Resource Structure and Scalar Stress

1. Resource Structure and Scalar Stress Resource structure, scalar stress, and the development of Inuit social organization -T. Max Friesen (1999)

2. Resource structure • Resource structure is basically the relationship between the size of a resource, and the societal structure which occurs as a result of it. • For example, big whale and little whale in Inuit society… • “The term 'resource structure' refers to physiological and behavioural characteristics of a given exploited resource which can affect the manner in which it is acquired, processed, distributed, stored, and consumed”

3. Scalar Stress • Scalar stress is the effect of productivity and ability to communicate and be efficient (scalar stress is also often referred to as “communications stress”) within a society. • So, as a society gets bigger, decisions are harder to make because you have to take into account more opinions/desires, there is generally more information to consider before making the decision. • “The second factor, 'scalar stress', results from the long-recognized relationship between increasing population density and increasing social complexity “

4. Friesen’s Point of View • Friesen based his resource structure thesis on the Inuit, and says that the availability of resources through the formation of various Inuit settlements is what shaped them in terms of their culture, political structure and other characteristics. • May not lead to an egalitarian society, but hopefully a more democratic one • There were also some other guys who had similar opinions to Friesen: Jochim (1976), Yesner (1981), Smith and Winterhalder (1992)

5. How can it work? • Big resource – accept and need a leader • Small resource – choose a leader • If your resources are massive or small the resources will impact directly upon the political and social organisation of a society. • An egalitarian society works if all can look after themselves for example if they have equality of access for small resources – Mackenzie Inuit’s are more egalitarian compared to the North Alaskan Inuit’s in theory, because their hunting does not permit individuals to have social control. There is little exchange also, therefore more equal

6. Applying this to Inuit society… • When Friesen’s theory is applied to Inuit society, there is a clear divide between the groups of Inuit who hunt large or small prey. • Inuit groups who hunt large prey such as big whales tend to be very hierarchical due to a leader being needed to co-ordinate such a large scale hunting operation. This manifests itself as the same leader becoming a political figure back in society because he has proven himself capable as a leader and a hunter, the second of which gains him respect and admiration from the group.

7. Applying this to Inuit society… • However, when we apply Friesen’s theory to a group that hunts smaller prey such as seal, there is less need for a co-ordinated hunt, and this reflects in the society as a more egalitarian, democratic political structure where generally no single hunter is “put on a pedestal” above the rest of the group.

8. Differences in the two • The main difference between the two societies is that there is far more competition and pride for hunted resources in the groups that hunt smaller prey. Despite the more equal political structure within the society, because the hunters hunt only for themselves (the resources are not large enough for whole villages), there is competition between hunters for prey. • “When two of the Kogmolik [Mackenzie Inuit] happened to single out the same whale (for these mammals swim in schools) they turned their spears upon one another - a feat which requires no little dexterity in so flimsy a boat as a kayak; and whichever of the twain successfully 'spiked' his rival, to him the spoil was assigned. (Harrison 1908: 79)”

9. External Constraints • External constraints are more generalised across societies; usually relate to universal phenomena • Due to common external constraints there must have been primary factors contributing to the differences in social organization between north Alaska and the Mackenzie Delta. • Both lived in seasonably variable environments – major prey only available for short periods of time • Both depend on marine mammals • In both societies, the large aggregation sites were first subdivided into named house clusters, known as 'upsiksui‘ • People living in each cluster were probably linked by kinship

10. Internal Constraints • Internal Constraints are specific to a particular society • The Alaskan Inuits relied primarily on the bowhead whale, a species in which even the frequently-hunted yearlings average approximately 10,000kg. • The Mackenzie Inuit relied mainly on beluga whales, which occur in large, concentrated pods, but which average only approximately 400kg each in weight • Thus showing particularism due to different environmental factors • North Alaska a degree of social hierarchy developed. This centred around the whaling crew led by an ‘umialik’. This was reinforced through redistribution of whale meat and blubber – money and the exchanging of goods • In the Mackenzie Delta, on the other hand, the nature of beluga hunting did not allow any individual to exert such great social control • ‘Chiefs', or family heads in the Mackenzie Delta existed, their leadership carried less authority, because it did not incorporate such an important redistributive economic role. • It is important not to overemphasize the differences in social organization between the two groups - strong differences do not exist on all levels