Reading Hierarchies and Inequalities in 'Egalitarian Societies'

What is it about?

In this paper, I read architectural landscape to illuminate otherwise hidden social realities within the Mandara Mountain's Societies commonly assumed to be 'decentralized,' 'egalitarian' and 'non-hierarchical.' I argue that hierarchy and equality in this zone seem to coexist within the same system, insofar as the egalitarian accents noted by many scholars are combined with an ostentatious exhibition of ambition and personal prestige which hardly correspond to the usual definition of an egalitarian society.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Our findings show that there is a potential for hierarchy within groups like those inhabiting the Mandara Highlands even though it is more or less expressed. Not only has the concept of egalitarian societies long ignored the inequalities of access to economic, political and sacred resources, it also seems inadequate to understand the current mode of construction inaugurated by the Montagnards ‘nouveaux riches,’ and the competitions between urban migrants to own the biggest and most beautiful houses. Furthermore, the architectural landscape must be seen, not as a passive receptacle, but as a true agent of socialization. Nor is it neutral: it results from the existence of differentiations and inequalities that are visible through it. It is also the final result of the choice of a human group as to its social organization. Moreover, building spaces and architectural artefacts are used to divide individuals, both spatially and visually, within a given society and, furthermore, imposes a relationship between society and nature. As such, they actively establish specific relationships between individuals, and between individuals and their living space; they affects peoples, their way of living and thinking, needless to say, their social behavior to the point of altering them, hence the relevance of the saying: ‘show me where you built your house and I will tell you what is your place in society.’ In this context, building space ceases to be a setting in which people express their identity and becomes an integral part of it; it ceases to be a language of silence in the sense of Edward Hall and becomes to varying degrees a nurturing or disputing social order.