When there is war in Africa, you hear the word inevitable in the media:tribal warfare. The term 'tribe' is very often used to understand conflicts on the African continent or in the Middle East.
In South Sudan, for example, two major tribes, Dinka and Nuer, are fighting each other in a civil war. But the war in Syria is also often blamed on the insurmountable differences and opposing interests of various Sunni and Shia 'tribes'. Are conflicts really so easy to explain? And what exactly is a tribe? Is it a universal concept or does the concept differ per country?
The word "tribe" originates from Roman times. The term tribus denoted groups that existed before the Romans founded their empire, or that were not under their rule, such as Gallic or Germanic communities. Shared ancestry linked these groups. According to the Romans they were barbarians who had to be conquered. Tribes are also spoken of in various places in the Old Testament. The sons of Noah and his children were the "fathers" of all nations on earth. Later, from the twelve sons of the patriarch Jacob, came as many tribes of Israel.
Primitive tribes
From the fourteenth century, European explorers in distant lands encountered groups of people who lived differently from themselves. The Europeans called these groups tribes. With the colonialism of the nineteenth century, the term acquired a 'scientific' foundation and an official interpretation. The anthropologists of the time saw in the 'natives' of overseas colonies a new wealth of knowledge about how people live together.
According to the anthropological definition, tribes were families, in the broadest sense of the word. A tribe shared a common language, culture, or lineage, although not necessarily all at once. For example, several tribes could exist within a language area. Again, by definition, religion did not belong as it was a broader category, transcending tribal identity and descent. Incidentally, this is not always the case. Judaism, for example, does combine descent and religion.
At the time, opinion makers and policy makers eagerly adopted thinking in terms of categories. They believed in the theory of cultural evolution, which came from the social sciences. According to this theory, there was a hierarchy between societies:at the bottom were the "backward" tribes and at the top were the "civilized" West. The original population of the colonies is said to be inherently primitive, backward and violent. The settlers therefore set themselves the "noble" task of educating them. In the French colonies, this educational mission was called la Mission Civilisatrice, in the British Commonwealth it was called the White Man's Burden, and in the Dutch East Indies people spoke about Ethical Politics.
The settlers divided the original population into groups, based on language and cultural differences and appearances that found their basis in pseudosciences such as craniometry (measuring skulls) and phrenology (studying cusps on these skulls). This division had a practical reason:it made the colonies easier to manage. Each group had a different status and role in colonial society. Only the settlers didn't care much for the fact that their divisions did not correspond to how the original population lived before.
This also applied to the arbitrary boundaries that the settlers drew between areas. The most famous example is the Scramble for Africa :the African continent was divided by the colonial powers with a ruler. The lines ran right through the original populations and kingdoms. This also happened on a smaller scale, such as with the division of a colony into administrative districts.
Before the settlers came along with their quest for order, tribal identities were much less relevant. Borders between tribes were fluid. Marriage to someone from another tribe? Not always a problem. You could belong to multiple groups, depending on the social context. Sometimes "tribe" was merely an indication of a social class; as you rose up the social ladder, you joined a new tribe. In addition to the tribes that already existed before colonialism, such as the Masaii or Kikuyu in Kenya, other tribal identities, such as the Kalenjin or Baluya in the same country, are even entirely a colonial construction.
Tribes do not exist
Often an attempt has been made to count all tribes. Not only during colonialism, but also in the twentieth century, maps of Africa appeared on which all tribes were neatly indicated with colours, lines and icons. But when you ask an anthropologist what a tribe is, the answer is immediately:"Tribes don't exist." The term has become a receptacle. In one case a tribe has a shared language, in the other a shared culture or descent. A tribe can be associated with a particular region, such as the Naga tribe in Northeast India. But the Yoruba can be found spread across the West African countries of Nigeria, Togo and Benin.
It is also a misconception that tribes always live in small groups, far away from the rest of the world. There is no specific size:some trunks are small, others very large. The Dinkas and Nuers in South Sudan, like the Igbos and Yorubas in Nigeria, consist of millions of people. The term trunk is so broad that it actually means nothing.
Moreover, the word "tribe" has a negative connotation. It reminds us of conflicts, or evokes thoughts of bones through the nose and huts in the jungle. In that light, labeling Frisians or Scots as a tribe also sounds somewhat laughable. The current scientific consensus is therefore:the use of the word tribe is bad, because it has a nasty aftertaste.
