The Hausa System of Social Status

Transcription

International African Institute
The Hausa System of Social Status
Author(s): M. G. Smith
Source: Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jul., 1959), pp.
239-252
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International African Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1157614 .
Accessed: 25/10/2013 22:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Cambridge University Press and International African Institute are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Africa: Journal of the International African Institute.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:41:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[239]
THE HAUSA SYSTEM OF SOCIAL STATUS'
M. G. SMITH
TN this discussionof the forms of Hausa social placementI wish to directattention
to the important sociological problems connected with status distribution. The
Hausa affordexcellentillustrativematerialfor this purposesince their society, which
lays great stress on status,is neithertribalnor modernbut roughly midwaybetween
these extremes.
Social placement refers to the general position which an individual occupies in
the society to which he belongs. A systemof social statusis meantonly to imply that
such particularplacementstend to have a common basis and an hierarchicalform.
In studying status systems we try to discover the principles which regulate this
rankingarrangementand to see how one statusis relatedto another.We must therefore begin by isolating those conditions which are socially recognized status determinants.Next we must seek to determinetheir interrelations;and only then can we
usefully consider the form, function, or meaning of the current status structure.
Clearly,we cannotfollow this procedureif we begin with definiteassumptionsabout
the form or nature of the status system under study. I shall thereforeuse this term
merely to delimit a generalareaof inquiryand shall leave the problem of its definition until later.
The Hausa are a large heterogeneouspopulation,most of whom live in Northern
Nigeria. They are Muhammadans,they live mainly by farming, and are organized
into kingdoms of varying size. Their skill in trade and handicraftsis well known,
but their society remains unfamiliar.I shall therefore discuss the various Hausa
status conditions in more detail than might otherwisebe necessary.
The capital city of each Hausa chiefdom or state is its economic and political
centre, but outlying districtsmay have their own capitalsat which the local chiefs,
markets, and mosques are situated. In some cases these outlying districts were
hereditaryvassal chiefdoms of larger states. More commonly they were simply the
subordinatelocal units of such states.
There are now perhapsabout ten million Hausain Northern Nigeria, where they
occupy the north-west quadrantof the Federation. There are also many Hausa in
adjoining French territory. Their eastern neighbours are the Kanuri or Beriberi,
who formerly exercised suzeraintyover Hausaland.To the south there are many
small non-Muhammadantribes, from which the Hausa formerly recruitedslaves by
tribute and force.
ETHNIC DIFFERENCES
Hausais a linguistic term which distinguishesthe Hausa-speakingMuhammadans
from other majorlinguistic and culturalgroups quite adequately;it is misleadingin
I The substance of this paper was presented to the
1958 Conference of the Nigerian Institute of Social
and Economic Research which met at Ibadan last
December. I am grateful to Professor R. H. Barback,
Director of the N.I.S.E.R., for permission to publish
it here.
240
THE HAUSA
SYSTEM OF SOCIAL STATUS
other contexts. Ignoring the offspring of slaves for the moment, the Hausa are really
an association of two ethnic groups, the Habe and the Fulani. Each of these groups
shares traditions of common origin with some other people who do not fully belong
to Hausa society. The Habe have non-Muhammadan cousins who are known as
Maguzawa, or pagan Hausa, scattered through their territory. Those Fulani who
now belong to Hausa society have nomad kinsmen called Bororo, whose way of
life precludes their incorporation into any one state. With such diverse affiliations
all around them, Habe-Fulani ethnic differences could hardly lack importance in
Hausa society, but these ethnic differences are especially important for historical
reasons.
Most Hausa states of Northern Nigeria now have Fulani rulers, and almost all
these acknowledge the Sultan of Sokoto as their suzerain. The Fulani empire of
Sokoto was established by a jihad or Holy War of 80o6-Io when Shehu dan Fodio,
a Fulani religious leader, overthrew the Habe kingdoms and appointed Fulani lieutenants to govern them. Fulani domination over the Habe dates from this period,
but a few Habe kingdoms managed to remain independent, despite territorial losses,
until the Europeans arrived. These independent Habe states include Daura, Abuja,
and Argungu in Nigeria and Maradi in Niger. These four states still have Habe ruling
classes and differ from other Hausa societies accordingly. Wherever Fulani rule,
Fulani is the dominant ethnic status; where Habe rule, this is not so.
In Hausa states with Fulani rulers Fulani often use the term Habe to denote all
Muhammadan natives who are not Fulani. Occasionally they even speak of subordinate pagan tribes in this way. This usage of Habe denotes a residual category
which includes Muhammadans of slave descent as well as those descended from the
free Habe (s. Kado, f. Kaduwa) whom the Fulani conquered. In the four Hausa states
with Habe rulers, ethnic designations are far more precise, and the Habe distinguish
other groups, such as the Bugaje or Beriberi, besides themselves and Fulani.
Among both Fulani and Habe an individual derives his ethnic status from his
father. Thus, the child of a Fulani father by a Gwari slave woman was a Fulani. Since
the mother would normally be the man's concubine, the child would be born free,
and, under Muhammadan law, the mother would also be free on her master's death.
Habe have identical customs in this respect but, since their ethnic classifications are
more specific, they avoid some of the problems which arise among Fulani.
In using the term Habe to denote non-Fulani Muhammadans, Fulani restate the
distinction between rulers and ruled in ethnic terms. It follows that persons holding
positions of authority are, or should be, Fulani in those states which Fulani rule. The
following data from Zaria illustrate the tendency for Fulani to monopolize office.
In 1945 there were 589 Native Authority officials based on Zaria city. Of these 344
were classified as Fulani, 186 as Habe, and the remaining 59 were Southern Nigerians
engaged in technical work. In Zaria Muhammadan Habe outnumber Fulani by two
to one, but among these N.A. officials the reverse is true.
Even so there are several qualifications. Ignoring the Southerners, one-third of the
N.A. staff were Habe, so that the rulers were by no means all Fulani. Yet, since the
Fulani are regarded as rulers, many people in authority, although of different origin,
tend to be classified as Fulani. Instances of this occur most easily in those families
which have retained political prominence over two or more generations. Thus,
THE HAUSA SYSTEM OF SOCIALSTATUS
241
despite its ethnic basis, the term Fulani has come to have a political referencelike
its antithesis,the term Habe.
Habe may also be assimilatedto Fulaniby affiliationthrough their Fulanimothers.
Fulani women sometimes marrytheir kinsmen'sHabe clients. They may then give
theirchildrentheir own lineagemarks(zane). By assimilationto theirmother'slineage
these childrenare also assimilatedto the Fulaniethnic group, and, even if they have
marginalstatus, their childrenare simply Fulani.
Even in those Hausa states with Fulani rulersmost of the Fulani population lack
officialposition. Thus, even if most of the personsholding office are Fulani,most of
the Fulanibelong among the ruled.Despite popularusage, therefore,the term Fulani
has widely differingpolitical and ethnic references.The usage which ignores these
differencesproducesa classificationwith uncertainstatus implications,and does not
distinguishany recognizablesocial strata.
DESCENT AND LINEAGE
The same kind of qualificationsapply to lineage or other descent groups. Among
Habe and Fulanialike,political prominenceand patrilinealdescent go together; but
the political history and present prospects of a unit determinethe significanceof
descent within it as well as its form. This holds true of dynastiesas well as other
descent-groups.Under the rules of succession observed by Fulani and Habe alike,
only the sons of a past ruler are eligible to succeed him. Despite certainlapses, this
principlealso governed eligibility for those subordinateoffices of state which were
hereditaryin set lineages.
In the Habe state of Daura, most of the hereditaryoffices were held by slave
lineages. In Fulani Katsina also, certain positions such as Turaki have been vested
in slave lineages for generations; but the Fulani seem to have made less use of
hereditaryoffice in their government than the Habe. This Fulani reliance on open
recruitmentto office has made political competition more intense, and this, in turn,
increasedthe splinteringeffectof differentialrank-distributionin the Fulani lineage
structure.The splinteringprocessinvolves a progressiveisolation of those politically
successful descent-lineswithin each lineage or dynasty, and thus reduces lineage
solidarities,the content of lineage membership,and the significanceof lineage status.
The status gradient produced by rank and lineage is finite and steep. Obscure
descent-linesare generallyforgotten after one or two generations,and even descendantsof dynastiesmay lose royalstatusin this way. Thus the Suleibawawho formerly
ruled Zariaare no longer counted among the dynastiesof that state.
Under Muhammadanpractice,inheritancenormally involves the subdivision of
estates. This leaves little room for corporate lineage property and facilitates the
economic differentiationof descent-lines.Since office has always been the principal
road to wealth among the Hausa, the economic differentiationof descent-linesgoes
hand in hand with their political differentiation;but offices vary widely in their
levels of remuneration,andthe descendantsof an importantofficial,therefore,occupy
economic and political positions very differentfrom their lineage cousins whose
fathers held lesser rank or none at all. Since these differencesaccumulateover the
generations,lineages include descent-linesof widely differentsocial status. Accordingly, lineage membershiphas an uncertainstatus significance.
R
242
THE HAUSA SYSTEM OF SOCIAL STATUS
THE POSITION OF SLAVES
After 1807 Daura was split into two kingdoms, one Habe and the other Fulani.
In both these kingdoms the royal slaves held several importantoffices,and in Habe
Daura many of these were hereditarypositions. Both the Habe and Fulani rulers
gave their daughtersin marriageto the leading slave officials.The childrenof princesses by their slavehusbandswere free membersof the husbands'lineages,and were
thus ineligible to hold slave titles. In i906, when the throne of Fulani Daura fell
vacant, a new chief was selected and installedby the royal slaves without any free
officialsbeing consulted. In Habe Daura, during the last century,the slave officials
were sufficientlypowerful to have chiefs dismissedand appointedas they pleased.
Such slave officialsclearly occupied a higher status than many free persons, including large sections of the royal lineage, and were wealthierand more powerful.
