Micropolitics and Segmentarity Overview
The concept of segmentarity describes human beings as segmentary animals, with segmentarity inherent to all aspects of life. Life is spatially and socially segmented across various domains, including dwelling, where houses are organized with rooms designated for specific purposes; movement, where city streets are planned according to their structure; work, with factories configured based on their operational nature; and play, where leisure activities reflect the segmentation of society.
Types of Segmentarity
Segmentarity can be classified into three types: binary, circular, and linear. Binary segmentarity encompasses dual categories such as social classes, gender (men/women), and age groups (adults/children). In contrast, circular segmentarity organizes life into expanding circles that include personal affairs, neighborhood matters, city issues, and national and global concerns. Additionally, linear segmentarity represents episodic progressions, where education might signal a transition with the phrase, "You're not at home anymore," while the military asserts, "You're not in school anymore."
These segmentarities are interconnected, influencing one another, and manifest differently among various individuals or groups. Ethnologists studying primitive societies have noted that their segmentarity often lacks a central state apparatus or global power mechanisms, leading to flexible segments that allow movement between fusion and scission, promoting considerable communicability among disparate entities characterized by a polyvocal code derived from local lineages and seasonal activities.
In modern state societies, segmentarity is also apparent but tends to be more rigid. The relationship between segmentarity and centralization is significant; the state enforces its distinct segmentarity while classical biological oppositions serve as metaphors to contrast segmentarity and centralization. Within modern segmentarities, we can identify characteristics of rigid versus supple segmentarity. Rigid segmentarity features independent binary oppositions such as social classes, often propelled by technology, resulting in circular segmentarity forming concentric hierarchies, while linear segmentarity becomes standardized, homogenizing space into rigid structures that inhibit organic mobility. Conversely, supple segmentarity coexists with rigid segmentarity, allowing for fluid overlaps and distinctions of individual identities within collective frameworks, where both forms intertwine and affect one another amid complex societal dynamics.
Power Dynamics in Segmentarities
Modern bureaucracies illustrate how fragmentation can foster creativity and adaptability despite rigid frameworks, as seen in innovative practices that challenge top-down structures, notably portrayed in Kafka’s depiction of bureaucracy. Additionally, the distinction between fascism and totalitarianism is crucial, with fascism allowing for micro-fascisms that arise from social affiliations, such as neighborhood or family ties, which influence broader political systems and may lead to totalitarian regimes. The machinations of power reveal that power movements are multifaceted, stemming from macro-decisions and micro-political interactions, and the interplay between mass movements and class structures is pivotal in shaping political outcomes.
In conclusion, micropolitics captures the complexities of local-level actions and perceptions that reflect broader societal dynamics. The interrelationship between social classes and masses unveils nuanced political landscapes shaped by an amalgamation of segmentary and centralizing forces.
