Sorrows of Savage Warrior

Pierre Clastres

One cannot think of primitive society, I recently wrote,

without at the same timethinking of war. Inherent in the primitive social being, an immediate and universalgiven of its mode of operation, warlike violence appears in the Savages’ universe asthe principal means of maintaining this society’s non-division, of maintaining eachcommunity’s autonomy as

single totality,

free and independent of others: war, a major obstacle erected by Stateless societies against the machine of unification that is theState, is part of the essence of primitive society. One might as well say, consequently,that all primitive society is warlike: hence, the ethnographically establisheduniversality of war in the infinite variety of known primitive societies. If war is asocietal attribute, then warlike activity functions as a determining factor of the male being-in-the-world: in primitive society, man is, by definition, a warrior. An equationthat, as we shall see, when brought to light, illuminates the frequently and oftenfoolishly debated question of social relations between men and women in primitivesociety.Primitive man, as such, is a warrior; each male adult is equal to the warlike function,which, though it allows - even calls for - acknowledged differences in individualtalents, particular qualities, personal bravery and know-how (in short, a hierarchy of prestige), it excludes, on the other hand, any unegalitarian disposition of the warriorson the axis of political power. Warlike activity does not tolerate, any more thaneconomic activity or social life in times of peace, the division of the warrior community — as in all military organizations — into soldiers-performers and chiefs-commanders: discipline is not the principal force of primitive armies; obedience is notthe first duty of the basic combatant; the chief does not exercise any commanding power. For, contrary to an opinion that is as false as it is widespread (that the chief hasno power,

except in times of war

the warrior leader is at no moment of theexpedition (preparation, battle, retreat) in a position — should such be his intention — to impose his will, to give an order which he knows ahead of time will not be obeyed.In other words, war does not, any more than peace, allow the chief to act the chief. Todescribe the true figure of the savage chief in his warrior dimension (what use is a war chief?) requires special treatment. Let us note for now that war does not open a newfield in the political relations between men: the war chief and the warriors remainEquals; war never creates, even temporarily, division in primitive society betweenthose who command and those who obey; the will for freedom is not canceled by thewill for victory, even at the price of operational efficiency. The war machine, byitself, is incapable of engendering inequality in primitive society. Travelers’ andmissionaries’ ancient chronicles and ethnologists’ recent work concur on thisobservation: when a chief seeks to impose his own desire for war on the community,the latter abandons him, for it wants to exercise its free collective will and not submit

to the law of a desire for power. At best, a chief who wants to act the chief is shunned;at worst, he is killed.Such, then, is the structural relationship primitive society generally maintains withwar. Now, a certain type of primitive society exists (existed) in the world in which therelationship to war went far beyond what was said above. These were societies inwhich warlike activity was somehow subdivided or overdetermined: on the one hand,it assumed, as in all primitive societies, the properly sociopolitical function of maintaining communities by ceaselessly digging and redigging the gap between them;on the other hand, it unfolded on a completely different level, no longer as a politicalmeans of a sociological strategy — letting centrifugal forces play themselves out inorder to ward off all forces of unification — but indeed as a private goal, as

thewarrior’s personal end.

War at this level is no longer a structural effect of a primitivesociety’s mode of operation; it is an absolutely free and individual enterprise in that it proceeds only from the warrior’s decision: the warrior obeys only the law of his desireor will.Would war, then, be the sole affair of the warrior in this case? Despite the extremely personalized aspect of warlike activity in this type of society, it is rather clear that itdoes have an effect on the sociological level. What new figure does the twofolddimension that war assumes here assign to the social body? It is upon this body that astrange space — a foreign space — is outlined; an unforeseeable organ is attached toit:

the particular social group constituted by the ensemble of warriors.

