We've been throwing this word/concept around a lot, yet according to Wikipedia Tribe and Tribalism aren't easy to define. "Considerable debate takes place over how best to characterize tribes," they say. Wordnet provides these relevant definitions:

(n) tribe, folk (a social division of (usually preliterate) people)
(n) tribe, federation of tribes (a federation (as of American Indians))
(n) kin, kin group, kinship group, kindred, clan, tribe (group of people related by blood or marriage)

I'm posting this because in the thread "Why is the Middle East So Unstable?" I introduced the word tribe but failed to be very specific about it, and it was then echoed and amplified, even to the point where Ricky called the entire state of Israel a tribe. Most recently (as of now), Ozymandias writes:

Probably worth it to note that while instability in the Middle East is a combination, to a greater or less extent, of all 6 listed items, I think the strongest argument should (and has) been made for the effects of tribalism. It really is the root cause of almost all other sources of tension.

Rather than address this and related matters there, which would be a bit off-topic if we concentrate of an independent definition/understanding of the word, I figured I'd start another thread.

Here's how I put things when using the word within two of my six "Essentials for Stability" - no one has made any further effort to clarify meaning:

4) Individualism/Libertarianism (meaning - as I use it here - a sort of public philosophy and psychology that holds that humans as individuals are holders of worth, will, and rights, as opposed to clans, tribes or other institutions.)
5) Humanism (meaning - as I use it here - the widespread belief that helping your fellow man regardless of common identity of race, creed, tribe, etc. is one of the highest virtues.)

I'm implying that "tribe" can be an institution that has qualities that arise from more than the simple sum of the individual members. And I note that "tribe" is one of the main ways humans classify others in a negative sense, as deserving of less consideration than your fellow tribesmen.

In the Mideast there's a specific phenomenon that comports fairly well with an amalgam of the various definitions: kinship (or semi-kinship, semi-geographic) groups with a rather formal social structure, a definite identity (even to the point of tribe name being used as part of the name of individuals), and roots that often go back many, many centuries. Since we have been using the term in this context, we should probably make an effort to arrive at some agreement regarding the significance of Arab tribalism. We probably have something slightly different in mind than when we talk of tribalism in sub-Saharan Africa, or among Native Americans.

Arab tribalism is marked by a degree of provincialism/xenophobia. The tribe's ways are automatically considered better than any other ways, and members are automatically trusted more than outsiders. The more rigidity associated with these beliefs the less likely it is that tribes can cooperate or compromise, identify common values and interests, or embrace changes proposed by outsiders. Another of my six elements was globalism, which I defined as "a recognition that international relations and trade are more of a win-win situation than a zero-sum game." In the context of tribalism, just replace "international" with "inter-tribal". Picture a case where a businessman from one tribe is competing with another from the same tribe and also one from a different tribe. If the degree of "cutthroatness" differs we can attribute that to tribalism. I doubt this is a significant issue, but the zero-sum vs win-win concept is certainly applicable to Arab culture in general, not just tribal dynamics. I think that tribalism, however, exacerbates the problems that arise from the zero-sum view of interpersonal/inter-group relations.

Tribalism is not present to an equal degree all over the Arab world. It's worth noting that it's not a large factor in Palestine. Palestinians are mostly immigrants that came from all over and in a way Palestine is a sort of melting pot. Prior to 1949, in lieu of tribes, social networks were based more on clan and village. Tribal identity existed, but within that context instead of being primary. Tribalism is much stronger in North Africa and Iraq. I'm uncertain how much it's still on the peninsula. When Ibn Saud was unifying his kingdom he actively sought to dismantle tribal organizations.

Despite all the above I don't want to pretend to be an expert on tribalism. I've never read a textbook on cultural anthropology. I invite discussion of both the formal and informal meanings/definitions of "tribe" and "tribalism" so that we may all broaden our understand and achieve greater clarity of communication.

x

even to the point where Ricky called the entire state of Israel a tribe

And you think thats unfair?

