Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:47:51 -0600 From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM at umkc.edu>
Age-set organization is not a class hierarchy. First, everyone passes through the age-grades (for as long as they live), so there are no static status positions. Second, in most (if not all) cases there are institutional mechanisms for limiting the power of the senior age grades. For example, in East Africa, there are junior and senior sub-grades for each age-grade, with links between every other age grade. Call the age-grades 'elders' and 'adults', so the sub-grades are junior adults, senior adults, junior elders and senior elders. There are special relationships between the junior elders and the junior adults, so the power of the senior adults over the junior adults is limited. Likewise there is a special relation between the senior elders and the senior adults, so the power of the junior elders over the senior adults is limited. Great evidence for no central political authority whatsoever in these communities. As far as 'heridity' - it is fairly well-agreed that, in Africa at least, either age-set organization or kinship organization is dominant. If age-set organization is dominant, kinship doesn't matter very much and vice-versa. Maasai (where age-set is dominant) traditionally don't know the names of their great grandparents, whereas groups in Somalia (without any dominant age-set organization) can trace their heritage back to...the beginning. The gender issue is more complex. Again, I think there is great evidence that traditionally there is a gender division of labor and so on, but not necessarily gender domination by any means.
>I think there is a lot of evidence suggesting cultural hierarchies
based on
>gender, age and heredity -- apart from the implications of individual
>physical strength.