A repost from December 2018:
In this piece the sting is in the tail, starting just before the jump.
From Inference Review:
Philip Carl Salzman is Professor of Anthropology at McGill University.
The men surrounding me, in turbans, beards, long jamag shirts, and baggy shalwar pants, asked, “How big is your tribe?” They thought it must be large and powerful, to provide security for me so far from home. One asked, “Is America farther than Tehran?”
It was just about fifty years ago that I picked up a Land Rover at the factory in England, drove across Europe, Turkey, and Iran, to take up residence in Iranian Baluchistan, on the border with Pakistan.
After much support from Nezar Mahmud, the brother of the chief of the Shah Nawazi (formerly Yarahmadzai) tribe, I set up my baby blue canvas tent at the end of the line of black goat-hair tents of the Dadolzai brother-lineage, or brasrend. Descent-based groups were described by the term rend, literally meaning line, encompassing lineages of all sizes, from small families up to the tribe itself.
In this desertic, treeless land, we were surrounded by stony and sandy plains, and craggy, black volcanic hills, with the active volcano Kuh-e Taftan looming in the background.
When I told the men that we did not have tribes or lineages, they were puzzled.
“But what do you do if someone attacks you?”
“We go to the police.”
They burst out laughing. “Who would defend you against the police?” they wondered out loud. They knew that the police in Iran did not work for them; they worked for the state—and for themselves, of course.
What these Baluch tribesmen knew, they knew on the basis of their cultural premises and their experience in their sociopolitical environment. This is how most of us know. The broader perspective of the historian or the anthropologist is rare and mostly not very practical in everyday life.
The Baluch knew that without their lineages, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” as Thomas Hobbes put it.1 For them, the tribe was the largest group with which they identified, and within which they expected some degree of social and political solidarity. But the tribe was by no means the only descent group with which they identified and within which they expected solidarity.
Descent groups of all sizes, including the tribe, were called by the same term, rend, and each group from the small to the large claimed identity and solidarity. Though defined by descent from a common ancestor, the Dadolzai being the descendants of Dadol, these groups were only called into existence in a conflict with groups of a comparable magnitude and structural equivalence.
The commandments of tribal life are, one, always support your kinsmen; and, two, always support closer kin against more distant kin. The Baluch looked to their kinsmen for security and welfare. Lineage mates should always defend their kinsmen against attack, and seek restitution or vengeance for loss or injury. They should come to the aid of their kinsmen in need, whether from illness, economic loss, or bereavement.
Two cases that I observed:
The first was that of a Dadolzai, Baluch Shakar, who, many years earlier, had married a Kurdish woman and moved to Kurdish territory, on the slopes of Kuh-e Taftan, some fifty kilometers from the home territory of the Dadolzai.2 One of his adult sons, named Mahmud, had fallen into conflict with a Yarahmadzai from the Kamil Hanzai lineage, over a kid owed to his younger brother. There was an altercation, and Mahmud chipped a tooth, half a blood injury, and was said to have bled from his ear the next morning.
Baluch Shakar and Mahmud had no lineage supporters anywhere nearby, and were afraid that there would be further conflict with the Kamil Hanzai. All members of a lineage are considered responsible for the acts of any one of them, and retaliation can legitimately target any member of the group. Baluch Shakar decided that prudence was the better part of valor, so he would move back home, where his kinsmen would provide support and deterrence for potential attackers. With the help of a party of Dadolzai, Baluch Shakar and his family packed up their tents, rounded up their livestock, and moved back to Dadolzai territory, joining a herding camp there. He was accepted, for the Dadolzai recognized that they had to support his family in this conflict.
The second case was of another Dadolzai, Sab Han.3 Decades earlier, as a young man, he had left Yarahmadzai territory, a hard desert land where two out of every five were drought years. In 1935, the government had suppressed predatory raiding of caravans and Persian peasant villages, and the tribesmen at the time were struggling to survive. Sab Han had ventured all the way across Pakistan to the Sindh, where he took up work as an agricultural laborer. He married, had children, and got into debt. His kin, who had remained in Iranian Baluchistan, had improved their economic situation, and in the 1970s they hatched a plan to bring him back. They collected 10,000 toman from lineage mates near and far, and with this money they paid off his debt and set him up with household equipment. They loaned him livestock and arranged marriages for his daughters. And so in the spring of 1976, Sab Han and his family returned home to his Dadolzai kin and joined their herding camp.
These two cases illustrate that, when you are in trouble, help, whether political or economic, is most likely to come from your lineage mates.
