书单｜The Headless State 所引书目

评语：Evans- Pritchard's original model of segmentary kinship society was itself derived from theories of Arab society put forward by Robertson Smith in the nineteenth century Evans-Pritchard admitted as much: "It was reading Robertson Smith's writing [on the Arabs] that first made dear to me the kinship and political systems of the Nilotic Nuer" (Evans Pritchard 1938, 123; cited in Dresch 1988, 63).

评语：The most influential thinker in this regard, both for anthropology and Marxism, was Lewis Henry Morgan. For him, “all forms of government are reducible to two general plans. ... The first, in the order of time, is founded upon persons, and upon relations purely personal, and may be distinguished as a society (sodetas'). The gens [clan] is the unit of organisation. ...The second is founded upon territory and upon property and may be distinguished as a state (ciyitas)" (Morgan 1964 [1877], 13-14). Morgans work, as well as articulating the evolutionism of the age, was also intensely ideological. His commitment to the articles of faith of populist democratic politics led him to conclude that the most ancient forms of society―kinship society organized into gentes (clans)—must embody the principles of liberty; equality; and fraternity. Morgan could not allow democracy to be an innovation of Athenian politics or the brainchild of Cleisthenes (as classicists did and continue to claim), but argued it must be an innate feature of the "gentile" (i.e., clan-based) kinship society that was thought to precede the city-state. One major problem for this scheme was that the earliest large Hellenistic social units, the phylon (translated as "tribe"), had a single ruler named a basileus or "king." So Morgan (1964 [1877], 214) charges the classical historians with "monarchical bias"—even Grote, who is his principal source. He refutes the standard history with a general evolutionism, using evidence from Native American societies such as the Omaha to try to buttress his claim that a leader of an early kinship society could not have been a monarch: 'under gentile conditions ... rule of a king by hereditary right and without accountability in such a society was simply impossible" (Morgan 1964 [1877], 218). "Monarchy is incompatible with gentility, for the reason that gentile institutions are essentially democratical [sic]" (Morgan 1964 [1877], 209). In Morgans scheme, the basileus becomes a general military commander chosen for collective defense as part of a "military democracy" that might superficially look like monarchy but in reality embodied the spirit of liberty To prove that this was possible, Morgan gives an example: 'An Englishman, under his constitutional monarchy is as free as an American under the republic" (Morgan 1964 [1877], 218). The same evolution must have occurred in all societies, and thus the Roman reges must also have been military commanders serving the will of their people, not kings, as generally thought. Where there was no evidence to support his model, Morgan simply assumes that it has been lost in the course of time. "The Latin language must have had a term equivalent to the Greek phylon or tribe, because they had the same organisation; but if so it has disappeared" (Morgan 1964 [1877], 266). In fact, there is nothing to suggest Morgans scheme was correct, even for ancient Greece. First, the "clan" does not seem to predate the state at all, but probably appeared after it, and like the later Roman gens ("clan"), it seems to be primarily an institution of the elite. Starr (1961, 134) remarks: "The genos (clan) only became important when aristocrats began to play a central role in Greek political life. They actually had no place in Attic law”2 Second, the phyle (clan / tribe) does not seem to have been a kinship unit, but an administrative one, in which people were registered for the purposes of local civil and military government.3 But in the nineteenth century Morgans vision fitted well with both liberal and socialist philosophies concerned with such notions as the original natural liberty of man, or, in the Marxist variant, the idea of property as the basis for exploitation in the light of the universal sharing claimed for primitive communist society. The notion that without the state people organize themselves into descent groups and that these tend to be nonhierarchical became deeply ingrained in the Western social sciences.

评语："在以前，‘人’的一切关系都是被概括在‘家族’关系中的，把这种社会状态作为历史的 一个起点，从这一个起点开始，我们似乎是在不断地向着一种新的社会秩序状态移动， 所有这些关系都是因‘个人’的自由合意而产生的。" Maine (1861, 106; cited in Kuper 1988, 80), who grounded his work on primitive society in studies of classical Greek and particularly Roman sources, wrote that "the history of political ideas begins, in fact, with the assumption that kinship in blood is the sole possible ground of community in political functions." This scholarship assumed a fundamental distinction between societies based on kinship (i.e., membership of clans― entes in Latin) and those based on territory a distinction Marx saw as between ""blood" and "soil," and this opposition was mapped onto the dichotomies of primitive/civilized and prestate/state.

评语： Morgan (1964 [1877]), following Grote's 1846 theory of ancient Greek state formation, saw the tribe as the political union formed by clans in the prestate period and described the confederated League of the Iroquois in these terms, providing an early model for anthropological accounts of "primitive" societies.