Societies, Complex

Complex society refers to societies with states and social classes. Three kinds of complexity are involved: there are socially and culturally differentiated and unequal groups; social segments have specialized activities and roles; and these societies are geographically complex, with unequal exchange between specialized regions. The term “complex society” is typical social scientific jargon, being both dull and unfamiliar. However, its usage is justified. Civilization, an alternative term, has biased connotations, favoring the written and artistic products of upper classes. States and class society are terms that point to only the political and economic aspects, respectively, of the whole.

Complex society rests on a contrast with small-scale or simple societies. In the latter, people have equitable access to resources and enact similar activities, with differentiation deriving only from age, sex, and personal qualities. Foundational theories (e.g., Herbert Spencer's) emphasized the “evolution” from uniformity to differentiation, and anthropologists focused on the simple and uniform end. The topic of complex societies thus challenges standard anthropological approaches (such as fieldwork in small, bounded places)and concepts (such as singular, integrated culture).

Complex society has been a central concern of archaeology, especially the causes of change from non-state to state organization, and the economic, social, and cultural changes accompanying that transition. Leslie White's unilinear evolutionary formulation of increasing energy control was influential, but probably the most influential argument was Julian Steward's case (derived from Karl Wittfogel) for the centralized management of irrigation. This argument quickly encountered empirical objections (rather sophisticated irrigation systems can be managed under local control, meaning that centralized power is not needed), but the real impact of Steward was his careful comparison of the rise of complex societies in diverse world regions.

After Steward and White, much effort was devoted to formulating types of cultures and identifying single causes (“prime movers”) of change from one stage to the next. Morton Fried postulated population growth as a prime mover, while Robert Carneiro proposed political-geographical circumscription. In this elegant model, societies remain small in scale by hiving off identical units until they reach a point of closure by other, similar units; at that point, political centralization begins. However, recent scholarship has changed focus.

First, this work moves away from prime movers toward multi-causal, interactive models of change. Second, it explores, through systems theory, the morphology and dynamics of complexity itself. Third, the dividing lines between simple and complex are no longer straightforward matters of correct typology and classification, let alone unidirectional evolution. Instead, social formations move dynamically between different levels of centralization and specialization over time and space. All these trends are illustrated by recent studies of ancient core-periphery relations. Complex societies emerge from and create unequal exchange relationships between geographic zones that are politically powerful, socially hierarchical, and densely populated (and thus appear to be core “complex societies”) and other zones that are politically dependent, less hierarchical, and more sparsely populated (and thus appear to be “simpler societies”), but which produce valued raw materials for the core.

Shifting focus from simple to complex societies has particularly challenged cultural anthropology. The biases in favor of functioning social wholes (in British [Page 2103]and French anthropology) and singular, integrated cultures (in U.S. anthropology) do not fit the differentiation and unequal power characteristic of complex societies. Initial approaches—such as the study of “national character,” treating vast nations as if they had one typical personality—were not satisfactory. Community studies became widespread, but scholars quickly realized that single communities could not represent entire complex societies. Community studies were also biased by the anthropological predilection toward the rural, culturally distinctive, and seemingly least modern.

...