The Dadolzai was just one of the descent groups to which its members belonged. The Dadolzai was a face-to-face group, with a membership of between 50 and 150 souls, and so designated a brasrend, or “lineage of brothers.” The Dadolzai all knew each other personally, having interacted through a variety of activities over the years. Furthermore, the Baluch, like most Middle Easterners, are endogamous; Dadolzai had married among themselves. Members of the brasrend not only were descended from a common ancestor, but for the most part lived together, cooperated economically, prayed together, supported one another in conflict, and married one another. Many overlapping ties bound them together: descent through the male line, matrilineal ties through mothers, affinal ties to in-laws through wives, a common place of residence, common religious congregations, collaborative work groups, and common defense and vengeance groups.
The Dadolzai were also members of larger descent groups—defined by ancestors farther back in the genealogy—the Nur Mahmudzai, the tribal section Soherabzai, and the tribe, Yarahmadzai. At any particular moment, one might count oneself as part of one group or another; this depended upon who one’s opponents were. The relevant group would be of the same order as the opposing group.
A case I was on hand to observe will illustrate:
The Dadolzai were in their summer location at Gorani in the Mashkil, where they grew date groves. Mahmud Karim had laboriously cut down a date palm and prepared the trunk to be used as a roof timber for a mud brick hut he was building. He had left it behind, to transport later. But someone from the neighboring community, of the cousin lineage Kamil Hanzai, had taken the trunk. Karim was furious, determined to form a war party to retrieve his property. The elder of the Dadolzai, Jafar, ordered that a war party of a dozen men should retrieve the trunk, but without invading the settlement or confronting the Kamil Hanzai unless absolutely necessary. This was done and shortly thereafter the headman of the Kamil Hanzai came to see Jafar to find a resolution to the conflict. The incident was conceived as Dadolzai versus Kamil Hanzai, two cousin brasrend facing off against one another, with lineage war parties ready to fight.
At the same time, another incident of much greater import was taking place. It began with something small: a camel ate some dates off a palm. But this minor depredation did not pass unnoticed. The owner of the tree secured the camel and demanded payment when its owner came to collect it. Words were exchanged, and then blows. The camel owner came off worse.
What made this small incident dangerous was that the two disputants were from different tribal sections, the Soherabzai and the Rahmatzai.
But what really lit the fuse was the next encounter. Some Rahmatzai, angry at the treatment of their fellow, happened upon some Soherabzai who were waiting for a ride. Among those they roughed up was a distinguished and respected elder of the Soherabzai. The Soherabzai saw this as completely inappropriate and condemnable. The Dadolzai and the Kamil Hanzai, who had the day before been on the verge of fighting one another, now saw themselves as Soherabzai, ready to fight with the members of the offending Rahmatzai.
Word came that a party of Rahmatzai was forming to fight, and would meet them at a neutral mound outside of the grove settlements. The Dadolzai, Kamil Hanzai, and other Soherabzai gathered together a war party of perhaps a hundred men, old and young, infirm and robust, armed with sticks, rocks, brass knuckles, knives, and other low-level weaponry. I accompanied them, camera ready, both hopeful of seeing a genuine conflict and fearful that my friends might be injured. But the Rahmatzai never showed up.
***Group identities are activated by who the opponents are. Anthropologists call this complementary opposition, or balanced opposition. Its function in a tribal, or segmentary, lineage system is to guarantee some degree of equivalence between opponents. It maximizes deterrence, in the interest of peace. Thus, in this case, men who may have thought of themselves as individuals or family heads one day, on the next day thought of themselves as Dadolzai, and the day after, as Soherabzai. Lineage groups are activated contingently, usually in the case of conflict and in response to the affiliation of the opponents.
Whatever the level and scope, however, lineage mates are obliged to stand together. Lineages that stick together are admired. They are patopak, with solidarity, as opposed to those that do not, which are considered beatopak, without solidarity.4
Tribes and lineages are security and defense groups. All men, except for a few religious figures, have security and defense obligations. All men are, therefore, warriors, ready to fight in defense of their lineage and their tribe.
Conflicts with surrounding tribes are not soon forgotten. The ancestor of the Dadolzai, Dadol, was among a number of Yarahmadzai ambushed and killed by members of the Rigi tribe, to the north. Clashes with the Kurds centered in Kuh-i Taftan gave the Yarahmadzai control of the Khash plain. There have been multiple conflicts with the Gamshazai, to the south.5 One measure taken to limit such conflicts is marriage between the chiefly families of neighboring tribes.6
Courage and willingness to fight are culturally embedded traits, and easily transferable from defense to offense. Before conceding to Reza Shah’s armies in 1935, the Yarahmadzai were great raiders. Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer titled his book about his Indian Army expedition against the Yarahmadzai Raiders of the Sarhad, and in it he asserted that “the tribes literally live by raiding.”7 From Baluch informants and from ample documentary evidence, we know that the Yarahmadzai raided Persian peasant villages in Kerman Province, as well as commercial caravans travelling between Persia and India and herders in the western border region of British India.8 They carried off grain, carpets, livestock, and captives.
