by Giano Rocca
Chapter 13:
Classification of structural universes, in the evolution of reality structural historical, and of the joints of the aforementioned structural universes
The neo-pythagorean Numenio he theorised three divinities:
1) The principle of reality or king of the universe (which can be interpreted as the essence of the historical structures);
2) The demiurge, that shape the world, and this is the principle of becoming (namely, is the structural universe in act, or universe structural statual);
3) the world produced by the demiurge (namely, social systems specific, with the various types of government and the real powers) (1).
The Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, on the basis of the theories of the philosopher Charles Fried, had classified them historic structures in four “levels of socio-cultural integration”, which we had defined: universes structural historical: namely the bands, the tribes (defined: societies at ranks, from Charles Fried), the territorial organizations governed by a leader (or, the layered society, according to Charles Fried) and, finally, “the States” or universes structural statual. The band is a small cluster of individuals having a certain degree of autonomy territorial. There are no layers or distinctions stable in functions. These bands or clan are generally nomads, practicing the collection, hunting and fishing. The various bands, although joined by a common cultural heritage, do not possess some unifying institutions. Each band has a charismatic leader more or less knowingly recognized. The power of this charismatic leader is based on his personal qualities: of the type economic (special skills), of type religious or age. This is a temporary role and absolutely not hereditary. Since the job (and therefore its divisions) is virtually non-existent, not occur durable inequalities, if not based on a real inequality psycho-intellectual. Examples of this type of social structure, you have in the contemporary age (between human beings), among the Eskimos, in the Amazon and in some areas of Africa. Between the Bushmen Kung the function of leader is durable and hereditary. This is, probably, an example of a society in transition to the structural universe tribal, since it occurs transmission, from one generation to the other, of the cognitive inequality or of the Charism. The tribes or societies at ranks, represent a higher level of socio-cultural integration. These structures may be constituted by bands or by sets of families, connected together in such a way as to form a whole more complex. It realizes, in this case, a precise spatial location. Appears to be a certain type of apparatus of power, defined tribal institution, which permits a certain regulation of relationships between groups. Within the system of relationship, they are forming some hierarchical inequalities between individuals and groups (firstborns, cadets, men, women, and so on), both inside the elementary units, both among these (between lineages or clan), better definable as gentes. This hierarchization, that is proportionate to the demographic conditions, ecological, and so on, is neither hereditary norperpetuates, nor has a tendency to expand. You can play, in an identical manner, in subsequent generations avoiding of crystallize into real institutions. These inequalities do not itself add one to the other, up to constitute a system of stratifications and political institutions. They occur, namely, some widespread inequalities, based, purely, on inequality psycho-intellectual, and constituting a form of power which does not crystallizes itself in institutions, which will be, instead, at a higher level of civilizing, enucleated by the fullness of the ideal projection. In these societies, if you can distinguish between: reports materials and projections ideals or social configuration; however, there are not the institutions, as an expression of the authority, but only the primary influence, in so far as an expression of the total differentiation between the individuals and between the groups. In the tribes you have examples of a condition that, by the anthropologists, is referred to as the “Slavery”, because the subjects who are involved do not participate of the formation of the hierarchies of the own society, but remain in a state of dependency and are excluded from social life. This condition can be configured, perhaps better, like that of the prisoners. The power derives, in this type of social structures, by two orders of factors: the kinship and the position within this (the seniority, the birthright,and so on), the capacity magical-religious or the capacity with the implications, more directly, of economic thype (the directive capacity, the ability to execute certain works, or combat capacity). The influence, although total, is legitimated. This is demonstrated by the rituals in which it is inserted. The power is, in fact, defined as magical power positive (“swem”). However, since the power comes from a competition, rivalry or real struggles, these latter are indicated as a negative fact and, therefore, the malevolent force against which you can do some exorcisms (“tsau”). If the holder of the power knows how to make it possible neutralize the rivalry: there ensues an additional legitimacy of its power, the which makes it total. The societies stratified or territorial organizations governed by a leader, are characterized by a certain degree of autonomy of the element “political”, namely, the autonomy of the influence and, then, there is the formation of the institutions. The functions socially qualified (the order maintenance, adjustment of production and consumption,and so on), give rise to specific roles, which can become the prerogative of individuals and groups. This produces a social stratification, not based on criteria of kinship, but in relation to the functions of a type socio-economic and ideological: noble, free men and held (or servants). Thus, appear embryonic systems of castes (also as groups specialized professionally). It has, thus, the partial overcoming of the system of controls parentals, with the realisation of the type of control that is typical of the institutions. This type of structure is the antechamber of the level of statual structure and constitutes a moment of transition to the latter. However, it is distinguished from the statual level, for the non-complete autonomy of the political institutions: by all the full of the ideal projection (2). In the “levels of socio-cultural integration” pre-statual exist only “germs” of “system” political autonomous (or institutions political), since the function “politics” exists as a partial function of other social components. In these “levels” pre-statual do not it have a clear distinction, even between the material referent and the ideal projection. This is valid, in general, to the exclusion of the societies layered, where the ideal projection is already considerably cleaved with respect to the material referent (3).
The historical phases statual are taken into account from sociology and indicated as “status types”. The various political regimes are defined as “forms of government”. The term as regimen is used, disparagingly, by sociologists to indicate forms of government does not adequately justified from a given “political formula” or political conception and therefore considered as forms of illegitimate of government. They do not take into account, in correct terms, the low level of political democracy or the absolute absence of the political democracy itself.
Jacques Heers showed how, in those that we define: transition periods from the feudal phase to the phase mercantile (of the cycle “medieval - modern - post-modern”), the various conflicts which have occurred, are not attributable to the “theory of Marx” of the classes, being instead, often, aimed simply at the conservation of structural reality in act (4).
