Morgan was a first-rate evolutionary social anthropologist. He has tried to trace the origin of state and government. He argues that the concept of state among the primitives developed in two stages.
In the first stage, the state came into existence to fulfill the needs of the people. Morgan calls this kind of state emergence only as a kind of social organization.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is on the strength of data provided by Morgan that some social anthropologists consider social organization in terms of kinship organization. The notion of property came at the second stage of the development of the state. When property was possessed by the people it had to be protected.
This gave rise to government. Morgan further says that the government created to protect the property had also some kind of territory, that is, state. Thus, at the second stage of evolution, the state and government became inseparable parts of social organization.
Image Source: evolution-institute.org
Drawing from the thesis of Morgan some social anthropologists have maintained that there are some societies where there is a state and also a government. Further, it is also found in some societies that there is a government but there is no state. Following the evolutionary trend of studies Maine has propounded that first there were states and the government came into existence at a later stage.
On the other hand, Shapera, on the basis of his studies of African tribes, establishes that it is not essential that government is in any way related to kinship organization. He says that there is no such primitive group where kinsmen are controlled by any form of government.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
His argument is that government and kinship do not have any positive relation. He provides evidence from the Bushman tribe of southern Africa. Bushmen do not have any domesticated animals, neither do they practice agriculture.
Wild animals are their game and they move in herds. Each herd has its political identity but they are not related by kin. Thus, government and kinship do not go together; there may be government but it is not essential that people are united by kinship ties.
Thus, right from Morgan to Shapera, social anthropologists have tried to study government and state from the evolutionary perspective. But they were biased in their approach. They had in their mind the political system of Europe, the democratic government of Europe and they tried to search it out among primitive people.
Their second fault was similar to the fault of Aristotle and Plato. They argued at length about the kind of government the primitive people should have and dealt with little on the existing governmental situation of the tribals.