margaret mead public opinion mechanisms among primitive peoples (2)

8/7/2019 Margaret Mead PUBLIC OPINION MECHANISMS AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES (2)

1/13

American Association for Public Opinion Research

Public Opinion Mechanisms Among Primitive PeoplesAuthor(s): Margaret MeadSource: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Jul., 1937), pp. 5-16Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744663Accessed: 06/11/2010 20:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Association for Public Opinion Research and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaporhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2744663?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaporhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaporhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2744663?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaporhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/13

PUBLIC OPINION MECHANISMSAMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLESBy MARGARET MEAD

MargaretMead (Ph.D. Columbia, 1928) sends this article to theQUARTERLY fromthe islandof Bali whereshe is engagedon a two-yearresearchprojectforthe AmericanMuseum of NaturalHistorywithwhichshe has been associatedas AssistantCuratorof Ethnologysince1926.Fieldstudiesundertheauspicesof suchinstitutionsas theNationalResearchCouncil and the Social ScienceRtsearchCouncil have pre-viouslytakenher to Samoa, 1925-26; theAdmiraltyIslands,1928-29;and New Guinea, 1931-33. The resultsof some of these studies haveappearedin herComingofAgeinSamoa, GrowingUp in New Guinea,The ChangingCultureofan IndianTribe,and Sex and Temperamentin Three PrimitiveSocieties.This unusualanalysisof public opinionsituationsamong primitivepeoplessuggestsmanynew perspectivesofthe process of public opinionformationin our own more complexcivilization.

Studentsofprimitivesocietiesclaimthattheycan makecontributionstothesocial scienceswhichare primarilyconcernedwiththeanalysisof socialprocesseswithinoursociety.This claimhasvarioustheoreticalbases: (I)The assumptionthatprimitivesocietiesarerepresentativeofsimplersocialforms,ancestralto ourown,and thereforethrowlightupontheprobablehistoryofan institution,and thefurtherassumptionthatthehistoryof aninstitutionthrowssignificantlightuponitsfunctioning;(2) The coherencyofthematerial;thefactthatthesocialsystemofa smallprimitivegroupissufficientlysimpleto be graspedin all itsaspectsby oneinvestigator;and(3) The importanceof cross-culturalcomparisonsin helpingto clarify,sharpen,limit,and enlargetheinstrumentalconceptswhichare beingusedin theanalysisofourown society.It isfromthisthirdpointofviewthatthefindingsfromprimitivesocietyshouldhave mostinterestforstudentsofpublicopinion.The theoreticalclaimsof (i) are somewhatdubious,andalso it is not ofgreatimportanceforstudentsof theoperationof publicopinionat thepresentday to considerhintsas to howour Stone Ageancestorsmaybesupposedtohavemanipulatedtheopinionsof thegroup.Consideration(2), thecoherencyof the material,givesthe data a specialclaimtoconsiderationbecauseit is fromtheanalysisofwholesocietiesthatwe canattemptthecross-culturalclarificationofconcepts.

PRIMITIVE OPINION MECHANISMS S


3/13

In makingcross-culturalcomparisonsvariouscoursesare opentous. Wemay take a hypothesiswhich has been developed fromstudyof our owncultureand subjectit to negativecriticism,showinghow the premisesuponwhich the hypothesisis based are invalidated by such and such factsobtainingin this or that primitivetribe.Such criticismrequiresthe socialscientistto redefinehis conceptsin the lightof thenon-agreementof thesefactsfromothersocieties.'This approach leaves the studentof our societyholdingthe bag. Theethnologistsays: "Here are instancesfromotherfunctioningsocial systemsforwhichyourtheoryis not adequate.What are yougoing to do about it?"In groupdiscussionswhere the ethnologistplays this role, his major con-tributionis to meeteverygeneralizationwith: "Yes, but . .

But it should also be possiblefor the ethnologistto make positivecon-tributions:to analyze the social formsof primitivesocietyand to presentthem in sufficientlycompact and intelligibleterms so as to enrich theworkingconceptsof otherdisciplines.In so vast and so slightlydelimitedafieldas thatof public opinion,the focus must be narrowedto make com-parativecommentof any value at all. I shall confinemy discussionto therelationshipbetween politicalfunctioningand public opinion.I shall referto only a few selectedprimitivesocietiesof which I have first-handknowl-edge,oruponwhichI haveaccessto first-ratewrittenand oralmaterials.THREE TYPES OF EMPHASIS

Among thesefew societiesI 'have foundit possibleto distinguishthreetypesof emphasis in the relationshipbetween political organizationandpublic opinion. These typesare: (I) Those societies which depend forimpetusor inhibitionof communityaction upon the continuingresponseof individuals in public opinion situations,in the manner defined byProfessorAllport;2(II) Those which depend upon the operationof formalalignmentsof individuals,who react notin termsof theirpersonalopinions

1 Examplesof thismethodare: Malinowski,B., Sex and Repressionin Savage Society(London: Kegan Paul, I1926); Benedict,R., "Cultureand thicAbnormal,"journal ofGeneralPsychology,Vol. IO, No. I, JanuaryI934, PP. 59-82; Mead, M., ComingofAgein Samoa (New York: Morrow,i928).2 "The termpublicopinionis given its meaningwith referenceto a multi-individualsituationin whichindividualsare expressingthemselves,or can be called upon to expressthemselves,as favoringor supporting(or else disfavoringor opposing) some definitecondition,person,or proposalof widespreadimportance,in sucha proportionof number,intensity,and constancy,as to give riseto the probabilityof affectingaction,directlyorindirectly,towardthe objectconcerned."Allport,Floyd H., "Toward a Scienceof PublicOpinion,"PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, VOI. I, No. I, January1937, P- 23.

6 The PUBLIC OPINION Quarterly,JULY I937


4/13

concerningthe givenissue,but in termsof theirdefinedpositionsin theformalstructure;(III) Those societieswhichdo notdependfortheirfunc-tioningon publicopinionat all-in ProfessorAllport'ssenseof theterm-but whichfunctionby invokingthe purelyformalparticipationin andrespectforan impersonalpatternor code.In our mixed and heterogeneoussocietyall of thesetypesof em-phases appear,no one in a pure form,whereasin the greatercoher-enceand simplerintegrationof primitivesocieties,theoperationof eachformcanbe foundvirtuallyunconfusedbythepresenceoftheothers.Beforediscussingtheseextremeforms,however,it maybewell to illustratefromourownsociety.Whena groupofindividuals,as in a lynchingmoborinapopularand spontaneousuprisingdemandingbetterworkingconditions,reactimmediatelyto a situation,each in termsofhisown feelingon thesubject,and withoutreferringhisactionto considerationsof partymember-ship,churchaffiliations,or therelationshipbetweenhis actionandtheformsof his society,and theiractionis politicallyeffective,this constitutesasituationwhichis typicalof societiesofType I.3 TypeII is foundwhenindividualsmeetan issue,notbyrespondingto theissueitself,butprimarilyin termsofpartymembership.As an examplelet ustakean issuewhichisfortuitouslypresentintheplatformofonepoliticalpartyandisnota coherentpartofthepartyprogram,and let us saythatthe individualwhomwe areconsideringisa memberof hispoliticalpartypurelybecausehisfatherwas.Stillhe is stronglyenoughinvolvedto supportfiercelyallmovesof hisownpartyand tocondemnandexecrateroundlyall movesof theoppositeparty.The issueitselfis subsidiaryto itsplacein a schemeofopposition,in which,iftheDemocratvotesYes, theRepublicanvotesNo. Type III is in a sensethemostdifficultto illustratefromour own societybecauseour traditionofemotionalinvolvementin everytypeof issuefromthe Revisionof theConstitutiontoDaylightSavingTime is so strong.It is necessaryto picturea societyinwhichissuesas vitalas migrationor war are settledas formally,fromthestandpointof anyeffectiveexpressionof publicopinion,as is thedateofThanksgivingDay. Here,althoughthebehavioroftheentirepopu-lationis alteredfora day by the yearlyProclamation,thereis no issueinvolvingpublicopinion.Similarlywiththevagariesof the date of EasterSunday.Althoughthedateon whichEasterfallseachyearis ofgreatimpor-

3 I am notconsideringhere theindividual'smotivations,butmerelymakingthenega-tiveprovisothatthosemotivesshouldbe primarilypersonal,and notconsciouslyorientedto someformofgrouployaltyor some schemeof impersonalstructure.