Many had slaves of their own and freemenamong their house-servants,while their
children were both slave and free. Their authorityextended to both status groups
alike. When they committed abuses these had to be borne in patience, since these
officialswere agents of the chief. In realitytheir position was as near the converse
of slaveryas we can imagine; and, since the rulerwas by far the largest slaveholder
in each kingdom, these privileged royal slaves were a significantproportion of the
slaves in any Hausa society. The position and privileges of other slaves also correspondedwith those of theirowners. For this reasontherewere no slave rebellionsin
Hausa society throughout the last century, despite considerableturmoil among the
free population.Between i870 and i880, the Fulani rulersof Zariaappointedslave
generalsto commandstandingarmies,as much through fear of internalrevolt as for
defence againstinvaders.The slaves were thereforeoften freer than the free.
The ratio of privileged slaves varied with the relative size of the free and slave
sectors of Hausasociety. These sectorsalso variedin relativesize from stateto state.
In Zariathere were probablyas many slaves as free persons. In Daura considerably
less thanone-quarterof the populationcould be classifiedas slaves.In Zariaimportant
office was generally reserved for free persons. In Daura the rulers relied on their
slaves more heavily. In both states, however, the majorityof the slaves lacked the
privilegesof free persons,so that slaveryalso variedwidely in its statusconnotations.
Purchasedor capturedslaves could be punishedor disposed of by their owner as
he pleased.The childrenof maleandfemaleslavesbelongedto theirmother'sowners.
Slave femaleswere often taken by their owner as concubines.Slave marriagescould
be dissolved by slave-owners and had a special form: exchange (mutsaya).Firstgenerationslaves were rarelyMuhammadans,but their offspringwere brought up
in Islamand could neitherbe violently punishednor alienatedby their owners. These
second-generationslaves were linked to their owner's family by quasi-kinship,and
used the ordinarylanguage of kinship in addressand designation.The prohibition
on slave recruitmentunder British rule has left these relationsintact, wherever exslave and masterremainin contact.The ex-slaveor his descendantis still the master's
dimajo,while the masteris ubangiji
(fatherof the inheritance).Thus slaveryhas turned
into serfdom, and the dimajaiof today are describedby their mastersas talakawa
(commoners),bayi(slaves), oryanuwa(kinsmen)accordingto context.
In one sense these dimajaiare just as much slaves as ever dimajaiwere in the last
243
century. In another they are free commonerslike other talakawa,and at law they are
now formally responsiblefor their own offences. Few are readily distinguishable
from other MuhammadanHabe whose culture is now their own; but dimajaitrace
kinship mainly through their ubangii'sfamily since their own ancestors rarelyhad
other kin near by. Dimajaicannot traceagnaticdescent beyond their father'sfather,
and manycannotgo backeven thatfar.In consequencethe dimajoregardshis mother's
owner as his closest kin, and these uterine affiliationsproduce an appearanceof
bilateralityin the kinship of masterand slave alike. The intensity of this appearance
varieswith the relativefrequencyof such affiliations,and thatvaries,in turn, with the
relative size of the slave population. Thus, bilaterallinkages are more prevalentin
Zariathan in Daura,for example.In addition,commonersalso tracekinshipthrough
either parent,emphasizingmaternaland paternalties for differentpurposes.Lineage
organizationis virtuallyconfinedto the politicaleliteandMuhammadanintelligentsia.
KINSHIP AND STATUS
The constantelementsin this flexiblekinship system are its terminology,its rigid
rule of male precedence,its emphasison polygynous virilocal marriage,on agnation
as the basisof extendedfamilies,and on seniorityby birth-order.Womenandchildren
are legal minors, but after their marriagewomen are social adults with important
roles in family affairs.Special terms distinguish Ego's older siblings of either sex;
but only his elder brother, father, or father's brother can exercise authorityover
him.
Seniorityby birth-orderis thus the normalbasis of headshipin extendedfamilies,
and only men are eligible for such roles. Besidestheir legal incapacityto handlesuch
issuesasmarriageorinheritance,the women borninto anykinshipgrouplive with their
husbandselsewhereas dependants.In each household or compound,the senior male
but most householdsconsist of only one man,his wife or wives,
is the head (mai-gida),
and children. The senior mai-gidaof a group of agnates should live in the ancestral
compound and act as its head; but agnates are often scattered,agnatic kinship is
rathershallow,and the head of such an agnaticgroup receivesno officialrecognition
not alreadydue to him as a compoundhead. Under Hausapoliticalorganizationeach
compoundhead is formallyresponsiblefor his residentdependants,and juniormales
tend to be socially placed by referenceto their compound heads. The emphasison
seniority by birth-ordermay be a decisive factor in limiting the depth and span of
Hausa agnaticgroups, since this status-scalehas only a restrictedrange.
A kinship system is an order of interrelatedstatuses.These positions are defined
in standardterms by rights and obligations. Sanctionsof various kinds enforce the
rules of this system and the distributionof authoritywithin it is thus crucialfor its
form and continuityalike. Among the Hausa,kinshipauthorityis distributedon the
basis of sex, agnation,and seniorityby generationand age. Betweennon-kin accurate
age-reckoningis impracticable,and members of the same sex and generation are
regarded as socially equivalent provided other things are equal, which is rarely the
case. Age-placements are also modified by differences of economic or political
position, or birth-statusas slave or free. Thus age does not provide a general basis
for the rankingof men in Hausa society. Neither does kinship,which includes significant matrilateraland patrilateralas well as bilateralties.
