{\rtf1\ansi \deflang1033\deff0{\fonttbl
{\f0\froman \fcharset0 \fprq2 Times New Roman;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;}
{\stylesheet{\fs20 \snext0 Normal;}
}\margl1440\margr1440\hyphhotz936\ftnbj\ftnrstpg\aftnnar\viewkind1 \sectd \sbknone\headery1440\footery1440\endnhere\endnhere 
{\*\pnseclvl1\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl2\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl3\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl4\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl7\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1}

\pard 
{\plain \b The Structure of Societies\par
}{\plain \b \par
}\pard \fi-720\li720 
{\plain }{\plain \b Political Organization}{\plain \par
}\pard 
{\plain \b \tab The Sources of Power}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab \tab charisma (short term)\par
}{\plain \tab \tab (long term:)\par
}{\plain \tab \tab ideology\par
}{\plain \tab \tab economy\par
}{\plain \tab \tab military\par
}{\plain \tab \tab politics\par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \b \tab Requirements for Wielding Power}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab \tab means\par
}{\plain \tab \tab organization\par
}{\plain \tab \tab infrastructure\par
}{\plain \tab \tab logistics\par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab }{\plain \b Group Size and the Wielding of Power}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab \tab generally, the smaller the group the more likely it is to have egalitarian values\par
}\pard \fi-720\li2160 
{\plain as group size increases, stratification and inequality (by class, ethnicity, etc) 
generally increases\par
}\pard \fi-720\li2160 
{\plain the ideology of }{\plain \b democratic states}{\plain  (as opposed to }{\plain \b authoritarian states}{\plain , which 
don\'92t bother with what the people think) reflects a widespread desire to 
maintain egalitarian values in highly stratified, unequal social and political 
structures; this fundamental conflict is manifest in the internal party system 
and the external policies of the nation-state) }{\plain \b \par
}\pard 
{\plain \b \par
}{\plain \b The Dialectical Relationship between Modes of Production and the Structure of Society}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab }{\plain \b bands}{\plain  (egalitarian groups of a dozen people or so), }{\plain \b tribes}{\plain  (groups as large as several 
hundred), and larger configurations of population (sometimes called }{\plain \b chiefdoms}{\plain , as big as several 
thousand) are organized around the economic form that the society takes (hunting and gathering, 
agriculture, etc).  They reflect values that make the group\'92s success in that way of like more 
probable).  The largest grouping (thousands to millions) is the }{\plain \b state}{\plain .\par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain example: transformations in kin, family structure, social class, and political organization as 
a result of the Industrial Revolution\par
}\pard 
{\plain \tab Although there exist several useful vocabularies for discussing the organizational 
characteristics of society, the twentieth century was dominated by the framework of band, tribe, 
chiefdom and state.  Differences were seen primarily in terms of changing needs for organizing 
more and more people, resulting in }{\plain \b hierarchies of power}{\plain  and their concomitant systems of 
communication.  Yet although hierarchical organization characterizes many aspects of state 
power, hierarchy alone does not capture the full range of state organizational relations.  \par
}{\plain \tab }{\plain \b Heterarchies of power}{\plain --coalitions, federations, leagues, associations, communities--are 
just as important to the functioning of states as they are to more egalitarian groups (bands and 
tribes).  As the September 11, 2001 events demonstrate, power flows in many channels and can 
manifest entirely outside the pyramidal framework of state hierarchies and beyond their control.  
In self-organization terminology, this is termed }{\plain \i chaos}{\plain  or surprise.}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \b What are some Underlying Assumptions in Societies?}{\plain   Cooperation and Competition\par
}{\plain \tab Egalitarianism (individuals highly value the well-being of the group)\par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain Privilege (individuals compete with one another to gain unequal access to resources, 
merit, etc; found in hierarchically organized groups)\par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain Social Hierarchy = a situation in which individuals or groups are }{\plain \b ranked}{\plain  relative to one 
another\par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain Social Heterarchy = a situation in which individuals or groups are }{\plain \b unranked}{\plain  relative to 
one another or}{\plain \b  ranked differently as conditions change}{\plain ; reflects achieved status 
in the group\par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain The Development of Stratified Societies : superiority of some lineages, occupations\par
}\pard 
{\plain \par
}{\plain \b What are the Characteristics of Hierarchical and Heterarchical Organization? }{\plain \tab \par
}{\plain \b \tab }{\plain \b\ul Hierarchical polities}{\plain \b .  }{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab Administrators in strong hierarchies (hypercoherent authoritarian states termed 
hyperhierarchies) have the following advantages.  Due to a clear decision making chain, they 
respond well to fast-developing crises (e.g., military attack, insurrection).  Because the rules and 
responsibilities are known to all, political interactions among decision makers are few and 
formalized, and political maintenance of the system is low.  Administrative hierarchies are 
equipped with powerful security forces that can successfully defend the state perimeter and 
suppress internal dissent. \par
}{\plain \tab Hierarchical polities are at a disadvantage because data-gathering techniques, tied to the 
pyramidal decision-making framework, slow the arrival of some kinds of information (especially 
subversive activity) at the apex of the pyramid and necessitate the formalization and elaboration of 
internal security forces. Decisions are rapid and expedient but they are not necessarily popular; 
popular dissatisfaction is high and there must be considerable investment in coercion and/or 
chicanery.  In any event, security costs are high.\par
}{\plain \b \tab }{\plain \b\ul Heterarchical polities}{\plain \b .  }{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab Administrators in heterarchically organized polities are treated to good quality information 
from many sources within and outside of the decision-making lattice.  For the most part, decisions 
are fair and reflect popular consensus.  Decision makers hear of a variety of solutions to problems.  