PRIMITIVE OPINION MECHANISMS 7


5/13

tanceto largenumbersofpeoplewhosecommercialinterestsare involvedin the seasonablenessof theevent,the date of Easter,arbitrarilyfixedaccordingto an outmodedmethodof calculation,remainsoutsidethefieldof effectivepublicopinion.Withthesepreliminaryillustrationsinmind,wecan lookat primitivesocietieswhichexemplifythesetypes.TYPE I: THE ARAPESHThe Arapeshare a Papuan-speakingpeopleof New Guinea,whooccupya mountainouscountrystretchingbetweenthe sea coast and aninlandplain.They arewithoutany institutionalizedpoliticalforms;4theyhave no chiefs,priests,sanctionedsoothsayers,or hereditaryleaders.Theylive in smallcommunitiesin whichresidenceis exceedinglyshifting,andare looselyclassifiedforceremonialpurposesintogeographicaldistricts.Betweenthe hamletsof each district,and betweenadjacenthamletsofdifferentdistricts,thereare numerousinter-relationshipsbased on presentandpastmarriages,tradefriendships,economiccooperation,etc.Anycom-munalworkis donebytemporaryconstellationsof affiliatedpersonsbasedonthevarioustiesof bloodrelationship,marriage,and residence.No man'sallegiancetoanygroup-hispatrilinealkin,his patrilinealclan,hisheredi-taryhamlet,his district,his ceremonialfeastingdivision-is eitherfixedenoughovertime,orbindingenoughat anygivenmoment,to preventhisfollowinghis own immediateimpulsesof helpfulnessor of hostility,histendencyto avoid troubleor to plungeinto itwhenoccasionoffers.Thesmallestevent-theslaughterofa pig,thepresenceofa festeringsoreon thefootof someunimportantperson,thedeathof an infant,the elopementofa woman-maybecomea politicalissue,and maylead to theformationofnewalliancesorto thedeclarationofnew animosities.Bothalliancesandhostilities,however,areequallyshort-livedbecause,owingto the lack ofpoliticalorganization,theycannotbe maintainedovertime;a new issuewillrealigneveryonetomorrow.Let us taketheinstanceof thetrespassof a pigownedbya residentinone hamleton thegardensofa memberof anotherhamlet.Thereis inexistencea modeofprocedurein suchcases.The man whosegardenhasbeentrespasseduponkillsthepig,and-ifhefeelsfriendlytowardtheowner

4 It is impossiblein the space of a shortarticleto deal in any but thesketchiestfashionwith thepoliticalsystemof thesepeople.For a shortsummarj,see ChapterI, Mead, M.,ed., Competitionand Cooperationamong PrimitivePeoples (New York: McGraw-Hill,1937). See also Mead, M., Sex and Temperamentin Three PrimitiveSocieties(NewYork:Morrow,1935).

8 The PUBLIC OPINION Quarterly,JULY I 937


6/13

of thepig,or is a quietman and anxiousto avoid trouble-sendswordtotheownertocomeand gethispig.This resultsin a minimumofbadfeelingas themeatcan stillbe usedto dischargedebtsamonga meat-hungrypeople.If,however,theownerof theland is angeredbythetrespassand hisfeelingofoutrageis notassuagedbykillingthepig,he notonlykillsthepig butheeatsit. But 'suchan act maylead to hostilitiesfromthe pig'sownerand isthereforean act of politicalsignificanceupon whichhe will notventurewithoutfirstsoundingoutpublicopinion.Whilethepig continuesto rootinhis garden,or whileit lies freshlybleedingfromhis spear,he consultshisnearestage-matesand immediateassociates,his brother,his brother-in-law,hiscousin.Iftheyareagainsteatingthepig,themattergoesno further.Butiftheyapprove,thematteris carriedtoa slightlyhigherauthority,thefathersand uncleswhohappento be in the immediatevicinity.Finally,toclinchthematter,a Big Man,a manwho has shownsomeratherreluctantabilityto takeresponsibilityin theorganizationof social life,is consulted.If hesaysyesalso,thepig is cut up and all who havegiventheirconsenttotheventuresharein eatingthepig,and thusaffirmtheirwillingnessto shareinany unpleasantconsequences-animmediatescrap, a longerbattle ofblackmagic,ortheseveranceofexistingpeacefulfeastingrelationshipswiththe pig-owner'sgroup.This situationfulfils,it seemsto me,ProfessorAllport'sdefinition,and is thecruxof all Arapeshpoliticalaction.5AnArapeshhas an opinion foror against everycourse of actionproposed,andupon thenatureoftheseexpressedopinions,who is forand who is against,dependsthefateof theissue.Sucha societymay,perhaps,be saidtorepre-sentthe politicalimportanceof publicopinionat itsmaximum,a societywhichdependsupon personalattitudesand reliesupon aggregationsofemotionallyinvolvedpersonsto produceaction.