244
THE STATUS PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN
Among women and even more so among children, seniority by age regulates
social placement far more consistently. Younger children must obey their seniors,
including non-kin. In children's play-groups, such as magi or kallankuwa,leadership
and authority are formally vested by titles in the older boys and girls, and youngsters
of noble parentage must wait until they are old enough to hold these children's
titles.
In these ways children adopt the age-principle observed among adults as the basis
of their own social placements; but this imitation radically oversimplifies the adult
status system and only among kin does it fit adult patterns exactly. Adult Hausa
either ignore the social placement of children, or else they vaguely equate particular
children with their fathers or compound-heads. Although the nobleman's child
should, therefore, rank above commoners, these differences of parental status are often
overlooked by adults as well as by children.
THE SOCIALPLACEMENTOF WOMEN
The distinction between child and adult overrides all other status considerations
among Hausa. Children form an undifferentiated status group with its own rules and
its own activities. The Hausa adult is or has been married. There is no concept of
celibacy in this society and no room for it. Young men and girls become adults
through the elaborate rite depassageof their first marriage. Until they wed they remain
children, whatever their age. After obtaining a divorce young persons may choose
to remain single. This condition is described as karuwanci(prostitution), and single
persons of either sex are referred to as prostitutes (karuwai,s. karuwa).Hausa society
treats marriage as the normal condition of adults and karuwai as deviants. Since
karuwanciis only possible for adults, that is, for persons who have already married,
the unwed youth or girl is doubly anomalous.
The differing legal capacities of men and women are matched by their differing
political, economic, and kinship roles. The sum of these differences is sufficiently
great to produce complementary sex-cultures which differ in content and form.
Differences in the regulation of status among men and women have an important
place in this cultural cleavage.
In Hausa polygynous marriage, the woman moves to her husband's home. Divorce
is easy and frequent and has long been so. Within polygynous households co-wives
are ranked in seniority by reference to their marriage-order to the common husband.
Differences of marriage-order take precedence among co-wives over other differences
such as age or parentage, but outside the household these other differences may have
more significance than marriage-order.
The average Hausa woman probably makes three or four marriages before the
menopause. Men may well average even more, since polygyny is widespread.
Under conditions of such marital instability spouses cannot share the same social
status. Indeed, the status differentiation of co-wives by reference to marriage-order
precludes their status identity with the common husband. Legally and politically,
this identity is also impossible, since women are wards of men. Moreover, since
divorce rates are high and spouses change frequently, marital careers are highly
245
individual and variable; accordingly,a man and his wife or wives are not treated as
status equivalentsbut sharplydistinguished.
A man's sons and male dependantswill be accorded a social position roughly
similarto that which he holds; but his daughterscannot be treatedin this way; and
his wives are even more clearlydistinguishedfrom him. There are, in fact, two quite
distinct statusorders,one regulatingthe social placementof men, the other applying
to women. Only within the special context of kinship are these two status orders
interrelated systematically,and this social function of the kinship system partly
determinesits forms.
Among the femalesthe criteriawhich govern socialplacementarethose of generation, age, marriage-orderto a common husband, ethnicity and descent, fertility,
maritalcareer,the position and prospectsof offspringand, to a lesser extent, differences of wealth. Apart from the fact that women of senior generation normally
have precedence,these statusvariablesdo not seem to be relatedin any simple consistent way. Thus, the commoner'swife or daughteris often the social peer or senior
of the nobleman's. Since this female status-orderis only related to the masculine
systemwithin the context of kinship,eachsex should have its own exclusivepatterns.
(s. kawa)are
Among women, this is found in the kawaand ranarelationships.Kawvaye
bond-friendsand social equals,who establishtheir relationsfreely with considerable
ceremonial.Although a woman may have severalkawaye,she should discriminatein
choosing them. The relationis markedby frequentexchangeof gifts and visits and
is highly formalized.Kawayemay differwidely in parentalstatus but should be of
similarage.
The two ranarelationsexpressstatusinequalitiesjust as strongly as the kawarelation expressesequality.In the ranarelationthe patronessis known as the uwarranaor
yayan rana,which means the 'adopted' mother or elder sister respectively. Thus,
kinshipprovidesthe model for statusinequalitiesamongwomen. The clientis known
as the kanwarranaof her patroness,that is, the ' adopted ' younger sister. When the
patronessis an 'adopted mother', the clients' functions are mainly menial. She will
threshand grind grainfor her patronessas required,and also carryout other manual
tasks.When the patronessis an' adoptedeldersister ', the client's servitudeis mainly
ceremonial,but she is obliged to consult her patronesson such mattersas divorce,
visits to magicians,marriagearrangements,the initiation of kawarelationships,and
the like. From time to time, the client receives gifts from her patronessfor the services she has rendered;andin eitherform of this relationshe remainsat the patroness's
beck and call. It follows that a kanwarranacan only have one patroness,although a
patronessmay have two or more kanwarrana.