Because heterarchies are more likely to value the contributions of disparate segments of the 
community (women, ethnic groups, etc.), the society as a whole is better integrated and the 
workforce is proud and energized.\par
}{\plain \tab Heterarchical polities are at a disadvantage because consensus is slow to achieve, 
increasing the time it takes to make a decision (but see below).  Decision makers must engage in 
interpersonal dialogue with constituents, which requires considerable time and energy investment 
and constant maintenance.  The cacophonous voices and choices a decision maker hears 
complicate the search for workable solutions.\par
}{\plain \b \tab }{\plain \b\ul Tradeoffs}{\plain \b .  }{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab The greater a group\'92s  involvement, the greater the range of response choice and the more 
inclusive the consensus, but the response time is slower and long-range planning is more difficult.  
Spontaneity, polyvalent individuality linked to achieved status, inclusive or counterpoised 
definition of state power, and flexibility are valued in heterarchies; hierarchies value rule-based 
authority, rigid class lines linked to ascribed as well as achieved status and rank, a control 
definition of state power, and the }{\plain \ul status}{\plain  }{\plain \ul quo}{\plain .  Of course, }{\plain \b democratic nation-states exhibit 
characteristics of both}{\plain , which explains in part why they are more stable than authoritarian states.}{\plain \tab \par
}{\plain \b Why did Stratified Societies Emerge?}{\plain \par
}{\plain \b \tab Classic Reasons:}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab \tab Scarcity\par
}{\plain \tab \tab Surplus\par
}{\plain \tab \tab Population increase\par
}{\plain \tab \tab Climate\par
}{\plain \tab \tab \'93Human Nature\'94 (competition)\par
}{\plain \tab \tab \'93Real\'94 Inequalities (the usual -isms: class differences, racism etc)\par
}{\plain \tab \tab Trade\par
}{\plain \tab \tab Specialization\par
}{\plain \tab \tab Capital Accumulation\par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \b States}{\plain : DEFINITION\par
}{\plain \tab groups of thousands, with centralized political power\par
}{\plain \tab social and economic specialization and social inequality\par
}{\plain \tab widespread market system, long-distance trade, and money economy\par
}{\plain \tab resource surplus with restricted access\par
}{\plain \tab coercive power (external army, internal police)\par
}{\plain \tab taxation\par
}{\plain \tab codified (enforced by state authority as opposed to moral authority) legal system\par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \b The Basis for Control in Early States}{\plain  (ex: Mesopotamia, Egypt) \par
}{\plain \tab }{\plain \b Power }{\plain = raw coercive force (military might, threat of physical harm)\par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain }{\plain \b Authority}{\plain  = knowledge, experience (often expressed through religion with specialized 
practitioners) \par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain }{\plain \b Legitimacy}{\plain  = the group-recognized right of certain individuals to make decisions for the 
group, ex: the equivalence of the Pharaoh with the major Egyptian diety\tab \par
}\pard 
{\plain \par
}{\plain \b The Basis for Control in Nation-States}{\plain \par
}\pard \fi-2880\li1440\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab \tab nation-state defined as types of states that began to appear as technology began to have an 
impact on the general public (from the invention of the printing press to 
contemporary media)\par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain is an \'91imagined community\'92 based on strong shared emotional ties (as opposed to face-to-face social, economic, and political control)\par
}\pard 
{\plain \par
}\pard \fi-720\li1440 
{\plain \b Control}{\plain  =  a }{\plain \i state of mind}{\plain  in which all elements of the society (education, version of state 
history, etc) mutually reinforce state ideology and adherence to state policy (ex: 
the state described in Orwell\'92s }{\plain \b 1984}{\plain )\par
}\pard 
{\plain \par
}{\plain \b Questions to consider when reading Orwell\'92s 1984:}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab How does the state maintain control over its population?\par
}{\plain \tab Why is Winston\'92s job important?\par
}{\plain \tab How is love subversive?\par
}{\plain \tab What are the values of this nation-state?\par
}{\plain \tab Why is it in constant war with (changing) adversaries?}}