Amongothersocietiesin whichthe immediateexpressedresponsesofindividualsareofmaximumimportancemaybementionedtheAndamanese,6theOjibwa,7and the Eskimo.85For theexpressionof publicopinionin a case of suspectedsorceryamongtheArapeshsee Sex and Temperament,pp. III-I2I, especiallyp. I2I.6 Brown, A. R. (Radcliffe-Brown),The AndamanIslanders(CambridgeUniversityPress,1932).7 Landes, R., "The Ojibwa of Canada,"ChapterIII of Competitionand CooperationamongPrimitivePeoples,op. cit.8 Thalbitzer,W., ed., Meddelelserom Grdnland,Vols. 39 and 40; and Mirsky,J.,"The

Eskimo of Greenland,"ChapterIV of Competitionand CooperationamongPrimitivePeoples,op. cit.



7/13

TYPE II: THE IATMULSocietiesofType II are morehighlyorganizedand containculturalformswhichresultin individualsactingtogetherin groupsin regardtoanimmediateissue,not becausetheyhavean opinionabouttheissue,butbecausetheyhavean emotionalallegianceto a formalgroup.Such societiesarecommonlyorganizedupona dual basis.This dualitymaybe basedupondifferencesas simpleas thatbetweenthepeoplebornin winterand thoseborninsummer,or betweenthosewhoareforbiddentoeat hawkand thoseforbiddento eatparrot,or betweenthosewho livesouthofthecemeteryorthosewholivenorthofit.Butuponsucha simpleandformalbase,ideasofsocial oppositionmaybe builtwhich are sufficientlywell organizedtobecomethestructuralprincipleofactionwithina society.Whenmembershipin a groupwhichis bydefinitionopposedto anothergrouphas becomeofprimeimportance,anypoliticalissueinsteadof raisingthequestion:"Howdo I personallyfeelaboutit?" raisesthequestion:"WhatdoesmyGroupAthinkaboutthis?Havetheytakenup a positionin favorof it? If so,I, asoneoftheGroupA, supportitagainstGroupB who willof courseopposeit."In suchsocietiesthesuccessofanyattemptto influencethegrouptowardactiondependsnotuponthepersonalopinionof individuals,but uponthefunctioningoftheseformalantagonisms.

The latmulpeople9of New Guineaare a tribeofhead-hunterswholiveinlarge,independentvillageson theMiddleSepikRiverin New Guinea.Withoutanyformof chieftainshipor centralizedauthority,theyare abletointegrateforpeacefulcommunitylivingand actionagainstoutsidersasmanyas a thousandpeople-theArapeshdistrictseldomincludedmorethantwo hundredpersons,a hamletaveragedaboutforty.latmulsdependupona systemofcross-cuttinggroupsin termsofwhichindividualsact asmembersofpatrilinealclans,as membersofmatrilinealgroups,as membersofopposedagegrades,asmembersof oneof twoopposedtotemicmoieties.Considerationsof inter-grouprelationships,of defendingone'smother'sclanagainstall others,or ofalwaysmeetinga challengefromtheopposingagegrade,supersedethemeritsof actual issues.The communitiesare heldtogetheronlybythefactthatthesevariousloyaltiesoverlapand contradicteachothersothatthemanwho isone'sformalfoetoday-quagroupmem-bership-isone'sformalallytomorrow.

9See Bateson,G., "Social Structureof the latmulPeople," Oceania, Vol. II, Nos. 3and 4; Bateson,G., Naven,A SurveyoftheProblemsSuggestedbya CompositePictureofthe Cultureofa New GuineaTribe,DrawnfromThreePointsof View(CambridgeUni-versityPress, 1936).

