Tribal Society and Its Enemies

Author(s): Richard Tapper

Source: RAIN, No. 34 (Oct., 1979), pp. 6-7
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3031891 .
Accessed: 03/05/2014 21:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to RAIN.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 105.158.213.203 on Sat, 3 May 2014 21:21:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I TRI BAL SOCI ETY
AN
I TS EN EMI ES
THELATEST ROUN DI N THE'GREAT GAME
OF ASI A
'Tribes' arewhat anthropologistsstudy,
but a 'tribe' is also avery specificform of
economicand political group.Theterm
hasbeen used in such a variety of ways
in social anthropology that, like 'race'
in physical anthropology, it has almost
ceased to be of analytical or compara-
tive value. Can we talk of 'tribal society'
as a particularstagein social evolution?
I s 'tribal culture' an identifiablecomplex?
Are'tribes' groupswith particularfeatures
and functions?Arethey found at
particularlevelsin a political structure?
Howfarcan 'tribes' or 'tribal groups'
be analysed in isolation from wider
political, economicand cultural con-
texts? Are 'tribes' the creation of
states? I s it useful to contrast 'tribal'
with 'peasant' society? 'tribalism' with
'feudalism', orwith 'ethnicity'? 'tribe'
with 'clan' or lineage' or 'state'? Are
'tribes' simplystatesof mind?
Thesequestionsarelivepolitical
issuesin many countriesof the world.
Many states, ignoringor sometimes
deliberately exploitingthe ambiguities
in the notion of 'tribe', adopt unfortunate
and often disastrouspoliciestowards
their'tribal' populations.
My purposehereis not to offer a
resolution of these problems',but to
report briefly on a recent conference
at which they wereconsidered in rela-
tion to two countries, I ran and Afghani-
stan.I n both, revolutionsin the last two
yearshavemarked a shift in the balance
of powerin Southwest Asia and perhaps
the world. At the sametime, in both
countriestherearenowsignsof the sort
of tribal resurgencethat has often in
the past accompanied political upheavals
such asthey arenowexperiencing.
The Shah of I ran, miscalculating the
strength of opposition to the secularism,
the excessesand the western orientation
of his regime, fell last winterto a genuine
popularrevolution and to Khomeini,
with a suddennessand completeness
that confounded the predictionsof most
experts2. I n Afghanistan,wherea palace
revolution in 1973 replaced the 200-
year-old Durrani monarchy with a republic
headed by the last Shah'scousin, the
government wasunableor unwilling to
put into effect its programmeof reform,
but heretoo the Soviet-backed military
coup in March 1978 camesoonerthan
expected.
I n mid-1979 both revolutionsarein
trouble. TheTaraki government at Kabul
hasnot merelyfailed to win popular
support but has rathermanaged to alien-
ate it. I t is probablytoo late for massive
Soviet militaryintervention, and the
socialist regimeseemslikely to be swept
away by an 'I slamic-tribal' insurgency,
the characterof whose organization and
leadership is asyet unclear.
I n I ran the fundamentalist and fanati.
cal leadersseem bent on replacing one
6
form of tyranny with another, while
the disparatepolitical elementsthat
united in theirsupport last winterare
now fallingapart. A majordifficulty
for the newI slamicrepublicthereis the
movement for autonomyby regional,
ethnic and tribal minorities. Substantial
numbersof pastoral nomads, settled
overthe last decadeor so, havenow
resumed theirformerway of life; tribal
leaderslong used to exile in the west
aresaid to havebeen welcomed back;
and 'tribalism' could well proveonce
again a powerful political forcein I ran.
Thehistorical and ethnographicback-
ground to these eventswas the theme of
a conference, 'Tribeand Statein I ran
and Afghanistan since 1800', held at the
School of Oriental and African Studies
in London in earlyJuly. The aim of the
conference3was to bring togetheranthro-
pologists, historiansand otherswho
had been studyingtribal societiesin the
two countries. Theinitial basisfor
comparison was the accepted viewof
tribal groupsthere(morethan in other
partsof the world) ashistorically invete-
rateopponentsof the state: they were
notoriousasmakersand breakersof
dynasties, and both countrieswere
ruled by dynastiesof tribal origins
until the twentieth century. But there
werewide variationsin social organiza-
tion between the different tribal
groups, and the basesfor variation
needed to be established.