In Baluchistan, even in good years, the land produced little, and drought was a regular feature. Any shortfall was made up by income from raiding. Some captives were kept as agricultural and domestic slaves, and perhaps sex slaves; others were sold in southern Baluchistan. A few captured young girls were married by their captors, who avoided paying bridewealth by this means. Walli Mahmud of the Dadolzai, an elderly man when I met him, had gone on a raid as a teenager, and carried back a girl that he married. She was, at the time of my fieldwork, a great-grandmother and a matriarch of the Dadolzai.
It would be misleading to say that the Yarahmadzai Baluch was a typical tribe, because tribes differ in important respects.9 Sizes varied, for example. The largest Baluch tribe was no more than 5000-strong, while the great Zagros tribes of western Iran, the Qashqai and Bakhtiari, ranged between half million and a million.10 There were other differences. The Baluch struggled in a stony desert, the Zagros tribes enjoyed a more temperate environment, and the Yomut Turkmen lived in a verdant plain.11 While the Baluch produced mostly for their own subsistence consumption, Zagros tribes and many Bedouin tribes were more market oriented.12 The degree of tribal engagement with, and control by, states also varied over time and circumstances, and from tribe to tribe.
However, all these tribes have certain features in common. Some I have already discussed. They are organized into corporate groups, commonly lineages based on descent through the male line. These groups are related through balanced opposition, in which closer kin unite to oppose more distant kin. And there are other features. The means of coercion—weaponry, fighting skills, riding animals—are distributed evenly throughout the male population. Men are jurally equal; group decisions are made collectively through discussion in each group. One of the primary capital resources, namely pasture, is freely accessible to all members of the tribe, as are natural water sources. Many decisions, for example in regard to livestock, are individual and left to the individual.
Tribal organization is collective, democratic, egalitarian, and decentralized. These are the important features, found among the Baluch, the Turkmen, the Bedouin, the Nuer, and many other tribal peoples.13
Tribal organization is also segmentary, which means that people are divided into many groups of the same size and characteristics. When such a society is based on descent, it is said to be a segmentary lineage system. Each segment is charged with security and can operate as a defensive and offensive military unit. Because these societies do not have a leader or ruler, they are called acephalous. There may, of course, be men of distinction, and a title to designate them: a Bedouin tribe might have a Sheikh, Baluchi tribes each have a Sardar, Persian tribes have a Khan.14 But mobile, armed tribesmen cannot be ruled by an individual or a family.15 At most, Sheikhs and other distinguished men are considered first among equals. Their function is mediation and the resolution of disputes, both internal and with outsiders. Mediation reduces the political friction that can be so dangerous to the unity of the tribe.
It is only when a tribe is part of a strong state that an independently-enforced hierarchy of chiefs can arise.16 It is at that point that stratification between the elite families and ordinary tribesmen emerges, and a chief can, to some degree, rule tribesmen. The power of the state imposes a hierarchy of authority on a tribe and weakens the tribal organization.
Tribal segmentary lineage systems provide order without a political hierarchy. Edward Evans-Pritchard famously described this arrangement as “ordered anarchy.”17 Social control is imposed through balanced opposition, and deterrence provided by norms of retaliation and vengeance.
Every society needs order. Only predictability allows people to gauge the consequences of their acts, and thus to act purposefully. Without order, neither social relations nor the production and exchange required for an economy are feasible. Tribal organization provides that order.
But tribal organization performs other important functions....MORE
And as noted in the introduction to 2020's "Tribalism":
The title of this piece was "Is Tribalism a Natural Malfunction?" but that seems an incorrect characterization.
It's all about trust, which is one of the reasons globalists have a problem convincing ordinary people to share their grand dreams and visions. Many of the things globalists have promised turned out not to be true so people go to the population size they feel they can trust.
Can't trust the U.N. after the Oil-for-Food frauds and the Rwandan genocides? Let's try nation-state.
Can't trust nation-states because one part of the populace cheats or shows themselves to be hypocrites?
(And
it is this very point, Orwell's “All animals are equal, but some
animals are more equal than others.” where globalists lose the masses)
Let's try states.
And then city-states and if you can't trust your fellow metropolitans we'll go with blood relations, first tribes and if there are schisms there, to immediate family. Consanguinity and all that.
Tribalism isn't a "mal" anything, it's a survival mechanism for when you really, really have to increase the odds that you will be able to trust another person....