The PUBLIC OPINION Quarterly,JULY x937


8/13

Let us consider,then,examplesof thefunctioningofpublicopinionamongthelatmul,in theplayof groupattitudes.The elderage gradeofMoietyA'0 wereinitiatingthenovicesfromMoietyB. Initiationceremoniesamongthelatmulare markedbya seriesofirresponsiblyexecutedbrutali-ties.On thisparticularoccasion,an innovator,a memberof theeldergroupofMoietyA, proposedthatonebullyingepisodeshouldbe omittedfromtheseries.Thiswasanoccasionuponwhichpublicopinioncouldbeexpressed.Amemberof theelderagegradeof MoietyB, thegroupwhichwouldpres-entlyinitiatethenovicesofMoietyA,immediatelyturnedtheproposalintoanoccasionforceremonialhostility,completelyignoringtheissueat hand,andaccusingMoietyA ofbeingafraidofwhathismoiety,B, woulddo laterwhentheyhadto initiatetheA novices.MoietyA,inresponseto thistaunt,carriedouttheritewithparticularcruelty.The factthattheproposedchangewouldhavesoftenedthefateoftheirownchildrenwasignoredbyMoietyBin favorofthechancetomakea pointofceremonialhostility.Here it isnecessaryto recognizea peculiarityofIatmulculture.Anyriteonceneglectedisregardedasgoneforever.Iftheproposedomissionhadbeencarriedthrough,theinitiatorysystemwouldhavebeenimpoverishedby oneepisode.Had thememberofMoietyB beeninterestedinpreservingan itemofceremonialhecouldhavechosenno moreeffectivemethodthantoinvoketherivalryfeelingbetweenthe twogroups.So a Iatmulwho wishedtoorganizea head-huntingraidinwhichotherpeoplewerenotyetinterested,mightstarta proposalfortheraidwitha tauntto theothersideaboutthepaucityofheadswhichtheyhad takenin thepastyear.This tauntwouldbeflungbackwithinterest,and in theendthe jealousprideofeachmoietywouldbeinvolvedingoingonthesameraid.Thusin societiesso organizedtheimpetustoactionisgivennotbyanappealtothedirectopinionofindividualson anissue,butindirectlythroughtheinvocationofgrouployaltiesandgrouprivalries.Wherean individualis a memberof a seriesofconcentricgroups-so that,as a memberof hisfamily,of hishousehold,his clan,his village,his dual organization,hisdistrict,heis consistentlyassociatedwiththesamepeople-thereis dangerof thesegroupattitudeshardeningintohostilitieswhich will splitthesociety.Unlessthereis a centralauthorityat thehead to whichall arebound,thisdangerisespeciallygreatifopinionsbecomeorganizedinstead

10 I haveconsiderablysimplifiedthisstatement.The moreintricatedetailsmaybe foundon p. 135 ofNaven, op. cit. I havetranslatedAx3 as "elderbrothergrade ofMoietyA";Ay3 as "elderagegradeofMoietyB"; By4as "novicegroupofMoietyB," etc.

PRIMITIVE OPINION MECHANISMS xx


9/13

of fortuitous.Thisconditionhardlyobtainsamongthe Iatmulbecausethecross-cuttingof loyaltiespreventstheformationof permanentantitheticalattitudeswithinthecommunity."TYPE III: THE BALINESEIn thethirdtypeof societytheindividualis notemotionallyinvolvedwiththeimmediateissue,orin his loyaltyto a groupor to seriesof groupswithoverlappingand cross-cuttingmemberships.The communityis notcomposedof politicalindividuals,butof a certainnumberof housesites,seatsinthecouncilhouses,recurrentdutiesto thetemple.Intothesecubby-holesin a spatiallyand calendricallydefinedsocialorganizationindividualsarefittedasoccasiondictates.Theirwholedependenceis on thepreservationoftheimpersonalpattern.In a Balinesemountainvillage,all able-bodiedmenare membersofthevillagecounciland progressin turntowardgreaterand greaterofficialimportanceuntilat lasttheyaresuperannuatedandreplaced.In thisschemeeach humanunitis a cipher;he fitsintoa cubbyholewhichis successivelyfilledbya seriesofhumanbeings,eachone of whomhasbeentrainedfromchildhoodto feelthathiswholesafetydependsuponthecontinuanceofthepattern.Whereasin societiesofTypeI, thequestionis: "HowdoI feelaboutit?"and"How do A, B, and C feelaboutit?" and in societiesof TypeIIthequestionis"Does mygroupsupportthis?"or"Does theoppositegroupopposeit?",and theissueitselfbecomesirrelevantexcepttoa fewindivid-uals whomayconsciouslyorunconsciouslyexploittheseloyaltiesto produceresults,in societiesof TypeIII thequestionis only:"Whatis the placeofthisnewproposalin ourpatternofdecreedand traditionalbehavior?"Thisquestionis askedas seriouslyand as self-consciouslyas theconstitutionalityofa proposedactof Congressmightbediscussedbya professorof jurispru-dence.The processof rejectionor acceptance,however,is as colorlessas theplacingof a nameina decreedalphabeticalorder.Forexample,a new formof incestis committedin a village;a manmarrieshisfirstcousintwiceremoved,hisclassificatorygrandmother.In this

11 But in suchsocietiesdecisionsare notreachedbymajorities,but bybalancinganddiscardingirrelevantloyalties.Thisthrowslight,I think,upon oneof thepuzzlingaspectsofAmericanIndian politicalprocedure,the requirementthatanydecisionof a councilshouldbe unanimous.This requirementamonga peopletrainedtofeelforor against anissueonlywhentheissue was translatedintogroupterms,meantthatmembersrefrainedfrominvokingirrelevantgroup loyaltiesand so left the few who were interestedorcapableto decidethecurrentissueon itsmerits.[The readermaybe interestedto notethatin the article"Peasantsand Propagandain Croatia"in thisissue Dinko Tomasicrefers(p. 72) to thecustomaryunanimityof decisionsin theCroats'villagecouncils.-ED.]

12 The PUBLIC OPINION Quarterly,JULY 19 37


10/13

village it is notpermittedto marrya firstcousin.In othervillagesof whichthe people have heard, it is forbiddento marrya personreckonedas twogenerationsremoved. The council meets and. deliberates.The head menhesitateand demur; theydo not know the answer.Relativesofthegirlandof theboyare called beforethemand say merely:"We will followwhateverdecision is made." The village law about first-cousinincest is that bothpersonsshall be expelledfromthe village and placed on "Land of Punish-ment" to the south of it, and forbiddento participatein village land orworshipotherthan theGods of Death. No one pleadsthe cause of theboyorthe girl.No one speaksof theoutrage.Neitherfamilyattemptsto gatheradherentsand forma party.The calendricalexpertwho is the greatestauthorityon village law pointsout: (i) thattheymightconsiderwhethera firstcousin twice removedis nearerthan a plain second cousin,withwhom marriageis permitted;and (2) thatifthe couple are expelled thevillage will have to undergoa tabooperiodofforty-twodays and thatsuchand such ofthevariousfeastswhichare scheduledwillhave to be postponedand suchand such feastswillhave tobe omittedentirely.The day dragson.Occasionallysomeonepointsout to the head man: "You aretheheads. It isyourbusinessto decidewhatthe law is." Finallyit is decidedthat,no matterhow farremoved,a firstcousinis a firstcousin,and the law of thevillageisclear. The villagersare apportionedand halfare sent to each house to liftthehouse and set it outsidethevillage.The relativesofthegirl worryaboutthe cost of thepurificationceremonies;therelativesoftheboy weep a littlequietlyat home.No one takessides; theyfollowthe law, and forforty-twodaysnoonemay prayto thegods or consulta soothsayerabout his illness.InProfessorAllport'ssensethereis no public opinion situation.No one can besaid to "favoror support"or to "disfavoror oppose" "some definitecondi-tion, person,or proposal of widespread importance."The only politicalfeelingthepeople possess is in favorof thepreservationof the pattern.NotHow do I feel? orHow does mygroup feel?,but How doesthisissuefitin?That is theonly question.It is as if thebody politicto which a new issue had to be referredineach of thethreetypesof societymightbe likened to threetypesof officialsto whom one applied forsome relaxationof a regulation.The firsttypewouldact as he felt,accordingto whetherhe liked or dislikedtheapplicant,whetherhe wishedtoappear to be a jollygood fellow,whetherhe fearedtheconsequencesin termsof a rebuke from a superior,etc. The second typewould referhisbehaviorto suchconsiderationsas thathe and the applicant



