Having presented the analytical tools for investigating societies as consisting of agents, structuration, and structure, I will now investigate further how these concepts can be used in social analyses. I will first discuss some ideas on structure from William Sewell Jr. (2.7.1). Then, I will investigate the ideas of Elizabeth M. Brumfiel on social struggles (2.7.2), followed by a discussion of Michael Mann’s ideas on the sources of social power (2.7.3). As will be seen in the following, agency and structure open up for more nuanced analyses of ancient polities than neo-evolutionism and its early state model or structural-functionalism, theoretical approaches that underlie the view that Eastern and Western political traditions are fundamentally different.
2.7.1 Schemas and resources
The relations between agency and structure are difficult to unravel, and it is not possible to suppose one without the other. In William Sewell Jr.’s analysis, structure and human agency interact and produce a new structure, “the agents can (or are forced
to) improvise or innovate in structurally shaped ways that significantly reconfigure the very structures that constituted them”.250 Sewell wishes to avoid idealism, i.e. that
ideas or mental schemas determine the material world as perceived by humans. He argues that “structure, then, should be defined as composed simultaneously of
schemas, which are virtual, and of resources, which are actual. If structures are dual in this sense, then it must be true that schemas are the effects of resources, just as resources are the effects of schemas”. The term structure only applies when resources and schemas “mutually imply and sustain each other over time”.251
Thus, it is not possible to operate with abstract mental schemas, such as an inherent love of freedom or a naturally slavish attitude, as driving forces behind political choices without taking physical resources into consideration, as well. Both schemas and resources determine the social structure. However, these qualifications to the theory of structure may be said to emphasise human agency. Structure is not solely determinant; its relation to human agents can be termed dialectic, in that agency and structure mutually determine and change each other. Therefore, the definitions of the dominant institutions do not constitute a satisfactory political analysis. Pointing out the dominance of palaces and temples or councils and assemblies is not a sufficient analysis of how societies of the ancient world were experienced by the people who lived in them.
Sewell applies the concept of agency to the structure of states: “states and political structures are consciously established, maintained, fought over and argued about rather than taken for granted as if they were unchangeable features of the world
250 Sewell, “A theory of structure,” 1992, 5 251 Sewell, “A theory of structure,” 1992, 12-13
[…]”.252 The active negotiations involved in the formation of political structures are important to keep in mind, because they invite analyses of polities as dynamic and multifaceted structures.
Sewell’s point that agency and structure need to be taken into consideration when discussing struggles over political structures can be further explored with the concepts of narrow and broad élite strategies for power, as well as narrow and broad corporate strategies, discussed in chapter 1 (1.2.3 and 1.4.2). Polities are places where different groups and individuals vie for power and influence. Therefore, the strategies pursued by members of society can stand in opposition to the established structure and represent other groups than those in power.
2.7.2 Struggle and negotiation
The focus on strategies for power in socio-political analysis means to analyse societies as consisting of several competing and complimenting strategies. This is suggested by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel. She argues that in social analysis, focus should be on alliance networks based on gender, class, and faction and the realignments in these alliance networks, and not on closed systems.253 She calls for a behaviouristic
approach: “[…] we must recognize that culturally based behavioural “systems” are the composite outcomes of negotiation between positioned social agents pursuing their goals under both ecological and social constraints”.254
252 Sewell, “A theory of structure,” 1992, 24
253 Brumfiel, “Breaking and entering the ecosystem,” 1992, 553 254 Brumfiel, “Breaking and entering the ecosystem,” 1992, 551
The focus on negotiations implies that not only the rulers are taken into consideration, but also the ruled and their relationships with each other. Brumfiel emphasises that the perspective of human agency must be expanded to include the participation of people outside the élite.255 She asserts that “the history of states is the history of
strategy and counterstrategy deployed by oppositional groups, leading cumulatively to the emergence of social hierarchy and its dissolution”.256 She suggests that specific
sequences of changes in social power should be studied alternately from a subject- centred and system-centred point of view.257
In the present investigation, social change over time is not as central as the
simultaneous existence of competing and cooperating agents and their strategies for power. It should be pointed out that societies do not only consist of oppositional groups. At least, opposition is not a stable constant. Vertical ties between the élite and humbler members of the community must be kept in mind as much as vertical
divisions, and the same applies to horizontal relationships between individuals as well as groups.
2.7.3 Sources of power
An important contribution to the study of societies beyond hierarchies and bounded systems is that of Michael Mann, in the first volume of his work The Sources of
Social Power.258 Mann argues that power must be analysed as having several
255 Brumfiel, “Breaking and entering the ecosystem,” 1992, 556 256 Brumfiel, “Breaking and entering the ecosystem,” 1992, 558 257 Brumfiel, “Breaking and entering the ecosystem,” 1992, 559 258 Mann, Sources of social power, 1986
sources.259 In Mann’s analysis, there are ideological, economic, military, and political sources to power, meaning that power is not unitary, but has several dimensions. The organisation of society is derived from a network of actors with power derived from ideological, economic, military, and political sources.260
The four dimensions of power in Mann’s analysis can be criticised for being somewhat arbitrary, in the sense that some of them will overlap, in particular
economic, political, and military sources of power. They are useful tools for analysis, however, because they make it possible to study several dimensions of society at once, rather than supposing a unitary system. Mann’s dimensions of power and their agents create not unitary structures, but networks. Mann conceives of societies as “multiple overlapping and intersecting power networks”.261 In his definition, “a
society is a network of social interaction at the boundaries of which is a certain level of interaction cleavage between it and its environment”.262
Mann’s ideas of society as networks of interaction open up new possibilities for analysing political action. The subject and the system interact, in such a way that the system is not absolutely bounded and the subject is not absolutely determined. Mann’s approach focuses on what creates power and what dissolves it, from a perspective of agents, their schemes and resources. This approach transcends the élite perspectives and institutional focus of neo-evolutionism and structural-functionalism. Political action can be analysed as conditioned by what is considered possible or proper, the expectations and ambitions that constitute the schemes that agents are informed by in
259 Yoffee, Myths of the archaic state, 2005, 34-38 260 Mann, The sources of social power, 1986, 22-27 261 Mann, Sources of social power, 1986, 2 262 Mann, Sources of social power, 1986, 13
their choices of strategies for power. In this way, analyses of ancient polities will allow for different views of society co-existing within the same polity. In the following two sections (2.8 and 2.9), I will discuss recent work on ancient polities that use sociological approaches of analysing agency and structuration.