The argument can certainly be advanced, on the basis of the information presented in Chapter Two, that for a good period of time before the first hierarchy appeared in the Mesopotamian Valley, a complex civilization existed. This complexity could not be avoided as soon as there was craft specialization. These specialized occupations would include the potter, the weaver, the farmer, the herder, the tanner, the fisherman, the stoneworker, and others that have not been named. The products of these specialized occupations were traded along with those materials made of stone, timber, shells, and metal unavailable in many areas. My point is that in order to remain egalitarian in attitude, the people in this society needed to reconcile their obvious differences in skills, opportunities, even wealth (although here none appeared to be ostentatious), and pride of location. Likely, this reconciliation took place in a shared cosmology in which they all recognized not only their equality but also the providence promised through this cosmology.
The obvious lack of great disparities in wealth in the Mesopotamian Valley for the long period before the emergence of hierarchy requires explanation. Two points are to be made: 1) They apparently did not need elites, and 2) they did not look to elites to control the environment for their benefit. This second point is not unimportant. The few egalitarian groups for which we have information thanked the Creator for their provisions. If they were truly part of a much more inclusive population (argument from Chapter One), it is likely that most people recognized the Creator as provider before the introduction of social hierarchy. Then it is a reasonable inference that the egalitarian population of the lower Mesopotamian Valley, among whom the first clear evidence for hierarchy has been recognized, had previously considered the Creator as their provider, rather than elites in a hierarchy.
The argument is strengthened when comparing Nilotic tribes in Chapter Nine and southeast and central tribes in Australia in Chapter Ten. From these comparisons, we can see that the Creator was made distant in each case while introducing elites with ritual control of the environment. And in each case the charter for the elites in these hierarchies was a cosmology that is easily recognizable as a separation of heaven and earth cosmology. This appears to be the same cosmology that chartered the hierarchy of the ancient world. In each of these more recent cases, the social structure through its elites replaced the Creator as the provider.
Materialistic anthropology has recognized that elites in a hierarchy are believed to provide for the population in preliterate societies. But they underscore the falsity of this belief, claiming that a cosmology embodying such a belief is merely rationalization for the recognition of special treatment for elites. Of course, materialistic anthropology would also say that the providence of the Creator is merely a false belief based on a faulty cosmology. The problem with this reasoning is that it denies the reality of culture, for surely human ideals and beliefs are an essential part of culture. Anthropology offers that cosmology rationalizes special treatment for elites. However, it has yet to recognize that not only inequalities within a complex hierarchical society but also inequalities within the simplest of egalitarian societies also need to be reconciled within a cosmology.
But if egalitarianism is basically a culture pattern—a belief system shared by a society or community—can some individuals hold it within a greater community that does not? The answer is a qualified yes, qualified because an individual cannot exist as a community. But an individual can indeed believe that all individuals are equal before God and provided for by him. How do such persons fare in nonegalitarian settings? By and large, it is fair to say that most evangelical Christians are committed to an egalitarian perspective as defined in the preceding sentence. Today, many of these Christians are in nations where they are persecuted. Why are they persecuted? Their belief system requires that they should be honest, hardworking, and kind. It would seem that they should be good citizens anywhere. Yet they are apparently a threat to both religious and political systems. What is the nature of that threat? I suggest that it is because their Creator, rather than the social structure, provides for them.
One egalitarian culture within a larger society whose history is recorded is early Christianity. Here again, Christians were persecuted as a threat in spite of their attempt to be good citizens. They were charged as “haters of mankind.” The reason for this charge was that they did not participate in the sacrifices to the gods. Without these sacrifices, it was feared that the provision of the gods would be curtailed. This underscores the importance of the interaction between the hierarchy and the destiny of the society. When Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, the empire did not take on an egalitarian social structure. The emperor himself called councils and became effectively the head of the church. Certainly, many individuals remained egalitarian in perspective, but Christendom itself became a branch, or at least an arbiter, of political power. Over much of its history, Christianity has not been egalitarian.
Go to next post.
Go to next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment