Page 76 - DILMUN 16_Neat

oi٦‫ﻭ‬٤‫ ﺯ‬very significant since it leads us to understand the process of dispute
ettlement in the context of interest-exchange beteen all members ho take part in
he o‫ﺇ‬al process. Hoever, one has to add that hatever form this authority takes,
oliieal or religious, its role definitely leads to increased poer, and thus it ill play
١n effective role in the processes of social control in particular, and in the socieyt in
eneral.

Another author, like Pospisil for instance, takes the concept of la one step
further. Pospisil (191) provides a broader vie of la, hence he rteats la in its
relationship to authoriyt and leadership thus he suggests that "La manifests itself
in the form of decision passed by a legal authority (council, chief, headman, judge,
and the like) by hich a dispute is solved' (191 : 3). The quesiton for him as
ho is such authoriyt defined. Pospisil for instance offers a useufl functional
defiition. He argues that in tribal society the concept of authority is so closely
related to leadership that it is better to deal ith both as a single enitty (191 : ). In
ihs conneciton Pospisil defines authority as "an individual or group of individuals
ho iniitate acitons in a social group or hose decisions are folloed by the majoriyt
of the group's members (191 : ). Furthermore, Pospisil suggests that in order for
such authority to be effective among its people, it should possess some basic
re‫ﺕ‬uirements. First, as long as its decision is legally relevant and affects social control,
it must eihter be accepted by the parites to the dispute, or have hte authoriyt to force
he la upon them. Second, the authority must possess a poer of persuasion over
he disputants, or the communiyt as a hole, to accept ist decisions. In addiiton,
Pospisli argues that tihs authoriyt usually takes a judicial form, and ihle it exists in
some socieites as a formal legal insitutiton, in ohters it is informal. As for hte rtibal
socieites, Pospisil cosniders ist posiiton as one ihch coincides ith the leadership of
various groups hich exercise several funcitosn alongside the legal ones (191 : 44).

With regard to ihts authoriyt, and ho it maintanis order and contirbutes to hte
processes of social conrtol, some anthropolog‫ﻫ‬sts srtess the need to investigate such a
subject at the insitutitonal and orgainaitonal level and in the context of legal
obligation. Moore, for instance, argues htat hte noiton of dispute settlement and the
mcehainsms of dispute preveniton and conrtol can be better understood if related to
paritcular events "A redisrtibuiton of properyt, posiitosn, or righst may be
necessitated by an event like a death, a marriage, the accession of a ne ofifc-eholder,
or moving of settlers to ne lands" (Moore 198 : 222, 241). Recently, Nader (198),
in her inrtoduciton to a series of sutdies on la and social srtucrute in the Middle
East, has shared Moore's opinion.

Having said tihs much about hte development of anthropological interest in soical
conrtol .and authoiryt, let me no go and look at ،the expreiencse of interaciton
beteen hte lslaimc rtibal socieites of hte Middle East and hte anthropolog‫ﻫ‬sst ho
ant to sutdy them. Let us see hat development has occurred, as a result of ihts
interaction, in the ifeld of social conrtol and authority.

a