Israel is a Democracy with a rule of law and an independent judiciary. There's always an element of tribal loyalty in any culture, but in the main, people follow the rules and laws of the democracy as opposed to making decisions based on tribal loyalties. In short, members of Parliament from competing political parties make the laws, and not competing Rabbis. Political parties are organized based on ideology and not kinship. (unlike in Iraq or Quebec ;) )

I don't find it offensive. It's just not accurate.

ray

It's just not accurate.

In the other discussion I had already alluded to Israels fairly unique position as a democracy in the region. And to be fair, tribalism exists even within post modern countries with a multicultural tolerant society. Its when the identity with the tribe becomes sublimated to the national identity that I think you've begun to move past tribalism. Its the call to the larger identity, the we might be >>>> but we're all >>>>>

Because of its nature and identity as a "Jewish State" , isn't Israel's national identity tied up in tribal identity? (And isn't that identity difficult for non-Jewish Israelis ?)

rickyp wrote:Because of its nature and identity as a "Jewish State" , isn't Israel's national identity tied up in tribal identity? (And isn't that identity difficult for non-Jewish Israelis ?)

But isn't the tribal differences be between sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. It is my understanding that historically the two groups didn't get along. However, in Isreal they are both Isreali. Is my understanding correct?

A tribal indentification is fairly benign in and of itself, the negative aspects are likely manifest in supremacism, the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.

A tribal indentification is fairly benign in and of itself

But in appealing to the differences between us and them , tribalism is generally used to divide. And sometimes not in a benign fashion.
In appealing to the similarities between ourselves we appeal to the tribe of all humanity. (Okay "tribe" is just a term for a group of people who claim allegiance through some identifying factor. Even unto sport s team allegiances.)
Archdukes example of the two versions of Judaism somewhat ilustrates this. Within Israel itself the sects create division, but when faced with a broader conflict the larger tribe of Israel unites the two tribes.

This is the first that I've heard that Askenazi and Sephardi see themselves as different tribes. Since I live in the US, I primarily know Askenazis, but I do know several Sephardi Jews and have never detected any differences. Synagogues in Europe and the US are not denoted by one versus the other, but instead based on level of religiosity. For example, I have Sephardi friends who belong to the same reform synagogue and I have no idea whether the Rabbi and Cantor are Sephardi or Askenazi.

There are slight difference in religious practice: Sephardi can have rice and peas on passover, I think? Of course, I'm likely to have a pulled pork sandwich on Passover, so don't ask me.

I think there were (are?) tensions in Israel between the 2, but that seemed to be more about class than tribe. The Askenazi were from Europe and relatively educated; the Sephardi were from Arab countries and tended to do the more menial jobs. I suspect those differences have decreased over time since it is a very economically and socially mobile society.

Ray Jay wrote:This is the first that I've heard that Askenazi and Sephardi see themselves as different tribes.

I am taking more about historically JJ. It is my understanding the Sephardim were decended from Iberian Jews expelling in the 15th Century while Ashkenazim are Eastern European Jews. From my readings of history, I kind of got the impression that throughout much of the early modern period there was a lot of tension between the two groups. Sephardim kind of looked down on the Ashkenazim as the equivalent of poor white trash. While the Ashkenazim considered Saphardim as obnoxious, arrogant outsiders. I had read something recently that lead me to believe the animosity may still be there but not so blatent as in the past.

rickyp wrote:Archdukes example of the two versions of Judaism somewhat ilustrates this. Within Israel itself the sects create division, but when faced with a broader conflict the larger tribe of Israel unites the two tribes.

Doesn't this kind of invalidate your position that Isreal is a tribal nation then? Just about every nation has multiple sub-sects to them that often conflict amongst themselves. As you say in your above post what makes modern nations is the ability to rise above those tribal allegence to protect the nation. Which it sounds like Isreal has done.

archduke

Doesn't this kind of invalidate your position that Isreal is a tribal nation then?

