The village then is full of unresolved disputes. The strong are safe so long as they are strong. Now that violence is suppressed with ever increasing efficiency by the State, and straight filching or recovery of land by force is well-nigh impossible, most claims simply lie dormant. In the past disputes were settled by strength, either the relative strength of the contenders, or in some cases, the perhaps slightly less partial strength of the village leaders. Not, of course, that recognised rights had no moral weight. The ability to mobilise strength depends at least to some degree on public approval and acceptance. A reputation for impartiality and respect for others' rights is often one element in the strength of the leaders. But nevertheless the weak had no guarantee, and even nowadays strength and wealth carry their own moral justification, and usually have things their own way.
This calls to mind the paradox, `ordered anarchy' (Evans- Pritchard (1940) p. 181), applied to a very different society. The order in fact depends on diffuse or informal sanctions: reciprocity, self-help and public opinion. People can only enjoy the help, social intercourse and friendliness they need if they offer help, social intercourse and friendliness to others. They are tied to each other by all kinds of relationship; by agnatic, non-