Traditional Societies

The study of leadership in what have been variously labeled traditional, indigenous, nonliterate, preliterate, simple, kin-based, or primitive societies has been the intellectual responsibility of cultural anthropology. The ethnographic literature is rich with descriptions, discussions, and occasionally comparisons of leadership in indigenous societies around the world. There are numerous accounts of religious leaders, such as the shamans of Siberia and Aztec high priests; of family leaders (women in Iroquois society, men in Ashanti society); and of community leaders, such as the headmen of New Guinea and Arab tribal confederacy chiefs. There is also much information [Page 1554]about the basis of leadership, whether that basis be skill at hunting, bravery in war, personal charm, honesty, delicacy in negotiations, generosity in gift giving, the ability to communicate and influence the supernatural world, or ties of kinship and friendship. And there is much information about leadership in times and places of cultural contact; particularly regarding the changes in indigenous patterns of leadership in reaction to colonization by Westerners.

But despite this wealth of information produced by anthropology over the past 150 years, there is relatively little interest in leadership as a topic in anthropology, nor is there much theory to explain similarities and diversity in leadership across cultures. The theoretical orientation has been mainly within the “trait theory” tradition, which focuses on the traits of leaders—older, male, aggressive, capable, tall, and charismatic. There is some evidence that leaders of indigenous societies are less competitive and more generous than leaders in Western societies.

Perhaps an explicit focus on leadership is missing because ethnographers (anthropologists who conduct field research) have traditionally adhered to a holistic paradigm in which description and analysis considers all structures and functions of societies as integrated and interrelated. In addition, the focus of anthropology has been on the local community, although from the 1980s onward there has been considerably more interest in the local community and people's lives in national and world contexts. The implication of this approach for the study of leadership in these societies is that leadership has typically been studied within the context of the community in relationship to or as a component of other elements of culture such as power, gender roles, political organization, religion, kin relations, age grades, patronage, social movements, succession, authority, or conflict and conflict resolution, among others.

Despite the paucity of theory, the rich ethnographic record on leadership in indigenous societies played a major role in correcting the early view that indigenous societies had no leadership. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, scholars in the West generally assumed that only Western societies had leaders and true leadership. Indigenous societies, which were known in the West primarily through the reports of colonists, travelers, soldiers, and missionaries, were often described as living in a state of anarchy with leadership centered in the kin group (the family or clan). This view was completely contrary to reality, as proved by such examples as military leaders among Plains Indian societies in North America, hereditary leaders of African states, Big Men in the Pacific Islands, and shaman leaders in Siberia and South America. The oversight was perhaps intentional, as it allowed colonists to ignore traditional patterns of leadership and political organization and install or support as leaders those individuals or families who would be most friendly to the colonists' own economic interests.

...