Zaire INDIGENOUS SOCIAL SYSTEMS
Men offering to sell a cayman, Équateur Region
Women on their way to the market, Équateur
In most cases, the boundaries of indigenous societies,
defined
as politically autonomous units, were narrower than ethnic
boundaries established on the basis of linguistic and
cultural
similarity. A community was often just a cluster of
villages or
hamlets, and even that cluster might consist of descent
groups,
each of which was in some ways autonomous or potentially
so (that
is, it might move out and establish itself elsewhere).
This
autonomy was by no means absolute, however. Lineages, and
sometimes
villages, were exogamous and therefore relied on other
groups for
spouses, which in turn led to connections of political
relevance
between lineages. In addition, marital and other
cross-cutting
ties, such as trade ties or secret societies, sometimes
cut across
ethnic boundaries, particularly at the territorial
periphery of the
group.
The environmental range inhabited by Zairian
communities and
their varied origins made for substantial differences of
detail in
their patterns of subsistence and modes of sociopolitical
organization. Nevertheless, the characteristic way in
which most
groups came to the places where they finally settled was
conducive
to a good deal of interpenetration of communities with
different
traditions and the transfer of aspects of culture from one
community to another. Typically, a people entered a region
not as
a wave inundating or driving out its earlier inhabitants
but as
small bands filtering in, sometimes conquering, sometimes
pushing
out, and sometimes peacefully absorbing the communities
already
there. In a number of cases, these processes were still
continuing
in the early 1990s.
Communities sharing language and culture were often
thinly
scattered in a given area. The widespread practice of
shifting
cultivation meant that each village required a good deal
of land,
much of which was not under cultivation at any time. If
the
population of a village or related hamlets grew
substantially, some
segment of it, usually defined as a lineage, would leave
to
establish itself elsewhere. The establishment of colonial
rule
eventually put an end to such movements, however. The
Belgians
insisted that villages be combined and stabilized, in part
to make
administrative control easier, in part so that cash
cropping could
be encouraged.
With very few exceptions, indigenous Zairian
communities had
chiefs of some kind. There was, however, a good deal of
variation
in the scale of the entity under a single head and
therefore in the
extent to which any chiefdom was marked by a hierarchy of
chiefs.
There were also considerable differences in the secular
authority
of chiefs at any level.
Chieftainship was linked in principle, and often in
fact, to
the system of unilineal (patrilineal or matrilineal)
descent groups
that provided the basic sociopolitical framework of most
Zairian
groups. The politically significant descent groups were
often those
localized in a single village or a cluster of related
villages.
Another feature of precolonial Zairian societies was
the
existence of some form of slavery, usually as a result of
warfare.
The precise social and economic position of slaves varied
from
society to society. Rarely, if ever, was it exactly like
the
chattel slavery characteristic of much of the New World.
In
traditional Zairian societies, slaves had some rights and
could
improve their position to some extent. Nevertheless,
slaves, and
often their descendants, were in a marginal position.
Of the varied sociopolitical patterns characteristic of
indigenous Zairian communities, only some elements,
altered and
adapted during the colonial era and since independence,
remain
significant in the lives of Zairians generally and those
in rural
areas particularly. Broadly, the persisting units are the
local
communities, often changed by the aggregation of smaller
units into
larger ones; the descent groups, which bear a variable
relationship
to local communities; and the networks of kin connections
in which
each individual is involved.
In general, the range of fairly important kin is wider
than
that in the West and has not appreciably narrowed, even in
modernday urban society, in part because many urban Zairians
maintain
ties with the rural areas from which they come, in part
because kin
ties provide ways of coping with some of the difficulties
of urban
life. In some cases, obligations to kin become burdensome
in an
urban context, particularly to those who have had some
degree of
success and are expected to help new arrivals. Kin may be
more
trustworthy than others, however, and for the ambitious
person they
may provide a nucleus of dependents and followers
necessary to
further success.
In a number of the more complex chiefdoms, aspects of
the
hierarchy have survived. Some traditional chiefs still
wield
considerable influence. Many do not, however. Moreover,
disputes
over succession were not uncommon in the precolonial era
and have
persisted into the modern period so that at any time a
group may be
divided among factions supporting specific claimants to
the
chiefdom.
With very few exceptions, indigenous Zairian
communities
distinguished their members on some scale of worthiness
based on
age and sex, and such distinctions persist. In general,
other
things being equal, age requires respect, although
seniority does
not necessarily confer access to the office of highest
status in
the descent group or local community. Again in general,
males have
higher status than females, despite the presence in many
communities of matrilineal descent groups and
matrilineally based
succession and inheritance.
Data as of December 1993
|