Evans-Pritchard on War and Feuds - Essay Example

In order, to solve the conflicts between the two groups of people, consultations have to be made to reach an amicable agreement. However, it is important to note that violence and quarrels in society emanate from a certain source, either political or social.

            Evans Pritichard, in his work, argues that the nature of conflicts in the society do not necessarily have to be political, between two individuals, but a resultant of the contradictions and tensions in a structural system (Pritichard 1950). To elaborate his answers, he cites the example of communities living together in peace but circumstances in the society lead to their not being in a position to live a peaceful life.

            A notable example is his work is that of two brothers who were out grazing their animals, and the time came that they had to share a common water hole for their animals. Pritichard (1950) indicates that it was during a dry season and there was no other alternative, but to share the water hole to their animals’ satisfaction. In the process, a conflict arises between the two brothers who end up fighting over the water hole. The two wanted to access the water hole, yet none wanted the other to do it first. During the confrontation, the two brothers end up fighting; to an extent that one brother kills the other.

            Critically analyzing this situation, it is justified to argue that conflicts in the society are not resultant from two individuals with varying ideas, but the conditions in which the individuals live in the society. The causative agent of murder in this case in point is not that one brother hated the other, but because of the social strains- drought and inadequate water holes- that the two brothers fought. Were it not for the strains caused by the society, the two brothers would have probably visited the water holes, and consequently, walk home together (Pritichard 1950).

            The loss of the son, in the society, should not be blamed on the boy, or from the boy’s tribe, but on the strains that the society placed on them. Since members of the community will always find themselves in gatherings, it is important that they devise ways of solving conflicts, as there is a great possibility that feuds may occur in such instances.  In this context, therefore, it is warranted to argue that war and feuds need not have components of varying political views but the focus must be put on the social aspect of the society.

            Conclusively, Pritichard (1950) indicates that society has a great role to play in the governing of the society. If the political aspect of the society fails, then the social aspect comes into place. By this, he means, that the society must devise strict structures that have to be followed, lest the society relies on the leadership of the clans to run its affairs. From this argument, Pritichard (1950) aims to bring out the view, that society plays a great role in the running of society. Society determines how conflicts will be solved, how resources will be shared amongst others. In this viewpoint, feuds and war are products of contradictions within society.