In anthropology, the traditional progression of social order, from lower to higher complexity, is as follows: tribe, big-man group, chiefdom, proto-state, and state. While the lines between these designations are necessarily blurry, there is also a general increase in centralization and hierarchy as one moves from the less complex to the more complex. Do these anthropology terms provide any insight into the social organization of Nation-States post collapse?

A republication of a 2009 speculation by Jeff Vail, still very much worth rereading for his distinguishing of two networked modes of social organization, one hierarchical, one non-hierarchical.

Jeff Vail:

“I recently discussed the potential for collapse of the Mexican Nation-State, and I’ve previously written about my view that the Nation-State system in general is fading. What will replace it? In general, I reject Philip Bobbitt’s hypothesis in “Shield of Achilles” that the Nation-State system will be replaced wholesale with a “Market-State” system. To be fair, however, he isn’t necessarily advocating that Nation-States will be replaced by Market-States in the way we flip a light switch. Rather, he is arguing that, for all the reasons the nation is no longer a viable constitutional basis for state power, the market may represent an alternative toward which states may–and some are already–transition toward. While I presented a more detailed critique of Bobbitt’s theory in my essay The New Map, recent turmoil in the markets, the rising violence in Mexico, and countless other events around the world suggest that the state–regardless of its constitutional basis–is slipping from its dominant role. I have little doubt that some vestige of the state will remain for the foreseeable future. However, in terms of geography, penetration, and time, the reach and control of the state will increasingly be limited. It will present voids in these various dimensions that will be filled by other power structures. And that’s the topic I plan to address in this post: what will fill the vacuum of state power?

In anthropology, the traditional progression of social order, from lower to higher complexity, is as follows: tribe, big-man group, chiefdom, proto-state, and state. While the lines between these designations are necessarily blurry, there is also a general increase in centralization and hierarchy as one moves from the less complex to the more complex. Do these anthropology terms provide any insight into the social organization of Nation-States post collapse, or of Nation-States that have transitioned to Market-States and abandoned the notion of a social contract?

Perhaps–here are two contemporary examples:

In Mexico, the effective penetration of the state is rapidly retreating, and has been effectively replaced–at least in some areas, times, and roles–by the drug cartels. While consistently referred to as “drug-cartels” in the domestic and foreign press, that term doesn’t seem to do justice to their political platforms or business models any more than it suffices to call Goldman Sachs a “bank.” More accurately, these drug cartels could be described as diagonal chiefdoms. In the anthropological lexicon, “chiefdom” means an intermediately complex form of social organization that 1) exhibits ranked social order, but 2) does not control or extend institutionally into all aspects of social organization. The cartels are certainly ranked (making them more “complex” in the standard lexicon, than big-man groups), and they also exhibit a limited institutional reach (falling short of proto-state by largely ignoring any commitment to a social contract and delegating religion and spirituality to a non-integrated catholic church).

Conversely, I think the internet–specifically the “blogosphere” (a terrible term, but there you have it)–stands as an example of a “big-man group.” More precisely, it is a network of big-man groups that already occupy a diagonal beyond the exclusive control of the state. Big-man group is another anthropological term that requires defining: a non-hierarchal social structure structured by the influence of “big men” actors (of either sex, or even potentially corporate form) who gain their influence through success in a relevant endeavor–growing tubers in Melanesia, popularity in High School social systems, or visitor counts and links in the blogosphere, for example.

Why does it matter what organizational structure back-fills the retreating state? Consider these alternate structures in light of Hakim Bey’s concept of the “TAZ” (actually, his essays on periodic autonomous zone, permanent autonomous zone, or no-go zone may be more appropriate here) and Hardt & Negri’s “Diagonal”: these neo-chiefdoms and neo-big-men-groups are not exclusive in Cartesian space, but rather coexist–with the Market-State, and with each other. Within the Nation-State context this is often phrased “civil society,” but in a post-Nation-State world it will be much different. These Chiefdoms and Big-Men Groups will go beyond modern civil society and fill the vacuum of part of the role of the state–specifically, rather than a single state claiming a monopoly on the use of violence within a Cartesian space, multiple organizations, actors, and networks will claim some source of legitimacy in the use of violence.

Minimizing the oppressive use of violence is far more than a mere nicety–the difference between the minimally complex hierarchal structure (chiefdom) and the minimally complex non-hierarchal structure (big-men network) may be the difference between success or failure (especially from a median quality of life standpoint) in a post-Nation-State, post-Peak Oil civilization. Without the energy surpluses required to fuel a broad-based consumer society, and the related ability to impose a global “South” as a productive base, local feudal chiefdoms do not hold much promise for the median, especially after enough of the local surplus has been siphoned off to maintain the trappings befitting chiefly rank. Just ask the median Mexican in Sinaloa or Tijuana how well that system is working for them. Conversely, the overlapping big-men network represents the application of the blogosphere model to the primary economy. I’ve discussed the benefits of this type of model elsewhere–resiliency through decentralization, parallel innovation/information processing, the elimination of the information processing burden of a centralized hierarchy, the elimination of the need for political surplus that can no longer be sustained in a post-peak environment, etc.

Certainly any power vacuum left by a retreating state will be filled by some combination of both hierarchal and networked organizations. The lesson here–as undeveloped as my thinking out loud may be–seems to be that we must take the initiative to ensure that this vacuum is not filled by an inferior, hierarchal solution along the lines of a neo-chiefdom.”