways of evolution, which appeared simultaneously” (p. 5).
Marina Butovskaya engages in this mode of analysis in her chapter on the “biosocial preconditions for socio-political alternativity” (p. 35). In effect what she attempts is a re-conceptualization of the “socio-ecological” perspective of human organization as an outcome of the patterns of relations existing among primates. Thereby, Butovskaya claims that “social relationships are outcomes of ecological pressures on individuals” (p. 36). Such an assertion is perhaps refreshing in its detachment from cognitive factors. In effect, an emphasis on material constrains (i.e. geography, climate, etc.) is the hallmark of the entire volume. However, it is disturbing that the authors do not acknowledge different approaches and that their explorations seem to be unaware of the value of alternative analytical frameworks.
For instance, Olga Artemova, despite her interesting claims on the initial stages of politogenesis through the example of the Australian aborigines, fails to recognize the significance of the social construction of power in her study of the status of the “elder” (p. 60). While Butovskaya acknowledges that “despite the fact of extreme variability of human social systems, ways and models of their formation could have been similar to those demonstrated for non-human primate species” (pp. 46-47), she, too, concentrates only on the similarity and, thus fails to suggest the importance of social learning in this process. In effect, Artemova intuits that the “degree of social life intensity” (i.e. social learning) is “one of the most important factors” for politogenesis (p. 66), but she does not probe its potential. Instead she merely recognizes that “different peoples create different cultures not only because of living in different environments and have different historical backgrounds, but also for other complicated and predominantly unclear reasons that are partly connected with the largely uninvestigated sphere of psychological phenomena” (p. 67). Therefore it is unclear why almost none of the authors in the volume attempt to query the conceptual complexity of non-material factors.
After the theoretical set-up of the evolutionary model of politogenesis, the volume proceeds with case studies, which are grouped according to hierarchical and non-hierarchical alternatives. Yet again it is not apparent what the criteria are for such a bifurcation. In the introductory section, Artemova provides a definition of “egalitarian society” – “a society in which all the people have equal access to all material and spiritual values of their culture” (p. 54) – which seems to serve as the premise for distinguishing between different types of politogenesis. Nevertheless, due to its fuzziness, and representation of an ideal model, the definition requires a whole host of qualifications and examples. It is also noteworthy that this typology of politogenesis seems to be premised on ideational criteria (i.e. values, perceptions, etc.) rather than on material ones (i.e. accumulation of wealth, size of extended family, etc.). This puts another question mark on the conceptual consistency of the volume’s (material) evolutionary methodology. Therefore, the overview of the nine case studies looks at their common motif – the character of non-state polities.
In his description of the political organisation of the Hawaiian island of Kaua’i, Timothy Earle emphasises the importance of the ability to exert control over social experience for the functioning of “non-states”. Earle notes that Kaua’ian social structure was maintained through a division between “commoners” and “chiefs” and was perpetuated through the control of memory. While “chiefs” had their genealogy memorized, “commoners” were “prohibited to keep a genealogy that might demonstrate distinction” (p. 74). Earle, however, also overlooks the fact that such practice conveys not only the material capabilities of power-relations (i.e., punishment), but also the social construction for maintaining authority.
Dmitry Bondarenko pursues similar issues in his analysis of polity-formation in pre-19th century Benin. Effectively, his investigation depicts the organization of different families into larger formations, which he calls “supra-chiefdoms” (p. 101). Unfortunately, he does not indicate any analytical criteria for their distinction and recognition. Moreover, by the end of the chapter Bondarenko introduces the notion of “megacommunity” (p. 117), which is equally under-explained.
To this jumble of terms, Dmitri Beliaev’s description of the social structures of the Maya emphasizes the importance of “community”. He insists that it is “the community structure and inner-communal relations, which define the direction of social development” (p. 129). Unwittingly (and without elaborating on it like the other authors), Beliaev brings grist to the mill of the social construction of authority by emphasising the importance of mythology in the production of power relations (p. 145).
The identity-aspect of non-state polities is considered in Vorobyov’s discussion of the Iroquois League. Potentially, this is an extremely interesting topic, especially if it is taken in relation with traditional (Western) state-centric ideas of national identity, particularly if one takes into account that Iroquois identity existed both outside the framework of a centralised (state) authority and was different from (if not foreign to) notions of nationhood. Vorobyov, however, does not provide such an analysis. He also fails to suggest that the Iroquois non-state identity in effect reflects a cognitive change in the way individuals perceived social reality. The substantial degree of “we-ness” among the Iroquois can no longer be explained as the result of an external (material) threat. Rather threat-perceptions themselves were the result of their identity – those who are not like us might be dangerous.
Vladimir Bobrovnikov also refers to the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in his depiction of Berber society. At the center of his ratiocination on the non-state polity is the family. According to Bobrovnikov, the main function of the family was the perpetuation of tradition (p. 179). He also suggests that it also reflects a pattern of “reciprocity” and “mutual assistance” (p. 183), which indicate a degree of shared identity. Again, however, it is regrettable that Bobrovnikov does not pursue this analysis further, but limits himself only to the effects of geography (p. 175).
Andrey Korotayev contextualizes the concept of politogenesis in the social formations of northeast Yemen. The term that he contributes to the warren of concepts already present in the volume is “multipolity”: a “system of heterogeneous polities” (p. 195). However, later on in the chapter he also employs the concept of “tribe-state” in order to distinguish between “tribes” and “chiefdoms” (p. 197), which seem to further obscure Korotayev’s objectives in his otherwise well-thought through research.
In the following chapter, Moshe Berent concentrates on the analytical dilemma of the Greek polis – its quintessentially stateless society (p. 247). He illuminates an interesting aspect of individual identity at the time – its largely ad hoc nature, which was premised on a variety of family, friendship, and neighbourly relations. At the same time, however, it was not predetermined and identical with the classical Greek kinship units.
The instrumentalization of identity is the topic of Dmitri Dozhdev’s query into the Roman polity. He traces the transformation of a “mutual assistance”-kind of community into one where relations are structured through administrative relations (p. 282). Thus, Dozhdev suggests a material distinction between the public and private sphere, but he fails to elaborate convincingly its impact on interactive perceptions.
In the final case study, Nikolay Kradin looks at the history of the Hsiung-nu. His contribution to the discussion of non-state polity is the distinction between “complex”, “supercomplex”, “compound” and “consolidated” chiefdoms (p. 297). As Kradin explains, these distinctions are purely quantitative, but it is not apparent how they are relevant to the study of politogenesis.
In their conclusion, Bondarenko and Korotayev insist that the case studies “show that societies with the same overall level of cultural complexity might be organized both hierarchically and non-hierarchically” (p. 305). Regrettably, it is not obvious how such sameness reflects the editors’ claim in the introduction that the volume indicates the “same level of system complexity through different pathways of evolution” (p. 5). It is also not clear what the editors’ gumption on the non-state polity is. Thereby, the significance of Civilisational Models of Politogenesis to the study of “polity-formation” is probably evinced by its methodological failure. It beckons an operationalization of the theoretical lacunae of the volume, which promises valuable insights for further analysis and research.