No King, but Many Connections

Networks and the Individual in Inuit and Melanesian Societies

Introduction

In traditional Inuit societies, there was no chief, no courts, and no police force. Yet society held together through deep and complex networks of obligations, reciprocity, and the sharing of goods, expertise, and helpfulness. The individual had to actively build and maintain relationships in order to survive and thrive. A similar structure can be found in Melanesia, where the so-called bigman institution has been studied—a social system without formal leadership, in which individuals gain influence through networks rather than inherited office.

Inuit Network Structure: Becoming through Relationships

In Inuit tradition, a person’s social life begins with naming. A newborn is often given the name of a deceased person, thereby continuing not only a name but also a set of social bonds and obligations. These name ties link the child to kinship, hunting partnerships, and moral responsibilities. The child is born into a circle of relationships, but must learn to activate and expand them through sharing, collaboration, and social attentiveness.

A man could gain social weight through hunting skills and generosity—not by accumulating wealth, but by distributing his catch. Every gift, every shared piece of seal meat, was an investment in future help, respect, and security. Obligations extended not only within the family but gradually to the entire settlement and eventually to neighboring groups and even strangers, who were invited into the network through hospitality and exchange.

The Role of Women: Light, Warmth, and Craftsmanship

While men’s networks were built through hunting and sharing, women’s contributions were equally vital—though less visible to the outside observer. Inuit women were masters of needle and thread. Clothing, tent skins, and footwear were made with extreme precision, tailored to climate, movement, and function. A skilled seamstress could elevate her family’s prestige and forge connections, as good equipment meant life and survival. Sewing skills thus also represented a form of social capital.

Even more symbolically important was the woman’s role as keeper of the lamp—the qulliq—the oil lamp that lit and warmed the home. Tending the lamp was both a practical and spiritual responsibility. The woman was charged with nurturing the flame, providing light and warmth, and quite literally keeping the community together during the winter darkness. The lamp also featured in ritual contexts and, in traditional stories, was associated with the cycle of life and the maintenance of balance in the world.

Bigman in Melanesia: Network Power without Inheritance

In Melanesia, especially Papua New Guinea, there exists a social figure known as the bigman. He is neither elected nor born into his role but emerges through his ability to attract followers, organize feasts, and distribute gifts during large ceremonies, such as those in the moka system. A bigman gathers pigs, shells, and other valuables, which he strategically gives away to secure supporters and expand his network. When successful, his prestige and influence grow— but all can be lost if he fails to maintain alliances, repay obligations, or perform generosity convincingly.

Just as in Inuit society, each generation of bigmen must start from scratch. No one inherits another’s network. Social power is unstable and depends on ongoing maintenance and activation of relationships. This makes the system both flexible and vulnerable.

Comparative Perspective

Inuit and Melanesian societies share a number of structural similarities, despite geographical and ecological differences:

• No formal authority or hereditary offices
• Social recognition is generated through relational practice, not coercion
• The individual is a strategic actor, building networks through gifts, sharing, and social competence
• Each generation must reinvent social position—there is no automatic transfer

Key differences also stand out:

• Melanesia is characterized by competition and strategic rivalry among bigmen
• Inuit culture emphasizes harmony, emotional control, and the avoidance of direct conflict
• Inuit ecology requires mobility and flexibility, whereas many Melanesian settings are more settled and ceremony-intensive

Conclusion

There has never been a king in the Inuit world. Yet there have always been connections, obligations, alliances, and exchanges—as strong as any law, but often invisible to the naked eye. In this social world, the individual does not stand alone but must construct a position through action. This is true on the ice as well as on the Pacific islands. Inuit and Melanesians have taught the world that leadership and community can take many forms—and that networks, not necessarily coercive power, are among the fundamental principles of social life. For a related discussion of colonial power dynamics and identity, see our essay on postcolonial critique and its limits.