And not by the ensemble of men. For not all men in these societies are necessarilywarriors; all do not hear the call to arms with equal intensity; only some realize their warlike vocation. In other words, the warrior group is made up of a minority of menin this type of society: those who have deliberately chosen to devote themselves, fulltime, so to speak, to warlike activity, those for whom war is the very foundation of their being, the ultimate point of honor, the exclusive meaning of their lives. Thedifference between the general case of primitive societies and the particular case of these societies appears immediately. Primitive society being warlike by essence, allmen there are warriors: potential warriors, because the state of war is permanent;actual warriors, when, from time to time, armed conflict erupts. And it is precisely because all men are always ready for war that a special group, more warlike than theothers, cannot differentiate itself from the heart of the masculine community: therelation to war is equal for all. In the case of “warrior societies,” however, war alsoassumes the character of a personal vocation open to all males, since each is free to dowhat he wants, but which only some, in fact, realize. This signifies that, in the generalcase, all men go to war from time to time, and that, in the particular case,

some men go to war constantly.

Or, to say it even more clearly: in “warrior” societies, all men goto war from time to time, when the community as a whole is concerned (and we are brought once again to the general case); but, in addition, a certain number amongthem are constantly engaged in warlike expeditions, even if the tribe for the time being finds itself in relative peace with neighboring groups: they go to war on their own and not in response to a collective imperative.Which, of course, does not in any way signify that society remains indifferent or inert before the activism of its warriors: war, on the contrary, is exalted, the victoriouswarrior is celebrated, and his exploits are praised by all in great festivals. A positiverelation thus exists between society and the warrior. This is indeed why these societiesare distinctly warlike. Still, it will be necessary to elucidate the very real and2

unexpectedly profound relationship that links a community such as this to the slightlyenigmatic group of its warriors. But where does one find such societies?We should first note that the warlike societies do not represent a specific, irreducible,immutable essence of primitive society: they are only a particular case, this particularity having to do with the special place occupied by warlike activity andwarriors. In other words, all primitive societies could transform themselves intowarlike societies, depending on local circumstances, either external (for example,neighboring groups’ increased aggressiveness, or, on the contrary, their weakening,inciting an increase of attacks on them) or internal (the exaltation of the warlike ethosin the system of norms that orders collective existence). Furthermore, the path can betraveled in the opposite direction: a warlike society could very well cease to be one, if a change in the tribal ethic or in the sociopolitical environment alters the taste for war or limits its field of application. A primitive society’s becoming warlike, or itseventual return to the classic, previous situation, pertains to specific, local history andethnography, which is sometimes possible to reconstitute. But this is another problem.Becoming warlike is thus a possibility for all primitive societies. Assuredly, then, allover the world, throughout the course of the millennia that this primordial mode of human social organization has lasted, there have been warrior societies here and there,emerging then disappearing. But naturally it would not be enough to refer only to thesociological possibility of all primitive societies becoming warlike societies, and tothe probability of such an evolution. The ethnologist, fortunately, has access to rather ancient documents in which warlike societies are described in great detail. He mayeven be lucky enough to conduct fieldwork among one of these societies, a rareoccurrence and all the more precious. The American continent, as much in the Northas in the South, offers a rather large sampling of societies which, beyond their differences, have a remarkable commonality: they have, to varying degrees, pushedtheir warlike vocation quite far, institutionalized brotherhoods of warriors, allowedwar to occupy a central place in the political and ritual life of the social body,accorded social recognition to this original, almost asocial form of war and to the menwho wage it. Explorers’ reports, adventurers’ chronicles, missionaries’ accountsinform us that such was the case with the Huron, the Algonkin and the Iroquois; morerecent narratives have been added to these old accounts, confirming them: thenarratives of Indian captives, official American documents (civil and military), andthe autobiographies of vanquished warriors, speak to us of the Cheyenne and theSioux, the Blackfoot and the Apache.Just as bellicose but less well-known, South America provides anthropologicalresearch and reflection with an incomparable field of study constituted by the GrandChaco. Situated at the heart of the South American continent, this austere and vasttropical region covers a good part of Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia. The climate(very contrasting seasons), the hydrography (very few rivers), the flora (abundance of thorny vegetation adapted to (he scarcity of water) combine to make the Chaco veryhomogeneous from the point of view of nature. But it is even more so from the pointof view of culture; it stands out on the South American ethnographic horizon with thesharpness of a determined cultural area. Of the numerous tribes that occupied thisterritory, most of them, in effect, illustrate perfectly, no doubt better than any other society, what is habitually understood by warlike culture: war is the activity mosthighly valorized by society, it is the quasi-exclusive occupation of a select number of men. The first Spanish Conquistadors, who, having barely reached the edge of the3