In the twentieth century, it slowly but surely became racist to label cultures outside the West as inferior. After the Holocaust, pseudosciences such as eugenics and racial science eventually became taboo. So is the idea that 'primitive' peoples should be educated. Progressive insight, you might say. Yet the Western sense of superiority has certainly not disappeared, although it is no longer as visible as it used to be. The alleged supremacy is still an important motive for declaring war on other countries in the name of civilization and democracy. The term "tribe" still carries many racist connotations to this day. For example, it speaks volumes that you only hear the word when we talk about Africa, Asia or Latin America. Almost without exception, these are former colonies. Tribes still only exist there, not in the West, or in Eastern Europe.
Moreover, the way many media outlets use the word "tribe" still implies that these groups are inherently primitive and violent. Simply referring to a conflict as a "tribal struggle" makes it seem as if mutual hatred is in the blood of the tribesmen. As if they can't help but smash each other's brains in. Although Hutus and Tutsis are not even actual tribes according to anthropologists, this is how the war in Rwanda has often been declared. In this way, "tribal identity" becomes the most important - but extremely superficial - explanation for a conflict. Deeper insight into other motives behind a war, such as economic processes or political interests, becomes unnecessary.
Pragmatism or politically correct?
The term 'tribe' is also used regularly in journalism. Yet a discussion has been going on for decades:should we leave out the nuance and speak of tribal conflict or write politically correct about ethnic conflict?
Some media are holding back. The African News Service, the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, the Associated Press and editors of The Washington Post and The New York Times, all feel that the simplistic word counteracts deeper understanding of the real situation abroad. Journalists should know better. Incidentally, these media still regularly use the word.
Other journalists say that only Westerners interpret the word "tribe" as negative. Well, the division of society into tribes is a product of colonialism. But these remnants of European domination took on a life of their own after the end of colonialism. Residents and media in African countries now use the term without embarrassment. The proof par excellence that tribes exist, they argue. In addition, these tribalists believe that science and journalism follow different standards. In journalistic reporting, the word "tribe" is simply a pragmatic way of describing a group. Tribe, clan, population group, people, ethnicity, it's all the same, isn't it, provided you describe the context of the conflict? Despite all the discussion, the word has remained common.
'Tribes' today
Tribes still have their value in the different societies. Some tribal divisions existed before the westerners arrived, others are entirely colonial creations. In either case, these tribal identities, constructed or otherwise, provide populations with a sense of belonging, a group to belong to.
Power-conscious politicians can again take advantage of this. They try to mobilize people by making them believe that they are part of a superior 'tribe', for example in Kenya, a country where tribes and politics are strongly linked. British colonialism divided status and land ownership along tribal lines. This remained so after the independence of 1963. The Kikuyu, the largest tribe, took over most of the land. Since then, politicians have used prejudices such as "Kikuyu's are destined to rule" to pit the Kikuyu against the Luo, Luhya and Kalenjin. This led to major outbursts of violence during the 2007 elections. Society retribalized. Tribal identities that were not so important before revived among the citizens. This was less the case during the 2013 elections, showing that the presence of different tribes in society does not necessarily lead to conflict.
Tribal identity also plays a major role in South Sudan. Ethnicity and politics are intertwined here. The Nuer and the Dinka consist of millions of people and are not homogeneous. However, in an emergency, a Dinka will usually support another Dinka. Politicians make use of this; during elections voting often goes along ethnic lines.
When most people think of India, they probably think of castes rather than tribes. Yet here too the tribes play a role in society. With the term scheduled tribes the British settlers designated what they considered to be the most primitive groups in the country. Although these groups are in a similarly bad socio-economic position as the lowest castes in India, they do not see the term tribe itself as something negative. The Naga tribe in Northern India prefer the term tribe for example above the politically correct adivasi. In addition, they claim economic benefits and government subsidies – positive discrimination, to make up for the disadvantage they suffered during the colonial era.
In everyday life, tribes also play a positive role:they serve as a social safety net. When someone in Kenya, India, or South Sudan gets into trouble or falls ill, he can turn to his fellow tribesmen. It is also a cultural group. Together you sing songs and share common traditions.
The visibility of individual tribes varies by country. In India, members of the Naga tribe look different from the rest of the population. This will remain so as long as they live separated from the rest of society. Also in Tanzania or Kenya you can often see who belongs to which tribe. Not surprising, when you consider that the settlers based their arbitrary division of the population largely on external characteristics.
Tribes that may have been a colonial construct in the beginning have now become a reality. Still, caution is advised when the word “tribal struggle” pops up in the media. Hatred and envy towards 'the other' is not in the DNA of a population group. It's never that simple; only deeper explanations help to understand why 'tribes' are at odds with each other.