Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:39:35.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patrons, Patronage, and Political Parties*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Alex Weingrod
Alex Weingrod
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What is meant by “patronage”? The term appears with increased frequency in anthropological analysis. Indeed, it has become a major concept in the study of peasant societies, somewhat analogous to the concept of the “big man” in certain kinds of chiefdoms, or “fission and fusion” in lineage-type societies. There is, however, considerable ambiguity in the meaning given to the term. Consider, as examples, the following three excerpts from recent anthropological studies:

Patronage is founded on the reciprocal relations between patrons and clients. By patron I mean a person who uses his influence to assist and protect some other person, who then becomes his “client”, and in return provides certain services for his patron… Patronage is thus the complex of relations between those who use their influence, social position or some other attribute to assist and protect others, and those whom they so help and protect.

Type
Patronage and Parties in Political Structure
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , July 1968 , pp. 377 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Boissevain, Jeremy, “Patronage in Sicily”, Man, Vol. 1, Number 1 (1966), p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Campbell, J., Honour, Family and Patronage (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1964), p. 260.Google Scholar

3 Mayer, Adrian, “Quasi-Groups in the Study of Complex Societies”, in Banton, M., Editor, The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies (New York, Frederick A. Praeger, 1966), pp. 113–114.Google Scholar

4 deCoulanges, Fustel, The Ancient City (New York, Doubleday Anchor Books, no date), p. 255.Google Scholar

5 Foster, George, “The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a Mexican Peasant Village”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 63 (1961), p. 1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Wolf, Eric, “Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relations”, in Banton, M., Editor, op. cit., p. 17.Google Scholar

7 Pitt-Rivers, J., The People of the Sierra (London, Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1954), p. 140.Google Scholar

8 Key, V.O, Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups (New York, Thomas Y. Crowell, 1964), p. 348.Google Scholar

9 Sorauf, F., “The Silent Revolution in Patronage”, in Banfield, E., Editor, Urban Government (New York, The Free Press, 1961), pp. 309–310.Google Scholar

10 Silverman, Sydel, “Patronage and Community-Nation Relationships in Central Italy”, Ethnology, Vol. IV (1965), pp. 183–184.Google Scholar

11 The analysis presented here follows along “structural lines”. Patronage has also been interpreted in terms of “values” and “value orientations”. For recent examples of patronage examined in terms of values, see Foster, G., “The Dyadic Contract in Tzintzuntzan, II: Patron-Client Relations”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 65 (1963), pp. 1280–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Boissevain, J., op. cit.Google Scholar

12 Silverman, S., op. cit., p. 188. Several of the ideas presented in this article follow from “leads” in Silverman's work.Google Scholar

13 Lattimore, Owen, Inner Asian Frontiers of China (Boston, Beacon Press, 1962), p. 284.Google Scholar

14 For example, see Boissevain, , op. cit.Google Scholar; Campbell, , op cit.Google Scholar; Foster, , op. cit.Google Scholar; Kenny, M., “Patterns of Patronage in Spain”, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 33 (1960), pp. 14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, , op. cit.Google Scholar; and Wolf, , Peasants (New York, Prentice Hall, 1966).Google Scholar

15 Kenny, M., op. cit., pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

16 For example, see Bendix, R., “Social Stratification and the Political Community”, Archives Européennes de Sociologie, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1960), pp. 181–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Eisenstadt, S.N., “The Causes of Disintegration and Fall of Empires”, Diogenes, Number 34 (1961), pp. 82–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Several recent examples include: Apter, D., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1966Google Scholar); and Zolberg, A., Creating Political Order (Chicago, Rand, McNally, 1966)Google Scholar. See also Geertz, C., The Social History of an Indonesian Town(Cambridge, MIT Press, 1966).Google Scholar

18 Weiner, M., “India's Two Political Cultures” (Mimeo), 1964, p. 21.Google Scholar

19 Shils, E., “Mass Society and Its Culture”, Daedalus, Vol. 89 (1960), p. 288.Google Scholar

20 Shils, E., “The Theory of Mass Society”, Diogenes, No. 39 (1962), p. 50.Google Scholar

21 An interesting “dialogue” regarding political parties and political “integration” can be seen in the contrasting views of Zolberg and Apter. See Apter, D., Ghana in Transition (New York, Atheneum, 1963)Google Scholar; and Zolberg, A., op. cit.Google Scholar

22 From Fiori, Giuseppe, Vita di Antonio Gramsci (Bari, Editori Laterza, 1966), p. 13.Google Scholar

23 Lannou, M.Le, Patres et Paysans de la Sardaigne (Tours, Arrault, 1941), p. 13.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 13.

25 For an analysis of “ritual kinship”, see Mintz, S. and Wolf, E., “An Analysis of Ritual Co-parenthood (Compadrazgo)”', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 6 (1950), pp. 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Wolf, E., “Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society: Mexico”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 58 (1956), p. 1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Fiori, G., op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar

28 Schmidt, Carl, The Corporate State in Action: Italy Under Fascism (New York, Oxford University Press, 1929), p. 37.Google Scholar

29 LaPalombara, J., Interest Groups in Italian Politics (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1964), p. 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Mayer, Adrian, op. cit., especially pages 102–114.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., p. 116.

32 This general problem is usefully considered in Closed Systems and Open Minds: The Limits of Naïvety in Social Anthropology, edited by Gluckman, Max (Edinburgh and London, Oliver and Boyd, 1964).Google Scholar

33 The general question of the relationships between political and social anthropological studies is discussed in my article, “Social Anthropology, Political Sociology and the Study of New Nations”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. XVIII, 06 1967, pp. 121–134.Google Scholar

34 Spiro, H., “The Primacy of Political Development”, in Spiro, H., Editor, Africa. The Primacy of Politics (New York, Random House, 1960), p. 153.Google Scholar

35 Bailey, F.G., Politics and Social Change: Orissa in 1959 (Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1963).Google Scholar