Since these female clientage relations serve immediate ends, they presuppose
residence of the participantsin a common locality. In contrast, kawayebelong to
differentcommunitiesmore often than otherwise. This dispersalof kawayeis partly
due to their movements on divorce and remarriage,but since women must take the
greatestcare not to establishbond-friendshipswith women who are clients of their
bond-friendsor who are linked to such clients by bond-friendship,kawayeare chary
of forming several bond-friendshipswithin their own community. In consequence,
in no community do we find a neat division of women into two or more exclusive
sets of bond-friendslinked to one anotherby ties of clientage. Instead we find that
246
individuals have near by only one or two bond-friends, and perhaps a client also,
without further connexions. In this indeterminate field, such factors as generation,
wealth, descent, marital career and children's position have a varying significance
for status placement.
Since marriage is the only proper condition of Hausa women, it might seem that
all female prostitutes share a common status below that of married women. This is
not so. Hausa prostitutes (karuwai)fall into three socio-economic groups of differing
status. Firstly, there are the attractive young women who depend for their income on
property rental, trade, or gifts from a select clientele of affluent men. Less attractive
women, who maintain their independence by a combination of craft or retail earnings
and gifts from their friends, would seem to form a second group. Both these two
groups are to be found in the large towns, where karuwai congregate despite their
periodic dispersal by the local rulers. Karuwaiwho lack an urban clientele and other
means of livelihood, normally marry or go on tour in the rural areas, living in brothels
run by local women, who are officially responsible to the village-chiefs. These peripatetics form the third group of karuwai.
Hausa have ambivalent attitudes towards prostitution. It is formally disapproved,
since all women should be married. On the other hand, many married men court
prostitutes with offers of marriage, and many married women declare their envy of the
prostitutes' independence. The relative success with which individual karuwaimaintain or maximize this undefined independence provides the basis of their status placement and differentiation. The straitened circumstances of the peripatetics are evidence
of their failure, and they are more likely to accept marriage offers than any other class
of karuwai.Hausa disapproval of prostitution or female independence varies according
to its fruit; and the Hausa equivalent of our film-stars enjoys a corresponding position.
Since Hausa marriage varies in form, and marriage is the normal adult condition,
marriage form affects the social placement of Hausa women. Hausa marriages can be
classified as full purdah (auren kulle), incomplete purdah or partial wife-seclusion
(aurentsare), and no seclusion at all, this last form being known as aurenjahilai (the
marriage of the ignorant). Purdah has high prestige, aurenjahilai has little. Purdah
wives depend on others for the household wood and water supplies. Husbands seek
to provide these requirements by means of compound-wells or house-servants
(yaran gida, barori). Occasionally a purdah wife depends on her kanwarrana for these
services. Only women whose marriages do not involve seclusion can thus become
kanwar rana; but the patroness may also practise an equally free form of marriage.
Among women purdah confers prestige rather than status. It has clearer implications
for the social placement of husbands. This is not surprising, since it is men who decide
what form the marriage shall take, and they are responsible for its economic maintenance. Kawayemay practise quite contrary marriage forms.
The organization of status placement among women is not only quite independent
of the male status order but also much less important for the structure of Hausa
society, being both less systematic and less complex. Marriage places women in an
indeterminate kinship position. Wives are neither full members of their husband's
family nor of that into which they were born. Although relations of consanguinity
are lifelong, and marriage is impermanent, the rule that women should always be
married gives marriage precedence over descent among them.
247
THE RULERS AND THE RULED
Besides the differencesalready mentioned, the masculine status order embraces
two important principles which are not found in the status placement of women.
These are the principlesof rankand occupationalclass, which I shall now discuss in
that order.
One of the first things of which a strangeris told in Hausalandis the importance
of the distinction between the sarakuna(chiefs) and masu-sarauta
(officeholders)on
the one hand, and the talakawa(subjects, commoners) on the other. The rulers
exercise authority over the ruled and thereforehave higher status. The distinction
between rulersand ruled accordinglydivides Hausa society into two clearlydefined
social strata,the one subordinateto the other. As we have seen, the same basic idea
is sometimesexpressedin ethnic terms.
This classificationis based on political position, and has a clear status reference.
It is useful but has severaldefects.It appliesto women only indirectly,since they are
wards and political minors. It treats officialsas a homogeneous status group, when
they are highly differentiatedand span the entire range of Hausastatus.It treatssubjects and commonersas synonymous,when many subjectsare of noble descent,and
many officialsare commoners. It ignores the important status distinction between
those who hold officeon hereditarygrounds(karda)and those who arefreelyselected
It ignores the distinctionsbetween formallyappointedofficialsand others,
(shigege).
between those with territorialoffice of various kinds and others, between officials
with considerableauthority and their subordinates,between free and slave-born
officials, between royal officials and others, between free and slave-borntalakawa,
between royal subjectsand others. In short, it presentsan illusory antithesiswhich
breaksdown under examination.