Afghanistan and I ran present contrast-
ing picturesof basicphysical and cultural
geography. Dominant physical features
of I ran area central plateau and sur-
rounding mountain rangesand steppes.
Themain centresof settlement are
located in or on the fringesof the
plateau,the mountainsand steppes
being occupied mainly by minority
tribal groups, often Sunni Muslimsin a
predominantly Shiitepopulation. The
centreof Afghanistan, by contrast, is a
mountainousbackbone, and it is here
that arefound several tribal minorities,
including the ShiiteHazaras; the major-
ity Sunni population, including the
dominant, triballyorganized Pashtuns,
inhabit the surrounding steppes, hills
and plateaux.
I n otherways the historyand geo-
graphy of the two countriesbrought
them into the nineteenth century with
similarpolitical and cultural problems,
most significantly perhapson the frontiers.
I n 1800 both countrieswerebordered on
the north (in the Caucasusand Central
Asia) by semi-independent Khanates,
laterreplaced by the expanding Russian
Empire. On the west and south I ran
confronted the Ottoman Empireand
laterthe British; on the east and south
Afghanistan was soon to face British
I ndia.Both countrieswerethusinevitably
majorarenasfor the Great Gameof
Asia, and both had tribal frontierpopula-
tions which played prominent rolesin
the Game.
Persian was the languagemost under-
stood in nineteenth century I ran and
perhapsalsoin Afghanistan,but the
mnain tribal groups- aswell as the ruling
dynasties- werenot originally Persian-
speakers. I n I ran the rulingQajarsand
manyothertribal groupsspokeTurkic
languages, otherI ranian languagesdistinct
from Persian, such as Baluchi and Kurdish.
The Durrani rulersand the main tribal
groupsof Afghanistan werePashtospeakers,
while significant tribal elementsspoke
Turki, Baluchi and otherlanguages.
But in both countriesthe urban centres
weredominated by Persian language
and civilization, which often proved
strongerin the longrun than invading
tribal cultures.
The use of the terms 'tribe' and
'tribal' in the foregoing paragraphs has
concealed enormousdifferencesin social
organization. Perhapsthe most important
dimension of variation is economic. I n
I ran, the economicbaseof most tribal
groupswas some form of pastoral nomad-
ism. The city-based central authority
considered tribesand nomadssynony-
mous as a majorfocus of opposition.
The Qajarsthemselvessoon becamean
urban elite and othertribal groupsgrew
alienated from them, with no strong
reason or meansfor identifying them-
selveswith the Qajarsculturally or
otherwise. Tribal organization and
nomadism maybe seen as political and
cultural responsesto a condition of
alienation from and opposition to the
state, ratherthan as economicor
ecological adaptations. But it is unclear
how farthe stereotypeof tribesmen as
nomadshasits roots in the cultureof
settled I ranian society, in the self-image
of the tribesmen/nomadsthemselves, or
indeed merely in the perceptions
and writingsof foreign visitorsto the
country. Therehavecertainly been shifts
in perceptionsand self-perceptionsof
the tribes/nomads, particularly with
the recent suppression of both tribalism
and nomadism in I ran.
Afghan tribalism in general contrasts
with that of I ran, partlyin that it has
remained a strongpolitical force
throughout the twentieth century, but
also in that it hasnot been based on
pastoralism or nomadism. Politically
active('troublesome') tribal groupswere
more often settled villagersor traders
than pastoral nomads. Wheretribesin
I ran wereoften mobile for political
or cultural reasons, in Afghanistan
pastoral nomadism was an economic
adaptation. Most nomadsweretribal,
but many moretribesmen weresettled
than nomadic. Moreimportant than
nomadism or settlement as criteria for
political or cultural affilliationswere
ethnic and tribal identities. I n spite of
endemicconflict among different Pashtun
groups, the notion of the ethnicand
cultural unity of all Pashtunshaslong been
familiarto them as a symboliccomplex
of great potential for political unity. Of
all tribal groupsin I ran or Afghanistan,
the Pashtunshavehad perhapsthe most
pervasiveand explicit segmentary
lineageideology on the classicpattern,
expressed not only in written genealogies
but also in territorial distribution. Pastoral
This content downloaded from 105.158.213.203 on Sat, 3 May 2014 21:21:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nomadism wasnot thebasisfortribalism,
but tribalism hascertainly been an in-
dispensable modeof organization, what-
everitseconomicbase, forany group in
Afghanistan anxiousto maintain its
independence orto expand its frontiers.