Except that Israel is defined as a Jewish state.
Tribalism defines us versus them. In defining itself as of a particular religious nature Israel sets itself up as a Jewish Tribe.
Islamic nations do the same, setting themselves up as Islamic tribes.
Only modern secular nations that allow religious freedom avoid international religious tribalism. And yes religion still leads to tribalism within the national umbrella.. But in secular nations, it largely doesn't (ideally ) matter what denomination , faith or lack of such defines the individual. They are part of the larger more important definition.
I think in the Middle east, the definition of the person begins with the family, then the tribe then the region and finally perhaps the nation state.
In the west I would suggest that usually ones nationality comes first? . (Certainly in the US)

Further to this point, when the larger identity becomes most important the tolerance of other subidentity can become greater.
Willingness in modern secular democracies to accept a citizenship that is equal in the most important identifying factor, makes the tolerance of the sub-identities greater.
The growth of the nation state in most of the middle east is behind where most of the world is in terms of identity. For that reason the tribal influences within their nations are greater and divisive.
Israel is different in that the national identity does trump the sub-identities. That and being democratic.

rickyp wrote:x

even to the point where Ricky called the entire state of Israel a tribe

And you think thats unfair?

Not unfair. Merely not very useful. You remind me of the guy who once told me that the term "mentally impaired" is meaningless because none of us is perfect. Arabs still suffer under a form of tribalism that's typical of pre-state societies, especially nomadic ones. It's useful to be able to discuss this and be cognizant of the special qualities of that form of tribalism. Fans of Coke may technically be a different tribe than fans of Pepsi, but employing a definition this all-encompassing in the context of the discussion we're having here is a large waste of everyone's time.

It's worth noting the difference between tribe and tribalism as Wikipedia treats each - see links above. Ricky is mainly using a broad definition of the latter and choosing to call all who belong to any group who has any members who might act tribally a "tribe". Thus sports fans, religious sects, and those who appreciate great taste vs. less filling all are "tribes". The word is very rarely used in this sense, but on a poetic sort of level is not totally inaccurate.

Not all tribes are equally tribal. I humbly ask Ricky if perhaps somewhere, some time, in an effort to explore how Arabs might benefit themselves by living more peacefully in proximity to each other and to non-Arabs, we might be able to use the word without being reminded that Arabs aren't the only folks who belong to tribes?

rickyp wrote:Tribalism defines us versus them. In defining itself as of a particular religious nature Israel sets itself up as a Jewish Tribe.
Islamic nations do the same, setting themselves up as Islamic tribes.
Only modern secular nations that allow religious freedom avoid international religious tribalism. And yes religion still leads to tribalism within the national umbrella.. But in secular nations, it largely doesn't (ideally ) matter what denomination , faith or lack of such defines the individual. They are part of the larger more important definition.
I think in the Middle east, the definition of the person begins with the family, then the tribe then the region and finally perhaps the nation state.
In the west I would suggest that usually ones nationality comes first? . (Certainly in the US)

This is a particularly disjointed view. Isreal is a nation and defines its nationality as being Jewish is being tribal when it defends that nation against others. And yet, when the US, which as a nation that defines itself as being American, defends itself against others it is not being tribal.

Besides, there are 12 tribes of Israel. :)

Minister X wrote:Besides, there are 12 tribes of Israel. :)

Well, per the Old Testament there were 13 tribes of Israel. Jacob had 12 sons and each had his own tribe. Jacob also decided that both sons of his favorite son Joseph (who also had a voice like Don Osmond and a multi-colored coat to boot) would have the status of tribes, thereby making 13. Only 12 of the 13 tribes were given land, as the Tribe of Levi was given priestly status and scattered throughout the other 12 tribes.

The northern Tribes and the Tribes East (!) of the Jordan river were eventually conquered by the Assyrians and exiled. There's no historical record of what happened in exile but there are all sorts of reports that they settled in Iraq, Persia, India, Ethiopia, etc. However, the old testament and other laws had not yet been written down so there is no evidence that these Israelites retained their religious identiy. The dispersal of these 10 tribes is very different than the later Babylonian and Roman exiles because by the the laws were codified and the remaining Israelites were able to retain their identity.

Modern Jews are considered to be descended primarily from the Tribe of Judah, and hence the name. This was the largest southern Israeli tribe. Parts of the tribes of Benjamin and Shimon also survived. Those Levis who lived in Judah and the right parts of Benjamin and Shimon also survived and typically their descendants have names like Levy, Levinson, etc. They have a special role in religious ceremonies.

Just having fun here. Min X's prior post is right on target.