TWO MAJOR TYPES OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION MAY BE IDENTIFIED: THE TECHNOLOGICALLY COMPLEX RICH SOCIETY (TCRS), AND THE TECHNOLOGICALLY SIMPLE POOR SOCIETY (TSPS). IN A TCRS THE FAMILY IS NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL, WELFARE FUNCTIONS ARE STATE-PERFORMED, INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS TEND TO BE SHORT AND UNSTABLE, VOCATIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY ARE HIGH, AND LARGE-SCALE BUREAUCRATIC OPERATIONS DOMINATE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF LIFE. CONVERSELY, IN A TSPS, FAMILIES ARE OFTEN EXTENDED AND SYMBOLIC, RELATIONSHIPS ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY RESTRICTED, VOCATIONAL MOBILITY IS LOWER, SOCIAL ASSOCIATIONS ARE STABLE AND LOCAL, AND MOST ACTIVITIES TEND TO BE INDIGENOUS AND DECENTRALIZED. IN THE TSPS, CITIZEN CONFRONTATION WITH LARGE-SCALE BUREAUCRACY IS USUALLY LIMITED TO WELFARE AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES (FAMINE RELIEF, PUBLIC WORKS). DISPUTE PROCESSING MAY TAKE THE FORM OF ADJUDICATION, MEDIATION, OR AVOIDANCE. ADJUDICATION RELIES ON THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION AND IS BASED ON COERCIVE POWER. AS SUCH IT MAY BE INFLUENCED BY A WIDE VARIETY OF EXTRINSIC FACTORS AND REQUIRES EXPERTISE IN RULES GOVERNING SOCIAL CONDUCT AND OFTEN ALSO IN RULES REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF DISPUTE. ADJUDICATION TENDS NATURALLY TO BE ALIENATING. MEDIATION, WHILE ALSO REQUIRING THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION, DEPENDS UPON THE CONSENT OF THE DISPUTANTS TO PROPOSALS OF ACCOMMODATION. MEDIATION DOES NOT RELY UPON COERCIVE POWER, BUT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE MEDIATORS SHARE THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL EXPERIENCES OF THE DISPUTANTS AND THAT MEDIATORS BRING TO THE DISPUTE-PROCESSING SITUATION AN INTIMATE AND DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE DISPUTANTS. AVOIDANCE RELIES UPON LIMITING OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG DISPUTANTS SO THAT THE DISPUTE LOSES ITS SALIENCE. THE COST OF AVOIDANCE IS ALWAYS A REDUCTION IN THE CONTENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP WHICH HAS BEEN TRUNCATED OR TERMINATED. IN A TSPS, ADJUDICATION AND MEDIATION WILL TEND TO BE AT THE LEVEL OF FACE-TO-FACE GROUPS SUCH AS KIN UNITS, FACTIONS, OR VILLAGES. AVOIDANCE TENDS NOT TO BE USED BECAUSE OF ITS HIGH SOCIAL COSTS. CONVERSELY, IN A TCRS, AVOIDANCE WILL HAVE TOLERABLE COSTS, WHILE ADJUDICATION AND MEDIATION WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE BECAUSE OF THE COERCIVE AND ALIENATING NATURE OF THE ONE AND THE NEED FOR SHARED EXPERIENCE IN THE OTHER. NEIGHBORHOOD MOOT SYSTEMS BASED ON EXPERIENTIAL AND ATTITUDINAL SIMILARITY, AND RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION BOARDS BASED ON THE ABILITY TO FORCE COMPLIANCE, WILL CONSEQUENTLY BE DIFFICULT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE. NEIGHBORHOOD COURTS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTERS MAY BE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE PREREQUISITES OF ADJUDICATION AND MEDIATION AND MAY BE MORE VIABLE. HOWEVER, AVOIDANCE WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE MOST LIKELY RECOURSE TO DISPUTE PROCESSING. SUBSTANTIAL REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.