I n both countries, thestart of the
Great Gamein thenineteenth century
checked both themartial ambitions of
therulers(and hencethespoilsthey
could offertheirtribal supporters) and
thedynasticambitions of thetribal
groupsthemselves. Russia and Britain
interfered, both to imposefrontiersand
keep them intact, and to keep dynasties
in power. Strongerrulersin each country
adopted similarpoliciestowardstheir
tribal subjects: they took hostagesfrom
and contracted marriage alliances with
chieflyfamilies, brokeup and dispersed
unruly groups, and formed standing armie
I n thepresent century, thefateof tribes
underthePahlavis (thefirst dynasty to
cometo powerin I ran formany
centuries without tribal support) con-
trastswith thecontinued dependence of
theDurrani rulersof Afghanistan on
tribal support. ThePahlavi regimeso
successfully undermined theeconomic
baseand political potential of thetribes,
that during thepresent decadeit could
increasingly direct publicattention to
tribal culturesaspicturesque and now
harmless relicsof a previousage. This
newattitude, undoubtedly influenced
by Western interest in theexotic,was
partially echoed in pre-revolutionary
Afghanistan in regard to themore
colourful aspectsof tribal life, but here
attitudesremained ambivalent in view
of thecontinuing importance of tribal
affiliations in many social and political
contexts.
Theseweresomeof theconsiderations
underlying thediscussions of theSOAS
conference. Participants camefrom
variouscountriesof Europeand N orth
America, but a majordisappointment
wasthat thesamepolitical develop-
mentsin I ran and Afghanistan which
madetheconferenceso topical (though
it had been planned in thepre-revolu-
tionary daysof 1977) also prevented the
attendance of several scholarsfrom both
countries, though out of thetwelve
paperstherewerevaluableonesfrom
someof theircompatriots resident here.
Thetopicality of theissues,and thefact
that many participants werereporting
on research in progress orfieldwork
recently completed, ensured thediscus-
sionswerelively. A welcomebreadth
of perspective wasprovided by a number
of non-regional specialists, notably
AndrewStrathern and Ernest Gellner.
I t wasGellnerwho suggested thetitle
(borrowed forthisarticle) forthebook
in which it is hoped to publish the
conferencepapers.
Two filmswerealso shown during
theconference. Thefirst wasGrass,
theclassicearly documentary on the
Bakhtiari of southwest I ran.I ntroducing
thefilm, David Brooksdiscussed howthe
makerswereunawareof eitherthe
ethnographic orthepolitical significance
of what they wererecording -in 1924,
a crucial moment in relations between
theBakhtiari tribesand thenewgovern-
ment of the man to be known as Reza
Shah Pahlavi.
Secondly, Andrd Singerintroduced
hisnewfilm Khyber, first shown the
previous week on Granada Television.
Thedirectorand histwo advisors
(LouisDupreeand AkbarS. Ahmed)
areall trained anthropologists, while
theirsubject wasthehistoryof Anglo-
Pathan conflict on theN orth-West
Frontier. Yet thefilm wisely, and (given
thedifficult conditionsunderwhich
much of it wasfilmed) understandably
doesnot attempt a strictly anthropologi-
cal orhistorical approach. I tsaim,in which
it succeedsadmirably, is evocative.
Through interviews with British and
Pathan survivors of Frontiercampaigns,
theeffectiveuseof graphics, songs,
old filmsand stills, and somebeautiful
5. location work shot both sidesof the
Frontier, thefilm providesabalanced
account of themythswhich makeup
Frontierhistory. I t makesveryclearthe
incompatible ideologiesof thetwo
sides(theBritish fighting forEmpire
and honour, thePathans forautonomy
and I slam), and also theastonishing
continuity with thepast evident in
Pakistani administration of theFrontier
today. Expertsin theconferenceaudi-
encewereinevitablycritical" historians
queried variousomissionsfrom the
narrative and interpretations of events
portrayed, whileanthropologists wanted
moreanalysisof Pathan tribal organiza-
tion - a themeon which wemay hope
foranotherfilm from Singerlater.
