Social cohesion has been the key to survival for many indigenous cultures. Food gathering and hunting depend on mutual support and co-operation, and disharmony within a part of the group is dangerous to the whole. In many cultures men and women have developed complementary, if not equal, roles; political decisions are arrived at by consensus in many cultures, and other social arrangements that benefit the entire community have often been incorporated into indigenous cultural traditions.
Marriage, for example, is an integral part of the social system - political, economic, and spiritual - in many indigenous societies. For example, in Thailand, a Hmong groom must pay a high dowry but, in turn, the wife becomes a member of the husband's clan under the direct authority of the household. Marriage can also ensure political stability for the community (by regulating exchange between groups), and continuing harmony with the spirit world. For essentially religious reasons, marriage may be prohibited between a man and woman of the same kin group; in other societies it can only take place within the kin group. The notion of marriage as a relationship founded only on the bond of romantic love is rarely, if ever, seen in traditional societies.
The nuclear family, too, is a rare concept. A complex interweaving of lineage, clan, and family connections means that most individuals are related to each other - tradition that fosters the sense of belonging to the group, and of the need to share.
Even decisions about having a child are, in some societies, controlled by laws, helping to keep the population stable. In Melanesia, children are sometimes adopted to rebalance the size of families.
The physical architecture of a village frequently reflects the social architecture of the people. In some communities, for example, among the highlanders of West Papua (Irian Jaya) the chief's home is separated from the other houses to emphasise the social hierarchy. By contrast, the Karen of Thailand, who have a high degree of household autonomy and social equality, have no village centre and all live in similar houses.
|
Case Study 1: Maori of Aotearoa (New Zealand) The Maori established a system of justice with a highly developed oratory, but no codified set of laws, courts, and judges. When the British imposed their own legal system on New Zealand, the rules took no account of Maori culture. Traditional Maori justice was based both on the material and the spiritual worlds; redress for minor offences was determined by the community, more serious ones by the elders or chiefs. Punishment would be exacted by a transfer of goods known as utu, or satisfaction, to the injured party. Persistent theft or murder, however, was punishable by muru, or plunder, but only after full and formal discussion with reference to the true, or customary principles. Other offenders might receive a beating, the withdrawal of community assistance, or, worst of all, banishment. In some respects there are similarities between traditional Maori law and that imported by the British. But the similarities ended with matters of the spirit world. Chiefs with spiritual power could use it to conserve parts of the land for a feast. Access to the land was prohibited and violation would anger the spirits. Strangers unwittingly entering such areas would force the community to exact compensation, or even kill the intruder, in order to avoid being punished themselves by the spirits. Respect for the spirit world was fundamental to Maori society, but fell outside the comprehension of the British legal system. |
Case Study 2: Papua New Guinea World wars have torn societies apart, but not all societies are so destroyed by conflict. Within some indigenous communities, conflict is regulated by customary law. Rather than starting a war, aggression is normally channelled into a ritualised process of war-making and long-term destruction is minimal. In Papua New Guinea hostilities between groups are a part of the cycle of events encompassing long periods of peace and enmity. War is just one aspect of cultural life. The idea of annihilating the other group is absent; indeed, the Tsembaga and Mae Enga are known as the peoples who marry their enemies. War is a means by which the individual and the group find their identity, and is largely ceremonial. War may be precipitated by theft, poaching, or - most serious - the killing of someone else's pig - or long-standing disputes over territory and resources may create permanent hostilities. The Big Man, the non-hereditary chief, may try to avoid war by negotiating compensation or an exchange of gifts, but he cannot impose a decision. Equally, individuals do not take justice into their own hands as an unresolved dispute entails obligations for the whole group. But even on the point of war there is always a ritual means of stepping back from open confrontation. Anger can be channelled into a 'nothing fight', a competition of insults and shouting; or else it may lead to a real fight, with blows exchanged and sometimes even serious casualities. After a war a lengthy process of peace-making begins. Gifts, ceremonies, and marriages establish links and obligations between the parties. |
|
Source: Burger, J. (1990) The Gaia Atlas of First Peoples: A Future for the Indigenous World, Penguin Books, Ringwood, pp. 50, 61-62.
|