Hausa officialsystems are virtuallycoextensive with their societies; they are anything but exclusivein their membership.Apartfrom the numerousdismissedofficials
in every state, each importantofficehas a complementof unofficialagents, known as
fadawa, through whom the officeholderrules. Most of these fadawa lack official
positions, but they belong with the rulers,none the less. So do all dismissedofficials
whose birth or past position is notable. In many cases dismissed officialsoccupy a
higher social statusthan currentofficers,and so do aristocratsand some others who
have never held office at all.
Because these official systems are coextensive with Hausa societies, officeholders
includepersonsdrawnfrom all significantstatuslevels; and in so far as the society is
highly differentiated,offices and their holders are also status-differentiated.Thus,
only princescan seek the throne, only slavesare eligible for slave offices.Only aristocratsmay compete for those officeswhich have come to be theirs, only the members
of learnedfamiliesare eligible for the legal and religious positions. The majorityof
fadawaare commoners,but their statusvaries with the rankof the officialthey serve.
In this way it sometimeshappensthat the client of a man who has never held office
may outrank the agents of some officials. The official system reflects the status
differentiationscurrentin Hausa society, but it can neither relate these to one another consistently,nor supply an invariableprincipleof social classification.Indeed
the officialsystem is quite marginalto the status placementsof women, and having
248
been in more or less rapid change in several states over the last 6o years it is neither
as uniform nor as consistent as it may seem.
During the last century most Hausa chiefdoms levied occupational taxes. Craftsmen, traders, farmers, and other producers were subject to special taxes which were
collected by officials appointed separately from each category. Thus, there was a chief
of the blacksmiths with his assistants, a chief of the weavers, and so on. In Fulani
chiefdoms, these occupational offices were mainly filled by Habe; and in all Hausa
states, they were quite clearly subordinate, being charged with tax collection and the
organization of supplies wanted by the chief. When the British reorganized Hausa
taxation and abolished these special rates, the order of occupational office simply
lapsed, but the occupational groups on which they were based remained unaffected.
This shows the error of defining social units in purely political terms.
THE SYSTEM OF OCCUPATIONAL CLASSES
Although agriculture is the basic Hausa industry, large numbers of men are
engaged in craft and trade. These occupations are often hereditary; children learn
their fathers' skills and follow their occupations. Hausa describe such hereditary
occupations as karda, and contrast them with those which are freely chosen by individuals. The latter are known as shigege,and the dichotomy is applied to political
office as well as other economic pursuits. Karda enjoys higher status than shigegeas
well as greater prestige. The karda distinction and status ranking indicate an occupational order in which most men follow in their fathers' footsteps and in which mobility
is quite low. Even today this is still true of Hausa society, and the superior status of
karda simply expresses the general preference for social continuity and for stability in
the status order.
The prevalence of kardaimplies the existence of a set of closed occupational groups
recruited by agnatic descent. Excluding migration, each group will, therefore, contain a number of descent-lines. Hausa describe the relations between these groups
in two ways. Those categories, which have close links, form an occupational cluster,
for instance, weavers, dyers, and needlemen who deal with cloth, or officials, merchants, and savants, who have common interests. Occupational groups are also ranked
in order of status (daraja),with the masu-sarauta(officials), the mallams and wealthy
merchants at the top, and the butchers, matweavers, drummers, praise-singers, and
buglers at the bottom.
It might seem that this principle of occupational classes provides the Hausa with
a single comprehensive basis for social stratification. This may in fact be so, despite
its many important deficiencies. Besides the categories just mentioned, there are
farmers, potmakers, blacksmiths, barber-doctors, commission agents, long-distance
traders (fatake), builders, dyers, needlemen, weavers, tanners, woodworkers, matmakers, and leather-workers of various kinds. The number of groups is too great to
form a series of independent social strata and, except in large cities such as Kano, the
groups are too small in size. There is in fact a limit to the number of strata which can
be structurally or functionally significant in any given society. However high we set
this limit, the number of Hausa occupational groups is well above it; and this ignores
the status distinctions between karda and shigege,as well as the awkward Hausa practice of pursuing several occupations simultaneously.
249
Even when membersof a single society attemptto rankthese occupationalgroups,
disagreementsresult; and these disagreementsare even greaterwhen we compare
rankingsmade by membersof differentHausa societies. Even so an impressiveconsensus obtains. All classificationsplace officials,mallams,and merchantsat the top,
in that order, and put musiciansand butchersat the bottom. None includes female
specialisms,of which there are many. At either extremeof these status scales, there
is a tendency towards class-endogamousmarriage;but this is modified by other
factors, including traditionalmarriagealliancesbetween occupationalgroups which
now occupy quite differentpositions on these scales, for example,the mallamsand
blacksmiths.
On the basis of such consensusas exists we can distinguish,as do the Hausa,three
or four social 'classes'. Sometimes the higher officials and chiefs are regardedas
constituting an upper 'class' by themselves, sometimesthey are grouped with the
mallams and wealthier merchants into a larger upper class. The lowest 'class'
generallydistinguishedincludes the musicians,butchers,house-servantsand menial
clients, porters, and the poorer farmerswho mostly live in ruralhamlets. The great
majorityof the farmers,traders,and other craftsmenwould, therefore,belong to the
Hausa 'middle-class'.
This model is consistent with several important patterns of Hausa society. It
embodies the popular distinctionbetween the poor (matsiyaci),the moderatelyprosperous (madaidaici),and the rich or powerful (attajirai or sarakuna). It probably
accords with the distributionof purdahand its two Hausa alternatives.It also provides a frameworkwhich fits the complex system of male clientage. By inference
or direct classification,we should place the menialclients and house-servants(barori)
in the lowest of these social classes, their patrons or mastersin the highest. Clients
who live in their own home and remaineconomicallyindependentof their patrons
would then belong to the moderatelyprosperousmiddle-class.This form of clientage
is known as mutumci,which means manhood or self-respect.Of course, it is quite
likely that some mutumciclients also have patronsin the middle-class.
The limitationsof this three- or four-classmodel of Hausa society are many and
various. It ignores the statusplacementof women entirely.It ignores the widespread
practiceof occupationalcombinations.It ignores the statusdifferencebetween karda
andshigege.
It ignoresthe factorsof ethnicdifference,descent,seniority,andhousehold
and
the differencebetween freebornand slave. It entirelyignores the way
headship,
in which thesevariablesarerelatedto one anotheror to the occupationalsystemwhich
is treatedas here dominant. In addition, this model assumes that officials form a
homogeneous statusgroup,whichis certainlynot the case. In treatingthe membersof
each occupationalgroup as statuspeersit ignores those distinctionsbetween old and
slave-bornandfree, ruraland urban,rich andpoor, which do
young, kardaandshigege,
not escapeattentionin Hausasociety. Moreover,this classificationis less precisethan
appears.Opinionsvary about the compositionof the middleand lower classes.Some
would place blacksmiths, matmakers,woodworkers, and some barber-doctorsin
this lower class, together with the specialistsin non-Islamicforms of magic. Others
assign these a middle-classstatus, separatelyor together. The basic weaknessof this
model is the assumptionon which it rests, namely, that all other things are equal.
Given their numberand variety, this can rarelybe so.
250
CONCLUSION
These data serve to distinguishtwo Hausa status orders,the male and the female.
Despite their differencesthey have certain common characteristics,though they
remainmutuallyindependent.There are several status variableswithin each order,
and neither is dominatedby any single factor, nor are the relevant factors within
each relatedto one anotherconsistently.Neither ordercontainsclearlydefinedsocial
strata,despite their tendencytowardshierarchicranking.
Hausamen would probablyagreewith these commentson the femalestatussystem,
but would deny their validity with regardto their own. Omitting the over-simple
dichotomiesof Fulani and Habe or free and slave-born,there remainsthe model of
Hausa society as a system of three or four occupationallydistinguishedstrata.This
model has great practicalvalue for Hausa,despiteits many deficiencies.It is at once
a descriptionof their society, a guide to behaviour,and a normativeframe. It says
that society has this form, and thereforethis is the properbehaviour.The sheercomplexity of the statusstructuredemandssome simplifiedguide; the models developed
to meet this need are, therefore,ideologicalratherthan analytic,and the criterionby
which they should be judged is that of utility ratherthan accuracyor completeness.
The system of occupationalclasseswhich Hausa adopt is a good working model of
their society becauseit is a reasonableapproximation.Are the most elaboratecurrent
analysesof stratificationin Western society anything more? Or is the model of a
segmentarylineage system an accuratedescription of that type of status order? I
would suggest, on the basis of these Hausadata,that over-simplificationis an essential featureof all useful models of statusstructures.The completelyaccurateaccount
would be too unwieldy for general use and too analyticto have much normative
value. But a statusmodel is not only an approximatedescriptionof the social structure. It is value-ladensimplybecauseit dealswith statusvalues. It is a sociallyessential frameworkof ideology. The simplerthe society,the greaterthe generalconsensus
about the appropriatemodel and the clearerits normativevalue: the more complex
the society,the greaterthe numberof competingmodels and the weakertheirnormative values. Membersof any complex society must have some reasonableimage of
their society which can serve as a guide in differentsituations.This guiding image
generally emphasizes status, because relative social positions are usually decisive
determinantsof interpersonalbehaviour. The status model is thus structuralin its
base and normativein its reference.Sinceit is difficultto makea single model which
gives full expressionto both these principles,no status model is ever structurally
accurateor a code of all social norms.
The occupationalmodel of Hausa society omits the status placementof women
entirely. We have seen that Hausa marriageprecludes the status identificationof
spouses and thatHausawomen are legal and politicalminors.Being sharplydifferentiated from men, they have a differentstatusorder.We cannot,therefore,agreewith
Talcott Parsons'sview that stratificationis coextensivewith society.' Hausa society
containstwo independentstatus orders,neitherof which is clearlystratified.
