Jordan Villages
Women cleaning wool at Samar, northwest of Amman
Courtesy Julie Peteet
A village scene with a mosque in the background
Courtesy Julie Peteet
The principles of organization in settled communities resembled
those of the beduins in that villages were organized around kin
groups. The resemblance to nomadic groups was closest in the
villages of central and southern Jordan. There villagers retained,
in somewhat loose form, a tribal form of organization. Most
villagers lived in the much more densely settled north, where
tribal organization in the late 1980s remained significant only
among the recently settled.
In most northern villages, the descendants of a common,
relatively distant ancestor formed a hamula (pl.,
hamail, meaning a clan). The hamula ordinarily had a
corporate identity; it often maintained a guesthouse, its members
usually resided in a distinguishable quarter or neighborhood, and
it acted in concert in village, and often regional, political
affairs. The hamula was the repository of family honor and
tended to be endogamous. Some villages in the north were dominated
by one hamula; that is, everyone in a village belonged to
the same descent group. Sometimes several smaller hamail
also resided in a village dominated by one large hamula.
Other villages were characterized by the presence of several
hamail of nearly equal numerical size and importance in
village political affairs and landholdings. In some northern
regions, a large hamula might have sections in several
villages.
Intermediate kin groups existed below the level of the
hamula and above that of the household. In many cases, a
group of closely related households, descendants of a relative
closer than the founder of the hamula, formed entities
called lineages (or branches). A still smaller unit was the
luzum, a close consultation group, usually composed of
several brothers and their families. Father's brothers' sons and
their families could be included in or even constitute the
luzum. This group had the most significance for everyday
life in the village. Members of a hamula, especially those
spread over several villages, sometimes saw each other only on
occasions such as weddings, births, deaths, religious holidays, or
a conflict involving a hamula member. Anthropologist Richard
Antoun found the luzum to be the significant unit in a
variety of matters in the community he studied; its members were
responsible for paying truce money in cases where honor had been
violated. This was the group that acted as a support system for the
individual in the event of need, providing access to resources such
as land, bridewealth, or financial aid in the event of illness or
to pay for schooling.
Lineages and luzums varied in size and sometimes
overlapped in functions. For example, a large luzum
sometimes carried the weight of a smaller lineage in village
politics, and it could be difficult to distinguish them. Kin
groups, even at the level of lineages, were not homogenous in terms
of class; some members could be quite well off and others rather
poor. This internal differentiation increased as some members
migrated to urban areas or abroad in search of work, entered the
army, or sought higher education
(see Jordan - Migration
, this ch.)
Social control and politics in the village traditionally grew
out of the interactions of kin groups at various levels. Social
control over individual behavior was achieved through the process
of socialization and a system that imposed sanctions for
unacceptable behavior. Such sanctions could range from gossip
damaging to one's reputation and that of one's kin, to censure by
one's kin group, to penalties imposed by the state for infractions
of its criminal codes.
Respected elder males from the various hamail (or
lineages if the village were populated predominantly by members of
one hamula) provided leadership in villages. They often made
decisions by consensus. With the formation and consolidation of the
state, traditional leaders lost some power, but they continued in
the late 1980s to mediate conflicts, and state officials often
turned to them when dealing with village affairs. In cases of
conflict in the village, leaders of the appropriate kin sections of
groups attempted to mediate the problem through kinship ties. Such
leaders were usually elderly men respected for their traditional
wisdom and knowledge of customs, or slightly younger, secularly
educated men, or persons in intermediate positions between the two.
If the conflict escalated or involved violence, the state, through
the police and the court system, tended to become involved. The
state encouraged recourse to traditional forms of mediation
sometimes as an alternative and sometimes as an accompaniment to
processing the case through the court system.
The mukhtar, or headman, of a small village linked the
villagers with the state bureaucracy, especially if there were no
village or municipal council. The mukhtar's duties included the
registering of births and deaths, notarizing official papers for
villagers, and assisting the police with their investigations in
the village. Where there were municipal or village councils,
generally in villages with a population of 3,000 or more, the
mukhtar had little influence. Instead, the councils--bodies
elected by the villagers--allocated government authority and
village resources. Young, educated men from influential families,
whose fathers may have been traditional leaders in the village,
often ran the councils.
As villages increasingly became integrated into the state
economic and political system, social stratification grew.
Traditionally, large landowners were able to command labor,
surplus, and services as well as social deference from less wealthy
villagers. However, a variety of village and religious customs
eased this apparent class differentiation. Religious teachings and
practices, such as the giving of alms and the distribution of gifts
at the festival marking the end of Ramadan and at other festival
seasons, emphasized the responsibility of the prosperous for the
less fortunate
(see Jordan - Religious Life
, this ch.). Wealth also implied
an obligation to provide a place for men to gather and for visitors
to come, in order to maintain the standing of the village as a
whole. Events such as weddings were occasions for the wealthy to
provide feasts for the whole village.
In the late 1980s, social change had strained village structure
and values. The older generation's uncontested control of the
economic resources necessary for contracting marriage,
participating in politics, and even earning a livelihood had
guaranteed their authority. The decline in significance of
agriculture as a way of life and the appearance of other
opportunities led many younger people into other pursuits. As a
result, some "agricultural" villages eventually contained a
majority of men engaged in other kinds of work. Earning an income
independent of their elders' control and often considerably larger
than the older generation could command, such young people were in
a position to challenge their elders' authority. Nevertheless, in
the late 1980s, the individual still remained enmeshed in a network
of family relations and obligations. The young deferred less
frequently to their elders in decisions about life choices than had
been the custom, but respect for parents and elders remained
evident.
Data as of December 1989
|