The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion1 MARSHALL D. SAHLINS

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1961.63.2.02a00050 The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion1 MARSHALL D. SAHLINS University of Michigan I HERE has been a broad inclination in social anthropology in recent T years to apply the designations “segmentary system” and “segmentary process” to a wide variety of societies. Only slightly narrower is the applica- tion of the concept to lineages or societies with lineages. While granting certain general similarities in all the organizations popularly called ‘(segmentary lineage,” it seems more useful to restrict the term to a very few societies, most notably the Nuer and the Tiv. The argument can be made on purely formal grounds: Tiv and Nuer are in critical respects organized differently from other societies that have been placed in the category “segmentary lineage system.” Thus, in Tribes Without Rulers, Middleton and Tait were moved to classify Tiv and Nuer-along with Lugbara, which seems inaccurate-as a subtype of segmentary lineage systems, at one point as the “classical” variety of such systems (1958:29). But the type can also be considered in an evolutionary perspective: Tiv- Nuer, the segmentary lineage organization properly so-called, is a specific adaptive variety within the tribal level of society and culture. (The criteria of “tribal level” and the meaning of “specific adaptive variety” will be spelled out below.) This evolutionary perspective is adopted here because it furnishes a prac- tical basis for distinguishing Tiv-Nuer from other “segmentary” societies and, at the same time, it has the power to suggest the circumstances which produce segmentary lineage organization, to “explain” it, at least partly. Conversely --and contrary to the vision of Radcliffe-Brown for a comparative-structural approach-formalism alone has only tended to obscure the salient character- istics of the segmentary lineage organization. Focusing on such general struc- tural and functional resemblances as ‘‘segmentation’’ and “complementary opposition,” the formal definition of “segmentary lineage” threatens to be- come as broad as the formal view of the “lineage” itself. For segmentation and complementary opposition are very widespread-nearly universal-fea- tures of human social organization. It is then no wonder that Tiv and Nuer have been lumped with societies that virtually run the evolutionary gamut from simple tribes to protostates, such as the Alur (Southall 1956). Our dis- satisfaction with this procedure parallels Fried’s discontent with the use of “lineage” in current social anthropology: When the analytical framework which is so conducive to functional study is . . . transferred with- out modification to problems involving comparisons of greater or lesser scope, complications are 322 [SAHLINS] The Segmentary Lineage and Predatory Expansion 323 sure to follow. . . . What happens when societies are classified together merely because they utilize kinship as an articulating principle without determining the nature of their particular kin rela- tions or their quality, may be seen when Fortes links the Hopi with the Nuer, the Beduin, the Yako, the Tallensi, the Gusii, and the Tikopia on the basis of their common possession of unilineal descent groups. While this is correct, it is of little moment since we can also add, inter aliu, the Northern Tungus and the Chinese, thereby giving a series that ranges from a simple pastoralist and hunting society to a sophisticated world power (Fried 1957: 7-8). The argument for an evolutionary view of Tiv-Nuer segmentary lineage organization-and for the taxonomic distinctions drawn for the purpose of argument-does not rest simply on the existence of differences between Tiv- Nuer and other so-called segmentary lineage systems. The importance of perceiving Tiv-Nuer as a specific tribal form is that this leads to certain empirically testable conclusions about its genesis and incidence. The evolu- tionary perspective, moreover, does not supercede structural analysis, but complements it and adds to it certain understandings which structural analysis by itself seems incapable of producing. There is hardly need to repeat the oft- made observation that consideration’ of the relations between parts of a sy lements it and adds to it certain understandings which structural analysis by itself seems incapable of producing. There is hardly need to repeat the oft- made observation that consideration’ of the relations between parts of a sys- tem does not account for the existence of the jystem (or its parts)-unless one is willing to accept the tautology that the system is what it is because that is the way it is. Yet without wishing to slight the magnificence of Evans- Pritchard’s work on the Nuer-the position of The Nuer as an ethnographic classic is certainly secure-nonetheless, he does not break out of the circle: Physical environment, way of livelihood, mode of distribution, poor communications, simple economy, etc., to some extent explain the incidence of [Nuer] political cleavage, but the tend- ency towards segmentation seems to be inherent in political structure itself (1940a:284). Or, perhaps even more explicitly, Evans-Pritchard writes that ecological factors : . . . to some extent explain the demographic features of Nuer political segmentation, but the tend- ency towards segmentation must be defined as a fundamental principle of their social struc- ture (1940b:148). In brief, Evans-Pritchard seems to reject the adaptive view as of limited value, leaving the impression that the Nuer have a segmentary organization because of the segmentary “principle” of their organization. The alternative advanced here is that a segmentary lineage system is a social means of intrusion and competition in an already occupied ecological niche. More, it is an organization confined to societies of a certain level of development, the tribal level, as distinguished from less-developed bands and more advanced chiefdoms. Finally, the segmentary lineage is a successful predatory organization in conflicts with other tribes, although perhaps un- necessary against bands and ineffective against chiefdoms and states; it develops specifically in it tribal society which is moving against other tribes, in a tribal intercultural environment. 11. THE TRIBAL LEVEL OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION The evolution of culture can be viewed as a movement in the direction of increasing utilization of the earth’s resources, or, alternatively, of increasing 324 American Anthropologist [63, 1961 transformation of available energy into cultural systems. This broad move- ment has two aspects. On the one hand, culture tends to diversify into specific cultures through selection and adaptation. This is specific evolution, the rami- fying, diversifying, specializing aspect, from homogeneity to heterogeneity. On the other hand, higher cultural forms arise fro