Summary
This paper attempts to present a critical comparison of Melanesian and Polynesian economies and polities. The two are agricultural regions with much the same crops but they differ hugely in terms of political organization. The paper assumes a simple abstraction/caricature of some of the obvious deviations in the political organization of the two areas. The paper juxtaposes the differentiated, relatively primitive, and underdeveloped Melanesian structure with the pyramidal, more inclusive, and developed Polynesian political structure. Melanesia is characterized by a big-man kind of leadership that attracts a coterie of kin and followers to organize around the big-man. Polynesia on the other hand is characterized by chieftainship. Despite the conventional belief that political organizations are meant to serve or benefit the commonality, sometimes it is predatory as was the case in the two areas (Sahlins 1963:286).
The central issue addressed by the author
This paper attempts to explore the continuum that societies follow in developing their political structures. Indeed, the paper acknowledges that there is an increase in complexity of political organization from the primitive west towards the relatively advanced east (Sahlins 1963:286). As a continuum, aspects of the primitive west are also found in the advanced east. The paper captures such a development as an evolutionary process that is determined by the nature of political leadership, population size, and territorial expanse (pp.287). The Melanesian ‘big-man leadership style is juxtaposed with the Polynesian ‘chieftainship’ to capture the backwardness of the Melanesian polity occasioned by the primitivism and personality-based power structures and by extension infer that the modern political establishments evolved from the primitive tribal/band systems.
Why the issue is important
This investigation is of paramount importance in so far as understanding why certain areas of the world are more developed than others. The study paints a gloomy picture of polities that are led by big men while projecting chiefdoms as having good prospects for advancements. It is therefore imperative that for any area/region to develop there must be viable political structures that are free from combative competition, as is the most likely case in big-man systems.
An analysis of how the author relates the specific research to the wider scholarly literature of relevance to the author’s project
The author while appropriately acknowledging the relevance of other people’s works to the paper, he does not hesitate to capture points of diversions or inconsistencies. For instance, the paper captures the widespread nature of the big-man system in western Melanesia but the author is quick to concede that its entire spread wasn’t all that clear and therefore seeks to benefit from other anthropological works like Douglas Oliver’s write up on the Sinai of Bougainville (Sahlins 1963:288). The author is also critical of the many available ethnographic studies as they were done possibly long after the attainment of peace and stability in those areas which meant that the Melanesian prerequisites for leadership were inadequate (pp.291).
Analysis of the original material presented by the author, whether it is primarily theoretical, ethnographic, or a balance of the two
This paper is a synthesis of both theoretical and ethnographic studies. It is ethnographic to the extent that it seeks to describe the nature of the Melanesian and Polynesian peoples through a written account of their culture, particularly, their political structures. With this regard, the Melanesian big-man system is explored and juxtaposed with the Polynesian chieftainship system. To adequately compare the two, rely is placed upon functionalist and Marxist theories: additional wives seen as being functional (Sahlins 1963:291-2), and the leader-follower relationship seen as conflicting (pp.293).
Identify the research methods employed by the author
Generally, this paper assumes a purely qualitative approach as an in-depth understanding of people’s behavior as well as reasons thereof is sought. Ethnography, as a method, is particularly used in this paper as it is usually holistic – capturing every aspect of humanity through emphasis was given to political systems. Genealogy, the study of familial history and lineages, is also applied in analyzing the Polynesian chiefdom system (Sahlins 1963:294-5).
Strengths and weaknesses of the given piece
This paper acknowledges the contention that human beings are responsible for their destiny. This is particularly highlighted by the comparison of Melanesian and Polynesian political systems. Historical materialism is also given primacy as one of the major forces behind the evolution of socio-economic and political structures (Sahlins 1963:288). However, it gives a lot of primacy to political determinism over such other forces as economics and religion. Also, the position that personal political ties curtail the achievement of a higher political organization is not necessarily true (pp.292). It is possible that where the big-man leads appropriately, no divisions will occur and unity of purpose will be realized.
Reflection on how this item will likely shape or inform the understanding of the topic discussed by the author
This paper paints a picture that tribal/band systems that are headed by big men or big women are highly vulnerable to collapse because leadership is primarily based on personality superiority measured in terms of charisma, wealth, and kin affiliation (Sahlins 1963:292). To, therefore, stand the test of time, it appears necessary to adopt and embrace the modern bases of power, particularly, authority. Authority refers to the right to engage in particular types of activities and is usually based on an individual’s created or inherited status or honor, and in its execution, it does not involve the application of force/coercion (Miller et al.2010:255). The paper adopts a somewhat macro-kind approach in its comparison. This has had the effect of changing the general perception that colonialism, past or present, is not always negative (pp.256).
Works cited
Miller, Barbara D., Van EsterikP., Van EsterikJ., 2010. Politics, Conflict, and Social Order: Cultural Anthropology, Fourth Canadian Edition, Pearson, ch.10. 255-281.
Sahlins, Marshall D. Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1963), pp. 285-303