11/13


12/13

had stolenit and takenit homewiththem.Theydecidedto makeit intoonemoresymbolin termsofwhichtheycouldscoreofftheothermoiety.Atthe nextinitiation,the maskwas dulytreatedas a mystery,housedin aspecialhouse,thenovicesof theothermoietywereallwhippedbeforetheycouldseeit.Afterthisit was dulyentrenchedas partoftheinitiatorysystem.As a thirdcontrast,considerthisproblemarisingin a Balinesemountainvillage:Can thevillagepriestesswearblackandwhitestripedvelvet?Sheis a sacredperson,surroundedwithtaboosconcerningwhatshe maydaretowear,eat,carry,whomshemaysafelyvisit,underwhattypeof roofshemaysafelysleep.It is a good pieceofcloth,butcan shewearit? The matteris referredtothosewhoare wisein thelaw, andtheirdecisiontakesintoaccount(a) all blackclothis forbiddento religiousfunctionariesin thatvillage;(b) silk is forbidden;(c) thisclothis neitherall blacknorexactlysilk.Can she wearit? Oncetheproblemis settled,legalistically,in termsofhow muchblackmakesa pieceof clothblack,howmuchsoftnessmaybeassumedto beanalogoustosilk,sheis stillfreetowearit or not.But if thedecisionis incorrect,she herself-notthe village,not her kin, but sheherself-willbe punishedbytheGods,and in anycase no one else will beinterested.The slightestbreakin thepatternmustbe viewedwithgreatcaution,and ifadoptedmustbe rationalized.13

It maybeobjectedthattheseinstancesare curiouslyincomparable;inonecase I describetherejectionof an imponderablebitofmagic,in thesecondcase the incorporationof an alienreligiousobject,and in thethirda decisionaboutwearinga pieceof cloth.ButI canplead,in extenuation,thatI amfollowingherethefactsas I knowthem.SocietiesliketheArapeshwhichdependupontheemotionalorganizationoftheirmembersto integratetheirinstitutionscan affordto risktheimportationofwholeinstitutions,whereasmoretightlyorganizedsocietieshaveto finda formalplacefortheimportation,whiletheBalinesehabituallydeal withitemsofcultureinsmalldiscretebits.AlthoughI have,forpurposesof clearerexposition,distinguishedthesethreetypes,it mustnot be supposedthattheclassificationsare mutuallyexclusiveorthattheyexhaustthepossibilities.The societyof Zunimaybe

13So a Brahmanpriestin Balihasbeenforbiddenfromtimcimmemorialto walkunderrunningwater,and Balineseroadsarefrequentlycrossedbyirrigatingaqueducts.As motorroadswerebuiltandpriestsfaredfurtherafield,gettingout and climbingsteeproadbanksbecamemoreand moreof a nuisance.And now one famouspriesthas decidedthathemaysitin a closedcar andnotgetoutwhen thecargoesunderan aqueduct,becausethecarisreallyhishouse,and he is noton the road at all.

PRIMTIVE OPINION MECHANISMS 15


13/13

said to lie between that of latmul and Bali; they possess a series of cross-cuttingand overlapping groups, as do the latmul, but their emotionalinvolvementin any group is much less, and theyrelya great deal, as do theBalinese,upon devotionto an impersonalpattern.Buitunlike the Balinese,the judgmentofoneman upon hisneighboris continuallyinvoked-amongthe Zuni-as a socially regulatingmechanism,and so public opinion is aconstantlypresentnegativesanction,slowing down and preventingaction.But thetermsin which a judgmentis renderedin Zuni are reminiscentofthe impersonallegalism of Bali. For example, a Zuni familymurderedaNavajo guest.This was articulatelycondemnedbecause the man who com-mittedthe murderdid nothave theceremonialrighttokill people.CONCLUSIONThis briefconsiderationof divergentsocial systemssuggeststhat eachof the differenttypesof appeal to public opinion or ignoring of publicopinionwhich we findin modernsocietypresupposesa differentrelation-shipbetweenthecharacterformationof the citizen and thepoliticalsystemof which he is a unit.Each appeal: "How do you personallyfeelaboutthis?""EverymemberofX groupwill ofcourse support . . ." or "The Y groupare supportingthis,thereforeyou, as a memberof the opposed X group,mustoppose!" "The proposedchange will introducesuch and such discrep-anciesin thelegal structureuponwhichour societyis based"-each of thesedesignatestherecipientof theappeal as a differentsortof politicalanimal.Inan integratedprimitivesociety,one typeof appeal is reiterateduntil itbecomes a factorin furtherintegratingthe individuals.In our diverseanddisintegratesociety,the incommensurabilityof these typesof appeal maypossiblystimulatesomeindividualsto criticalthoughtwhich transcendsanyof them.But it is even more possible that a continuedexposure to suchincomparableassumptionsmay be an importantinfluencein the fragmenta-tionand distintegrationoftheaverage citizen.Bajoeng Gede,Bali,NetherlandsEastIndies.

x6 The PUBLIC OPINION Quarterly,JULY I 9 3 7

margaret mead public opinion mechanisms among primitive peoples (2)

Documents