These Hausadatailluminatethe structuralprerequisitesof a comprehensivesystem
I Talcott Parsons, 'A revised analytical approach to the theory of social stratification', in R. Bcndix
and S. M. Lipset (eds.), Class, Status, and Power,Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, I953, pp. 92-I28.
25I
of social classes or stratification, such as Lloyd Warner seeks in America and Talcott
Parsons claims to be universal.x Such systems assume legal and political equality of
the sexes, bilateral kinship, lifelong monogamy, neolocal family organization, high
rates of occupational mobility, and the dominance of one or other of the current
status variables. Unless these kinship conditions are present and the sexes enjoy legal
equality, the exclusive status equality of spouses cannot develop and a single inclusive
system of stratification is thus ruled out. But even in such conditions, stratification
presupposes the hierarchic organization of status variables, together with scope for
positional change. It is perhaps in this respect that the contrast between the Hausa
and American status systems is most revealing. The American stress on occupation in
status placement makes individual achievement primary and defines social mobility
in occupational terms. The Hausa system of occupational status is almost the exact
reverse. It is almost wholly ascriptive in its orientation, since its units are closed
descent groups between which all movement is disapproved. In short, occupational
criteria vary in meaning and status significance according to the structure of the
occupational group. In Hausaland the occupational status model owes its currency
to the fact that it incorporates such ascriptive factors as descent and ethnicity.
The sharp difference between status and prestige among Hausa is also instructive.
The Hausa status model, like segmentary status models, is positional, quite independent of the numerous prestige classifications which Hausa make. As a positional
model it is a useful guide to social behaviour. The general tendency to equate status
and prestige in complex modern societies, such as Britain or the U.S.A., may perhaps
indicate the lack of general consensus for any simple positional model which may
serve as a general guide to social behaviour. Our inability to develop or operate such
a model for our own society should not blind us to the distinction between prestige
and status in others.
Resume
LE SYSTPiME DE STATUT SOCIAL CHEZ LES HAOUSSAS
LESHaoussasfournissentun excellentexemple de l'importancesociologique des distinctions
basees sur le statutsocial, carleur societe est intermediaireentre celle d'une tribu et la societe
moderne. Ils consistenten une associationde deux groupes ethniques,les Habe et les Fulani.
La plupart des etats haoussas de la Nigeria Septentrionale ont des souverains fulani, et
partout ou les Fulani gouvernent leur statut est dominant, mais ou les Habe gouvernent,
il n'en est pas ainsi, et les designations ethniques sont plus precises. Chez les Fulani, et
aussi chez les Habe, un individu tire son statut ethnique de son pere et l'importancepolitique marche de pair avec la descendancepatrilocale. Les esclaves royaux etaient charges
autrefois de fonctions importantesdans les royaumeshabe et fulani et leur statut etait plus
eleveque celui de beaucoup de personneslibres. Actuellement,on ne peut guere distinguer
les esclaves des autres Habe musulmans, sauf qu'ils associent leur parente principalement
a celle de la famille de leur maitre.
Les classes sociales des hommes et des femmes ont certainesparticularitescommunes,
mais elles sont neanmoins mutuellementindependantes. Ni l'une ni l'autre ne comprend
de couches sociales bien definies, en depit de leur tendance a se classer hierarchiquement.
Les epouses ne sont ni des membres ai part entiere de la famille au sein de laquelle elles
1 L. Warner et al., Social Clasrin America,
Chicago, 1949; and Parsons, loc. cit.
252
sont nees, ni de celle dans laquelle elles se marient, et elles sont considerees comme des
mineures, juridiquementet politiquement. Parmi les femmes, et surtout parmi les enfants,
la superioritede l'age determine,dansune tres grandemesure,le rang social. Les jeunesgens
et les jeunes filles, quel que soit leur age, restent des enfants jusqu'ace qu'ils se marient.
Le statut social de l'homme incorpore deux principes importantsqui ne se trouvent pas
dans celui des femmes, c'est-a-direles principes de rang et de categorie professionnelle.Un
rang hierarchique,suivant la profession, fournit un bon schema du fonctionnement de la
societe haoussa comme systeme de trois ou quatre couches sociales se distinguant d'apres
les professions de leurs membres. Ce systeme est d'une grande valeur pratique malgre ses
nombreuses insuffisanceset sert comme description de la societe haoussa et peut servir
de guide a un juste comportement. Une comparaisonavec les systemes qui existent en
Grande-Bretagneou aux Itats-Unis, avec leurs tendances a etablir un parallele entre le
statut d'une part, et le prestige et le succes personnel individuel d'autre part, montre que
le systeme haoussa est presqueexactementa l'oppose, car ses unites constituentdes groupes
de descendancefermes entre lesquels tout deplacementest critique.

The Hausa System of Social Status

Transcription

Similar documents

50. Teaching Hausa Language through Literature Haruna Alkasim

2006 Pre-Orientation Slide Show

Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the

Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative

Diagnostic assessment in Language Teaching and Learning

Sadowski

The Cont,ibution of Nicholas John Spykman to the Study of Inte

Evil and Omnipotence

Jeffrey L. Brudney and Robert E. England Source