Therewasmuch discussion of Pathan
attitudesto the British - one of
several aspectstouched on but not
analysed in thefilm.But all enjoyed
thefilm,which posesquestionsabout
the'colonial encounter' in a manner
that should provokelivelydiscussion
among audiences of manykinds.4
Richard Tapper
1. Among recent discussions are J. Helm (ed.)
Essayson theProblem of Tribe, 1968
(Proceedings of the 1967 Annual Spring
meeting of the American Ethnological
Society); M. Godelier, 'The concept of
"tribe": a crisis involving merely a
concept or the empirical foundations of
anthropology itself?' in his Perspectives
in Marxist Anthropology, 1977 (Cambridge
U.P.); and E. Marx, 'The tnbe as a unit of
subsistence: nomadic pastoralism in the
Middle East', Amer. Anthr. 79, 1977,
pp. 343-63.
2. For a notable exception, see H. Algar's
paper, 'The oppositional role of the Ulama
in Twentieth-Century I ran', in N . Keddie
(ed.), Scholars, Saintsand Sufis, 1972
(California U.P.)
3. The conference was sponsored by the
Social Science Research Council, and by
the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at
SOAS. The convenors were Richard
Tapper of SOAS and David Brooks of
Durham.
4. Grass is available for hire through the
RAI Film Library; it is hoped that Khyber
soon will be too. See the illustration in
RAI N 33, August 1979, p. 14.
BOOKS
Michael Thompson: Rubbish Theory:
the creation and destruction of value
(Oxford U.P., ?7.50)
Michael Thompson hasbeen known for
someyearsfor a fewveryoriginal articles
on what he calls 'rubbish theory' published
in N ew Society and otherperiodicals. His
argumentsarenowpresented in book
form. DrThompson exhibitsintelligence
of a high order, but of a kind which
often clouds over, leaving the reader
frustrated. From perceptiveethnographic
observation and commentary, Thomp-
son expandshis scope to proposalsfor
solving some of the great questionsof
the social sciences, from the relationship
of category and action, to the origin
of tradecycles.
Oneshould read such an ambitious
and vigorousawriteras sympathetically
as possible. Just asin the field of
technology manyinventionsarestill
conceived in back-garden workshops
ratherthan in well-equipped labs,
so intellectual innovationscan still
be produced by peoplewho haveopted
out of the promotion-ladderof special-
ized university departments. I t can
often be a worryingproblem to
distinguish genuineoriginality from
crankiness; for the genuineso easily
becomescrusted with sournesswhen it
is not appreciated and rewarded. Thus
among many anecdotesand quipsthat
DrThompson includesin his book are
some directed against the social anthro-
pology 'establishment' (which he
curiously representsasblackballing
anyonewho is not a structuralist), and
oneagainst an art collegeprincipal
who turned him down forajob. Such
sallieshelp oneto piecetogethera total
impression of a book which ishard to
evaluatebecauseof its fitsand starts,
itsverywideframeof reference, and its
mathematical episodes.
DrThompson's chapters on theantique
and secondhand trades,and on the
'gentrification' of old housesin theinner
London suburbs, aregood examplesof
theapplication of social anthropologi-
cal method to aspectsof Westem society;
and on thestrength of them alonehisbook
demandsattention. My own conclusion is
that theybelong to theessentially literary
wing of social anthropology ratherthan
to itsnatural sciencewing, and that
DrThompson isin errorwhen hetries
to build schematicormathematical
modelson thesefoundations.
Hissecond chapteris adetailed study
of themarket valueof Stevengraphs
(machine-woven silk pictures) between
1879and today. When they werefirst
made, theywere, in Thompson's termi-
nology, transients, being souvenirs or
small giftscomparable to today'splastic
ducksorgarden gnomes- retailed at
6d to 1/- each. From shortlyafterwards
until the 1 960sthey wererubbish,
virtuallyunsaleable and 'invisible'. I n
thelate1970stheyaredurables, worth
up to hundreds of poundseach and
increasing in valueovertime.
Thisis indeed aremarkable reversal
orcatastrophe(in theoriginal Greek
sense- weshall comeback to theword
later) and worth themeditation which
7
This content downloaded from 105.158.213.203 on Sat, 3 May 2014 21:21:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions