Panteion University of Social and Political Scince

Department of Social Anthropology

An essay for the course

Political Anthropology

From Tribe to Ethnicity

Mentor:Gerasimos Makris Student: Tatjana Karovski

Athens, June 2016.

1
 Introduction

The history of the usage of term “tribe” in anthropology is as old as long as history of
anthropology itself. As John Sharp simply said: “The term tribe was initially used by Victorian
scholars as part of their attempt to construct a science of so-called ‘primitive’ societies” (Sharp,
2005: 1517). One of the goals of anthropology in its early beginnings was, and some would
discuss that it is still, to explain how the noncivilized societies are organized, especially those
societies without state government. In “absence”, from the academic point of view of that time,
of history of “primitive” societies, academic tended to ascribe to these societies the history and
values of the “modern” world. In this sense, the notion of tribe has been found as a suitable and
highly flexible explanatory tool. This notion has been to explain what is common to indigenous
social and political formations. Tribe was commonly used it this term from evolutionism to the
1950s, when it was strongly criticized from many perspectives. (Sharp, 2005: 1517).
What was conceived as a tribe and what the characteristic that were prescribed to it defer
not only paradigm to paradigm, but also, it is differentially described between authors who
belong to the same strand. This is one of the reasons which makes writing about the concept of
tribe in anthropology highly challenging task, but nevertheless I will persist to fulfill my task
successfully. In this essay I will point out the origin of the term, shortly show the way it was
used in evolutionism, then how it was reformulated in (structural) functionalism, and how it was
finally criticized, rejected and replaced in the other half of the 20th century.Additionally, I will
make connections with the political contexts of theories, and particularly of critiques.

The origin of the term (or “one more example of how history of Western societies became an
explanatory model for nonwestern societies”)

Etymology of the word “tribe” suggests its Indo-European origin. There is a debate about the
details of the origin. Some claim it is derived from the Latin “tribus”, others that is comes from
Greek language (phule), which was used to describe similar, but chronologically older type of
organization. Yet again, the third strand suggests that it comes from the Umbrian “trifu”.
Although these presumed original words come from different languages and societies, they are
all used to designate both political and kinship conglomerates in their context, as Benveniste

2
noted. She claims that this internal link between political organizationand kin formation had been
common in the Indo-European societies before the city-states emerged. In other words, tribus, or
trifu or phule was used to designate a form of political organization that is consisted of several
groups, which were brought together by the link of (patrilineal) kin relations into a political unit.
Benveniste adds that common language between the members of a tribe was one of the main
characteristic of this kind of social organization. In other words, the term tribe is derived from
words which were used to denote a specific social, political, kin and language unit (Blohm 1972,
4). It can be said that it is not just the word that was taken from Latin (Greek or
Umbrian)language to mark the social and political organization of societies outside the borders
of the West. Rather, the characteristic, that had been common for the Indo-European societies
before the establishment of the state, were also prescribed to the notion of tribe, type of
organization of “stateless” and non-Western societies in the writings of colonial and postcolonial
Western authors. This is just one of the examples of usage of the western history notions in order
to explain nonwestern present.

Evolutionism

As Jankins noted, an assumption that “primitive societies” are organized into organic
groups, commonly known as tribes, was a part of theoretical and methodological apparatus of
colonial and postcolonial anthropological researches. Evolutionism was a pioneer paradigm that
founded a base on which the notion of tribe later developed (Jenkins, 2008: 17). Evolutionists
used the notion of tribe in two terms. Firstly, tribe was used to signify a certain stage of society
in the evolution of universal, human society. Secondly, tribe was also a notion mobilized to
denote a specific type of social and political organization (Blohm, 1973: 1). I will promptly
present Morgan’s points of view on this topic, but bearing in mind that it most certainly does not
represent evolutionism in its whole.
Henry L. Morgan, one of the founders of anthropology and protagonist of evolutionism,
proposed one materialistic and idealistically speculative theory (Blohm, 1973: 6). His main
presumption was the postulate that suggested an idea of unified psychic of mankind, namely, that
all human societies have the same origin, and thus follow the same path of development
(Llewellin, 2003: 3). This theory was based on a tenet that suggested technological

3
innovations(such as fire, or wheel) are followed by succession of social institutions and
organization in social evolution. Guided by this premise, he located the tribe in the second stage
of social evolution – after savage stage and before civilization occurred. After the period of
primitive promiscuity and matrilineal kinship, human society turn in direction of patrilineal
kinship within a more organized group, strong authority of a male leader,and private property
(Blohm, 1973: 7). In this case, what Godelier and Blohm pointed out about the dual usage of the
notion, and as Fried indicated a decade earlier, Morgan was not an exception from this
tendency.In his research about Iroquois society, he used the notion of tribe in terms of both
“common descent and autonomous political integration” (Fried, 1966: 531). For Morgan, “a tribe
is a completely organized society and thus a form of social organization capable of reproducing
itself” (Morgan in Blohm, 1973, 7). Fried also pointed out specific characteristic and criteria
Morgan ascribed to this concept:

“(1) The presence of a number of kin units (gentes in his specific view) mutually interconnected by affinal
ties.(2) Possession of a common language.[…] (3) Possession and defense of a territory. (4) Possession of a name.
(5) Possession of a structure of government surmounted by a supreme authority which embodied the popular will“
(Fried, 1966: 531-532).

To sum up, in evolutionism, as I have shown on the example of Morgan’s theory, tribes
was contrived as a stage in social evolution, and as a separated, independent social, political,
linguistic and kin unit, mutually differentiated between themselves. This differentiation among
(assumed) tribal groups was actually seen as deep political and organizational segmentation,
which often lead to wars among tribes. Thus, in the writings of evolutionist anthropology this
structurally ineluctable segmentation and war were seen as a strong blockage which prevented
barbaric tribes to evolve from this stadium (Blohm, 1973: 8). However, after the 20s of 20th
century the theory of social evolution was abandoned, and, thus, the idea that tribe was a mark
for a certain stage in evolution. But, the idea of segmentation and the idea of tribe as a specific
set of characteristic of social (kin) and political organization has persisted in following
paradigms.

(Structural) functionalismor “segmentary lineage theory”

4
 Structural-functionalism is a paradigm that occupied anthropological thought from the
1930s until 1950s, mostly in England (Llewellin, 2003: 6). The main field of
theseanthropologists was located in “stateless”societies of Middle East, Africa, Oceania,
Australia and Sought America. In order to explain how order is maintained in these groups
without the Western type of political organization, segmentary lineage theory was developed
(Abu-Lughod, 1989: 280-281). But, before explaining how anthropologists who were
protagonists of this paradigm perceived tribe in nonwestern societies, I strongly believe that it is
more than necessary to briefly explain how they perceived kinship in a“primitive” society and its
role in it.
These anthropologists based their analytical and conceptual apparatus for analysis of so
called noncivilized societies on the tenets proposed by Durkheim (Ivanović, 2010: 21). One of
the most important Durkhaim’s contributions to anthropology is a foundation for, said in
Wagner’s words, a science of social integration whose main focus was explaining how different
human actions integrate a society and make it a functional whole (Wagner 1974: 96).Having said
this, it is easy to understand why they treated a social group as “a whole by itself” (Radefiel in
Moerman: 1965:1216). For Durkheim and anthropologists from the beginning of the 20th
century, kinship was always perceived as a specific kind of social relation that is acknowledged
in a certain society and that it includes legal and moral norms. Following the base set by
Durkheim, Rievers, Van Genep, Hocart, Redklif-Brown, Evans-Pritchard and other
anthropologists from this period stressed out social aspects of kinship and indicated the
importance of certain social behaviors and religious, ritual and magic belief and actions present
in process of claiming kin ties. For British structural functionalist, also known as theorists of
segmentary lineage, kinship is narrowed down tothe meaning of descent, which was thought to
be the structural element of kinship system, and, thus, of a “primitive” society itself. These kin
relations were perceived as a bonding tie in a certain social group (Ivanović, 2010: 28) and blood
descent was considered to provide a ground of social solidarity (Caton, 1991: 91).
Lila Abu-Lughodwell explained a trend in structural functionalism when it comes to
research of social organization of Middle East. But, I think this can be said also for the rest of the
exotic field of structural functionalistic anthropology. She argued that these theorists were
mainly focused on explaining the matter of social order in tribal societies of the exotic nonWest.
The common tenet on which was mostly based this theoretical “explanatory model was the idea

5
that segmentary lineage […] balanced opposed group at varying levels of sociopolitical
organization” (Abu-Lughod, 1989: 281). This structural element was assumed to lead to creation
and sustainability a system of “ordered anarchy”. The segmentary lineage theory was the core
theoretical background of political anthropology (which was traditionally concerned with non
western societies) since 1940s (Abu-Lughod, 1989:281, 285). This theory claimed that it is
inherent for tribal societies to divide to smaller groups. Possible reasons for this segmentation
were most commonly considered to be scarce water resources or sparse vegetation cover. The
only occasions when this split groups would reunite were ritual activities, but first of all in the
case of the external threat. It is important to point out once again that, According to this theory,
“the groups separate along lineage lines, the branches of the genealogical tree allowing for
divergence at the crown and convergence at the trunk […] there is a certain logic inherent in a
cultural system of blood descent leading to bloody dissent” (Caton, 1991: 91-92).
It can be said that the founder of this kind of approach is A. R. Radcliffe-Brown. He did
not contribute much to the notion of tribe precisely, but he is important because he made
theoretical and methodological base that will later be use by a vast number of anthropologists in
England. He perceived a society as “an equilibrium system in which each part functioned to the
maintenance of the whole” (Llewellin, 2003: 6). It is clear that Radcliffe-Brown here made
implicit organic analogy. Guided by this idea, this anthropologist claimed that societies need to
be described form high above in order to designate and locate various elements that connect
society into a functional organism. One of the points of his approach was neglecting the idea of
changing the norms, values and conflicts in a society, which led to observing a society through
one a temporal (rather than static) prism (Llewellin, 2003: 6-7).
Collection of essays African Political System edited by Evans-Pritchard and Fortes is
crucial for further understanding the notion of tribe. Analyzing African systems, they came to a
conclusion that there are two types of political systems on this continent. On the one hand, there
are primitive states, which have centralized authority and judicial institutions, and on the other,
there are stateless societies (Llewellin, 2003:7), or so called acephalous societies, whose
members have a sense of a common identity, but there is no authority that can be considered to
govern the entire society. In this division, tribe is a notion that designates sociopolitical
organization of acepaloussocieties based on kinship (Cohen, 1967: xi).

6
 Evans-Pritchard’s research of the Nuer in Sudan has been seen as a representative
example of (British) structural functionalism, and specifically of segmentary lineage theory
based on research of Middle East, “primitive” societies (Caton, 1991: 91). He suggested that
absence of state does not indicate absence of political organization. He conducted his research in
Sudan in the 1930s. Based on this field work, one book (The Nuer: A Description of the Modes
of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People) and one chapter ("The Nuer of the
Southern Sudan" in African Political Systems) were written.
The most “popular” conclusions from this writings are those about structural elements of
sociopolitical organization of the Nuer. First,Evans-Pritchard claimed that geographical division
is utterly important for the Nuer. This was crucial for mapping spaciosocial units and for their
uniting into a bigger social structure. Furthermore, he claimed that sociopolitical organization of
the Nuer cannot be understood unless the whole structure of relations, including other peoples
Nuer interacted with, is considered. The Nuer can be comprehended only in relation to other
groups of the same level. These groups were prone to split into rival segments, but also to reunite
in order to counter the opposed units. Furthermore, he argued that the lower the level of
segmentation is, the firmer its organization get. He used this assumption to explain segmentary
descent(Evans-Pričard,1983:382-383).
When it comes to the point of maintaining the social order in stateless societies such as
Nuer’s, like all of his contemporary colleagues, he claimed that in this case it was a system of kin
relations that all social relations were based on, thus, the political ones too. In situations that
could disrupt peace (which he thought not to be rare in tribal societies), according to this author,
there are institutions that handled this problems. Calm structural relations between the Nuer and
other tribes were maintained through war, and disputes inside a tribe were resolved through the
institution of feud (Evans-Pričard,1983:382-383).
Ascribing to feud maintainingthe social order in tribes and solving disputes was not just
differentia speciffica of Evans-Pritchard. This assumption was common for the structural
functionalist. For example, Peters suggested that the institution of feud is necessary on all
segmentary level of a structure such as a tribe in order to preserve its social order. He stated that
“the feud has no beginning and no end”.In further explaining of necessity for feuding in tribal
societies, Petersargued that fear of feuding is one of the main mechanisms for maintaining the
order in allegedly anarchic and aggressive members of a tribe. On the other hand, Gellner was

7
more eager to ascribe the production of fear in Muslim tribes to the saints. Nevertheless, they all
mostly agreed that in groups inclined to segmentation and disputing based on it, fear provided by
feud (of saints actions) kept aggression of tribal members on a leash. But, the problem with
describing someone as a anarchist and as a violent person in these works is that one cannot be
sure if it is a stance of religious elite of a village, or members of a village members themselves,
or of Western, white, privileged and ethnocentric men, often known as anthropologists(Caton,
1991: 93-94).
Last, but not least, Evans-Pritchard view of authority, law and governing in stateless
societies has to be mentioned. This anthropologist stated that the Nuer does not have centralized
authority. He opposed the opinion that the chief man in leopard skin is their ruler in any society.
The role he had was purely intermediary. It was the already explained structural principle that
governs tribal societies. In these terms, the chief man was simply a practitioner of feuding
regulations that actually held tribes together (Evans-Pričard, 1983: 383).
Before concluding this chapter, I would like to point out that even though I used Evans-
Pritchard as a representative example, it does not mean that it represents the whole structural
functionalist set of stances about tribe. Anyhow, I would like to call attention main points of this
specific view of tribe. It is clearly that is was a term to designate nonwestern political
organization from the Western ones. In absence of state that regulates law and order in tribal
societies, political authority and maintained order are attributed to kinship. Kin relations are seen
as a ground both for uniting groups and segmentation of them onto smaller descent groups.
Despite the tendency for intertribal disputes, in cases of external threat, tribe would unite against
another tribe and neglect fights on lower levels. Since tribal people areallegedly aggressive and
quarrelsome, mechanisms of regulation were developed. Incoming war, or feud, or saints rage as
a consequence of breaking rules or harming someone provides a sense of fear that more or less
prevents members of tribe to harm each other. In the end, chief men had been wrongly perceived
as a authority by previous researchers. Some of the structural functionalist claimed that they had
purely ritual and intermediary role in solving disputes. In other word, structural functionalist
defined tribe as a nonwestern type of sociopolitical organization in stateless societies: where
kinship had a role of founding social order, political organization and authority; easily subjected
to fighting (both intertribal and innertribal) that lead to segmentation or unifying of groups,
depending on which structural level a dispute occurred; with profound mechanism of producing

8
fear of disrupting order embedded in institution in which chief men had only ritual and
intermediary role, not a role of political leader.

An overview of the notion of the tribe

In the 1960s,RaolNarrol proposed an overview of usage of the notion of the tribe. His
goal was to find what common difference specificas related notion have been ascribed to this
term by prominent anthropologist. Based on this research, he proposed 6 criteria: “trait
distributions, territorial contiguity, political organization, language, ecological adjustment, and
local community structure commonly used to demarcate ethnic entities”. But, what was his
innovation is the term “cultunit”, instead of a “tribe” (Moerman, 1965: 1215). What is clear is
that Naroll used objective characteristics in sense of those that can be perceived and marked by
anthropologist. This author suggested that cultural bearing units can be found by looking for
previously listed criteria. Furthermore, he insisted that these criteria of language, territory,
political organization are the same criteria one is to find in “primitive mind” (Moerman, 1965:
1221-1222). This overview effectively and shortly shows what was perceived as a tribe in the
first half of the 20th century and it can be seen as a brute summary of previous usages of this
term. Additionally, I believe that it makes understanding of this notion clearer, which is
important for the critique(s) I will discuss below.

Critique of the concept of tribe1

This glorious times of tribe as a sophisticated, theoretical model, attributed to all

“primitive” societies came to an end in the 1950s. The critique that the concept faced
corresponded with turns in theoretical, empirical, and also political and historical contexts. Thus,
I will divide the critique in several paragraphs.

Historical background of the critique or “when natives went academic”

1
To be honest, I find it difficult to present the critique of this notion in one comprehensive and logically
structuralized way. Nevertheless, I will try to present the critique of the notion the way I understood it and in a
way I think it makes sense.

9
 Before the period of theoretical changes, there had been political ones. What used to be
an exotic field for anthropological studies slowly became a territory divided betweenindependent
and colonizers free countries. Not only that they acquired state institutions of their own, the (ex)
colonized countries gained “native” academic as well. As a result of changing academic
demography and making it “less white”, these societies could be described and evaluated by their
own people and in their own terms. This change provided ground that made critique of terms that
was used as a scientific support to colonial government possible (Ribić, 2007: 167). In other
words, “the ‘wind of change’ was invading political anthropology as it had invaded the actual
politics of most societies studied by anthropologists” (Swartz, et al, 1966:1).
Saying that this change meant a conclusive liberation of ethnocentrism in science would
be misrepresenting of actually events. Some would argue that participation in academy by people
from (ex)colonized countries did not change a lot the way researches were conducted and
theories were written. The “Others” were educated in a Western curriculum and given Western
theoretical and analytical tool to use in their own research. Thus, even though they were not
Western born and raised, it can be said that they acquired the Western academy habitus.
Regardless to which level is acknowledge the influence of geopolitical changes to academy and
producing knowledge, one cannot argue it that it was not one of the precondition for the turns
that followed.

The critique and questioning political, power relation

It took time for anthropology to acknowledge its higher power position they held in
contrast to people who they studied, the “others”, and also to admit that this reflected to the
representation of the other in academic discourse. From the 1950s the wave of self
reflectivecritique started heating up and it reached it highlights in 1980s.This critique did not
raise just the question of notion, the question of method and constructing image about Third
World countries were posed. It became clear that problem of who is researching, who is being
researched, whose terms define discourse, and by whom are translations done had been based on
political superiority of the West.
One of the objects of this wave of critique was anthropology work done in Third World
known as “colonial anthropology”. Wendy James defined colonial anthropology, namely in

10
Africa, as a “problem child” of colonial encounter. She pointed out how colonial administrative
authority formed, influenced and used the outcome of anthropological research. The fact is, as
James noted, that strong, authoritative, colonial power in one area was necessary in order to
create possibilities for European men to come, live in a village for some period of time, rent free
and to do a research. This means that these anthropologists were dependent on the officialdom
which hired them, provided them with resources and, more important, political protection. In
return, researchers were to provide authorities with information about the native. But, what is
important is the ambivalent relation of anthropologist to official authority. As I said, they were
dependent on it. Presenting anthropology as an objective science, which can produce
unquestionable intellectual base for adjusting and maintaining colonial power helped authorities
academically justify their actions. But, James claimed that in social anthropology on colonial
field was developed a strong critique strand of colonial power. Between two World wars, in this
discipline started both moral and intellectual defense of oppressed peoples from the colonies.
Many anthropologists, like Evans-Prichard advocated for the natives, for example, by explaining
that the Others do have political organization, even though it is not a Western-like. Bearing all
previously said in this paragraph, James claimed that this competition and intrigue between
anthropologist and officialdom left mark on theory and methodology of this discipline (James,
1975).
Secondly, this critique was also directed to creating idea of Middle East as a united and
integrated whole.This image was mainly created through area studies. Mitchell explained that
area studies about Middle East begun in the early 20th century, but it was highly popular during
the inter-war period and period of Cold War. He argued that the history of these area studies
must be understood in a wider context of process of creating academic knowledge and in context
of unequal political power position between researcher and the researched. The image of Middle
East that was created in these studies was the image of region culturally unified and
homogenized by Islam. Mitchell stated that this idea ofcultural unity based on Islam was
borrowed from previous Orientalists. On the other side, the authors pointed out that these studies
were also a ground for claiming status of social anthropology as anuniversal science. Just like
natural sciences used exotic world to simultaneously broaden number of various information and
incorporate it into existing scientifically knowledge, anthropologist tried, by using allegedly
universal concepts such as “culture”, “society”, “economy”, “family”, “political system”, etc.

11
and applied them on different parts, areas of the world to prove universality of anthropology as a
science (Mitchell, 2003). But, to be more specific about the image of Middle East created in area
studies, Said strongly rejected two harmful presumptions of his previous colleagues – “ignoring
the idea that the ‘Middle East’ (or any other ethnographic area) is always a construct, both
political and scholarly, and assumption that knowledge of it could somehow be separated from
power and position and made some pure thing” (Abu-Lughod, 1989: 270). Bearing in mind
previously said, one can easily conclude that in order to distinct ourselves (modern society) and
the others (traditional societies) anthropologist used tribe as a presumed social organization for
all so called primitive societies, but only for them (Eriksen, 2010: 14).
Following this perspective, Lila Abu-Lughod posed the question of heuristic value not
only of tribe as a concept, but specifically of segmentation theory. What she suggests as
aexplanation is that this kind of explanatory models corresponds with western dogma. Firstly,
this theory indicates that primitive societies are, like Western ones, lead by masculine
dominations. But, from the other hand, she claims that “these tribesman represent romantic
political ideals of freedom from authority and loyalty to democracy” (Abu-Lughod, 1983: 286).
A great example of the beginning of this current is Wagner’s study of Daribi society in
New Guinea Highlands. In his essay, Wagner criticizes the tendency of anthropology to see
groups, or tribes, where they do not exist. Focusing mainly on the segmentary lineage theory, he
claims that this approach includes invention and projection of presumed social order and unity by
anthropologists in their process of understanding of stateless societies. More precisely, he
questions the ideathat so called tribal societies are always formed into groups. He goes a
stepfurther and raises a question of heuristic value of any term, not just of a tribe, that indicates
existence of a group as obligatory. Wagner challenges the idea that groups are essential item of
human social life (Wagner, 1974: 102-104).
Wagner bases his critique on ethnographical example of Daribi people. He conducted a
study in village Baianabo between 1963 and 1965. He starts with a story of the oldest village
man there:

“The oldest is a short man with graying hair named Buruhwa. We ask him who his ‘house people’ are (a
local idiom; he hesitates, muttering ‘my house people’, and then says ‘Weriai’. Talking to him we discover
that he was born as a place called Awa Page […] among some people he calls ‘Noru’, and then went to live
with the Weriai (expect that he qualifies this term and calls them ‘Kurube’) at a place called Waramaru.

12
 Then his sister married at Parei, a large complex pf houses and gradens about a mile north of where we are
standing, and he move here to Baianabo ‘to be near her’” (Wagner, 1974: 105).

If one is to locate Weriai, or Noru,a logical question would be where these people live.
For example, some of the Weriai live in that village, some of them with Noru, some of them in
the village of Awa Page. Instead of claiming that this are all deferent descent group that all
together constitute the tribe of Daribi, as previous anthropologist would do, Wagner takes
another point of view. He claims that “house people” such as Noru, or Weriai are part of
extensive taxonomical apparatus that Daribi use to make social distinction. This distinction has a
role in forming marriage alliances and sharing after marital gifts between a groom’s and a bride’s
family, and these ties are not everlasting. He strongly stresses that the “the terms are names,
rather than named things” (Wagner, 1974: 107) in order to prove that this names do not designate
a group or a tribe. Rather, they are actually a way, a mean or a device for setting up boundaries
and social distinctions (Wagner, 1974: 108).
Based on this ethnographical example Wagenr points out that “group” is not what the
Others think of their social organization, rather it is our idea of what people are doing. In
addition to this argument, he introduces the fact that Dairibi society was “paciefied” in 1950s by
Western colonial government. Bearing in mind the ethnocentric idea of how people without state
should be living, as I already noted, in groups, colonial government rescheduled them based on
their name as a Weriai of Noru and located them in separated villages. Not only that groups were
imagined where they do not exist, but also the colonial government created tribes and villages, a
“typical” spaciosocial organization of stateless society, where, as I explained, they had not exist
in this sense. This “experiment of producing tribes” ended unsuccessfully and people scattered
around in attempt to reestablish previous social relations (Wagner, 1974: 105-110).
In this chapter I wanted to show the problems of concept of tribe once the power relations
and position of anthropology are taken account. On the one hand, acknowledging superiority of
Westerns both in researching and writing about the others without any doubt shook the
foundations for claims that anthropology is absolutely objective science. Hence, ethnocentrism
of tribe as a notion based on these claims was revealed.And another nail in the coffin of
objectivity of this term was put by pointing out western romantic roots of the notion, as Abu-
Lughod stated. Additionally, the idea of tribe was not limited on the production of
anthropological knowledge about stateless societies. It was also mobilized to create

13
sociopolicalorigination that, from the point of view of Western people, fit to those societies, as it
can be seen on the Wagner’s example of Daribi society that was relocated by the colonial
government. To sum up, notion of tribe was based on white, male, western ideas of how
“primitive” societies should be organized, but it was also permeated with the romantic ideas of
their own society.

Theoretical critique

From the 1950s tribe as a explanatory model for social organization of so

callednoncivilized societies started vanishing from the stage of anthropological theory and
created space for alternative concepts. Some of the reasons I stated already above. Other reasons
have to do more with the theory and heuristic value of the concept. It can be said that there were
to major and intertwined transition in theoretical apparatus regarding tribe. On the one hand is
the switch of focus from structure to process in study of these societies on the general level of
how anthropologists think about societies. On the other there is a transition that includes
replacing the notion of tribe by the notion of ethnicity on the level of analyzing nonWestern
society.

“from structure to process”

Swarts, Turner and Tuden suggest that the beginnings of the uprise of process, confict
and decision making as new focuses can be seen in the study of process in law The Cheyenenne
Way (1941) by Llewelly and Hobel (Swarts, et al, 1966: 2). Nevertheless, the first, articulated
attempt occurred a decade later. Study of Political System of Highland Burma (1954) by Edmund
Leach set the firm ground not only for the transition in direction of process, but also of transition
in direction of ethnicity. Opposite of the idea that there are two different and mutually exclusive
political systems in Africa, Leach states that in Burma he found three simultaneously existing
systems: “a virtually anarchist traditional system, an unstable and intermediate system, and a
small-scale centralized state” (Llewellin, 2003:8). Traditional system and the state encompass
several different subgroups and communities into an intertwined whole. He stresses that this
whole does not exist in a stable vacuum. Rather, he describes it as a dynamic whole, with

14
constant tension between its sublevels. One more important point of his work is that he points
out that these subgroups spoke different languages. If we go back to Narrol’s criteria and take
language criterion for granted, then one would assume that these subgroups are separated tribes,
or cultunits, or however it is called. Leach puts aside the language criterion and claims that even
though these subgroups had different languages, they still constituted one group, one whole
(Llewellin, 2003:8-9).
The other pioneer of the transition towards the process is Max Gluckman. Studying Zulu
community, also in Africa, he proposes the idea that society as a whole, or, in Radcliffe-Brown’s
words said, equilibrium which “is neither static nor stable, but grows out of an ongoing
dialectiacal process in which conflict with one set of relations are absorbed and integrated within
another set of relations […]”(Llewellin, 2003:9). In conflict situations he sees as glue that keeps
community together. For example, rituals of rebellion, common for African area he studied, in
which kings are mocked, or attacked by people, or even symbolically killed,Max Gluckman
interprets as the symbolic reestablishment and primacy of social order and system over the
individuals actions. He suggests for that period intriguing idea: unity and disunity, as well as
conflict and accord are two side of the same coin, of the same process that constitutes society as
a whole (Llewellin, 2003: 9, 11).
Leach and Gluckman put a theoretical seed that soon stared to grow in anthropological
theory. They planted the idea that societies were not based on structure and function; they
claimed that societies are based on process and conflicts. This current was infused by the
political changes happening in the colonized world, as I already stated. In the context of newly
risen postcolonial states, tribal corporation and development of wide political organization,
theory that claimed that Third World is divided into separated tribes could not withstand any
longer. The new approach, focusing on the process, intertwined relations among groups and
subgroups, later on decision-making, often know as action theory, proved to be more helpful,
more fit to the new sociopolitical scene (Llewellin, 2003: 11-12).
This transition caused changes in anthropologists’ perception of the notion of tribe. New
theoretical and political context indicated that tribes are no longer seen as firm conglomerates of
certain criteria that is completed and that is being maintained. One of the authors that contributed
in this field is already mentioned Wagner. In 1960s he claims that there is no point, no use of
asking tribal people where the groups themselves are, because groups are not objects to be

15
materialized in one place. From Wagner’s point of view based on the case of Daribi society,
sociality is not a “become”, conclusively made thing. Rather it is a flow of “becoming”, a
process in which people create and recreate boundaries, compel and elicit different identities
(Wagner, 1974: 112). This idea of boundaries and fragmented identities is also a part of the
second transition, transition from tribe to ethnicity.

“from tribe to ethnicity”

One of the theoretical triggers for the refusal of the notion was the fact that a great
number of anthropologist contested discrepancies between what theoretical expectation they had
and what they actually found on the field.One of the most prominent researches of this kind is
Moerman’s study on the Lue. Moerman attempted (and succeeded) to show lack of usage of
concept consisted of criteria necessary to designate some form of social political organization as
a tribe. His critique was most directed towards Naroll’s definition of tribe, but also implicitly
strikes structural functionalist idea that identity of tribe is based on the some kind of structure
created in anthropologists’ mind. First of all, he argued that even though specific language or
dialect can be a fruitful source of information of historical reconstruction. Linguistic distincdtion
does not guarantee distinction among social entities. Not only that not all tribes in the New
Highlands have different dialects, but also they are not significations of tribal identity (Moerman,
1965). One of the great points of Moerman’s work is moving the focus from what anthologists
see as a group to how people who we study do. “Someone is a Lue by virtue of believing and
calling himself Lue and of acting in ways that validate his Lueness” (Moerman 1965, 1222).
This author rejected to use presumptions given in previous theories. He claims that one
cannot assume what institution is the core of the social unit. It has to be thoroughly researched.
Not only that group identity is not created on the same base for every society, but also they are
different on the level of collectiveness they designate. In case of the Lue Moerman calmed that
on the lowest level of collective identity is distinctive a certain form of tattooing, on the middle
is wating glutinous rice, and on the highest level as major distinctive criterion he placed practice
of Buddhism (Moerman 1222-1224). It is important to point out that Moerman is not using
“tribe” to designate the social organization of tribe. He calls it “ethnic entity”. Thus, this research
is not just good example of the critique of the concept of the tribe. It is also an example of

16
current in anthropology that was leaving the notion of tribe behind, and moving towards new
concept to be used – ethnicity.2

Ethnicity – upraise of one new notion

The notion of ethnicity in social sciences was firstly used 1955 in writing by American
anthropologist David Riesman. This announces upcoming turn from “tribe” to “ethnicity” in
studies of Third World countries.3 Term of ethnicity, or ethnic group, or just ethnic went through
a vast proliferation in the second half of 20th century (Eriksen, 2010: 4, 12). This shift marked
new turn that would leave old, colonial theoretical and methodological concept, such as a tribe,
behind (Cohen, 1978:380). Even though ethnicity has been actively use for decades now, it is
still difficult to define it, like all others notions in this science (Eriksen, 2010:12).
One of the first anthropologist to preset one coherent theory of ethnicity was Tomas
Frederic Weybey Barth in his book Ethnic groups and boundaries in 1969.This theory reflects
the change in anthropology from focusing of the characteristic of a group to focusing on group
interaction in order to define what ethnicity is (Nedeljković, 2007: 27). Barth’s work is relevant
for this essay for two reasons. Firstly, his work can be located in the current of transiotion from
structure to process in study of societies. Secondly, articulating his theory in terms of “ethnicity”
and “ethnic groups” (not tribes) applicable on all societies, not only the Western ones, this author
leaves behind the long lasting habit of anthropologist to use terms tribes for so called primitive
societies and ethnicity for Western society and in that way they academically supported the
distinction between modern and traditional world and the primacy of first over the second.
To begin with, this Norwegian anthropologist criticizes previous definitions of ethnicity.
Barth contests definitions of ethnicity as „having four elements: 1. a biologically self-
perpetuating population; 2. a sharing of culture values and forms; 3. a field of communication

2
An interesting essay was written by S. H. Hutchinson, also focusing on the process as opposite to firm, finished
structure. She conducted a study among the Nuer in 1990s. He contests Evans-Pritchard's conclusion about kinship
among them and generally the segmentary lineage theory. She argues that kinship and identities are not firm
structures that help maintaining social order. Instead, she explains thoroughly that the Nuer through images of
blood, good and stable, and, in the context of industrialization, money, guns and paper unceasingly negotiate their
identities and kin ties. Thus, the author claims that kinship and identity are everlasting and never ending process of
symbolical negotiations and recreating of relationship among Nuer (Hutchinson, 2000).
3
But, it also was a base for societies that had been a tribe for a long time to become ethnic minorities (Eriksen,
2010:12).

17
and interaction;4. a grouping that identifies itself and is identified by others as constitutinga
category different from other categories of the same type”. He disagrees with the concept of
(ethnic or tribal units) as homogeneous and separated groups (Cohen, 1978: 385).He claims that
in the new political context (I described already), the old assumption that tribes and people are
mutually divided, isolated and ignorant about neighbors can no longer persist. From his point of
view, this idea produced, not described a world separated into groups which all presumably have
isolated cultures and organizations. This approach provides one narrow image, with many
limitations. In other words, it is an obstacle on the way of understanding the complexity of the
phenomenon (Barth, 1969).
Thus, Barth suggests that it has been given too much importance to differences between
cultures and where their boundaries are (which Wagner also noticed). This author provides a new
theory that will focus on the constitution of the boundaries as a alternative theory (Barth, 1969:
9). Barth explains the new perspective in three points:

“First, we give primary emphasis to the fact that ethnic groups are categories of ascription and
identification by the actors themselves, and thus have the characteristic of organizing interaction between
people. We attempt to relate other characteristics of ethnic groups to this primary feature. Second, the
essays all apply a generative viewpoint to the analysis; rather than working through a typology of forms of
ethnic groups and relations, we attempt to explore the different processes that seem to be involved in
generating and maintaining ethnic groups. Third, to observe these processes we shift the focus of
investigation from internal constitution and history of separate groups to ethnic boundaries and boundary
maintenance” (Barth, 1969:10)

He defined his theory in terms of communication, cultural processes, symbols and

meaning.He points out dynamic aspect of ethnic group, namely that social groups have to be
observed in relation one to another. The ethnicity is negotiated through the relation “us” –
“them”. He defined ethnicity as a process in which social groups consciously use and point out
certain ethnic markers or symbols, such as descent, culture, language, tradition, in order to
distinguish each other from groups similar to them.(Bart in Balaša, 2009: 136 – 137). In that
way, symbolic boundaries, which, from his point of view, are stable and continuing, are created
between groups(Cohen, 1978: 389). These boundaries are not a product of isolation and lack of
the contact between groups. On contraire, they are precisely being created through the interaction
among groups. He argues that social interaction among groups does not erase differences, but it

18
is actually a ground required for creating them. In other words, one cannot make a distinction of
the other if one is not aware of existence of that other. Relying on these arguments, Barth rejects
the previously criticized assumption of separated and isolated groups (Barth, 1969: 10).
Moreover, Barth emphasis the focus on the emic point of view and emic articulation of
collective identity. Prioritizing the etic categories as opposed to emic ones has long history in the
studies of traditional societies. This can be attributed to the work of anthropologists from
evolutionism and structural-functionalism, which I discussed above.According to this author,
focusing on how members define and distinguish themselves is what should be relevant in
anthropological studies of ethnic groups. Mapping so called objective, etic differences only
supports the theory in anthropologist’s head; it does not reflect the reality of people we study.
Barth suggests: “if they say they are A, in contrast to another cognate category B, they are
willing to be treated and let their own behavior be interpreted and judged as A's and not as B's; in
other words, they declare their allegiance to the shared culture of A's” (Barth, 1969: 15).
But, some argued that Barth in attempt of criticizing previous theoretical assumptions
actually reified them. A decade after Bath published his workCohen claimed that there are some
survivals of structural functionalist theory in his work. Terms like group, unit, boundary, and
category – they allindicate that there is an entity, a firm structure that has limits and can be
perceived as a physical object. Even though Bart talks about interaction, it is interaction between
groups that he mentioned. This indicates, according to Cohen, his assumption that ethnicity
designates a collective which boundaries are clear. On the other hand, Cohen calls to attention
one other point of Barth’s work – focusing on the emic definitions. He does not say it is wrong.
What he claims is that strictly choosing one point of view, emic or etic, has been a stumbling
stone among anthropologist from the 1960s. But, he agrees with Barths point that concept of
tribe, which was mainly consisted of emic criteria, what can be seen most clearly in Naroll’s
overview, it was an anthropological categorization, not categorization of the members. Cohen
claims that “ethnic ethnicities (such as a tribe) we often unthinkingly accept as basic givens in
the literature are often arbitrarily, or even worse, inaccurately imposed” (Cohen, 1978: 381-383).
Instead of claiming that ethnicity is based on boundaries between ethnic groups which
once created stay firm, Cohen suggested another point of view. From his perspective, ethnicity is
a conglomerate of multiple cultural marks and significations. These do not provide firm
boundaries between groups. Rather, they form a list of overlapping and intertwined characteristic

19
for multiple identities. Thus, there are used to place a individual in certain level of collective
identity (Cohen, 1978: 389).Cohen argues: “The situational quality and multiple identities
associated with ethnicity lead me to see it as a set of sociocultural diacritics which define a
shared identity for members and nonmembers” (Cohen, 1978: 388). What these Cohen’s
arguments indicate is that, from his perspective, ethnicity is always situational. He explained that
on an example he encountered during his research in northeaster Nigeria. In that area lived two
subethnic groups Pabi and Bura. On the one hand, he claimed that they were divided into smaller
groupings, but on the other, these two subethnicities shared many common cultural identifiers,
and one of those is that both of them were Muslims. This is important because he explaind that
one could claim that he/she is a member of a subsubethnicity, or that he/she is a member of Pabi
or Bura, or that he/she is a Muslim – all this depending on situation in which is one found. Thus,
Cohen promptly, but clearly explained why is ethnicity always situational. Although this was just
an example, it is clear that it can be applied for any other case of this type (Cohen, 1978: 388-
389)
In conclusion, from the 1960s concept of tribe as anhomogeneous entity, unit, separated
from the others was replaced by more fluid concept of ethnicity. The focus from marking
boundaries of social groups was replaced by focus on interaction between them, which lead to
proliferation of this notion in anthropology. Researching intertwined and overleaping interaction
between groupings the assumption that so called primitive society live in separated groups with
clear identities was rejected. Last, but not least, this turn also meant that same term is used both
for Western and nonwestern societies, thus, slowly erasing the division on modern and
traditional society in academic discourse.

Retribalization

Even though in 1960s the notion of tribe was slowly being replaced by ethnic groups and
ethnicity, this notion found another place in anthropological theory. Osaghae notices that
anthropological theory of that time was challenged from the two sides. On the one hand, it had to
update empirical knowledge of the subject, since they were no longer living in separated tribes
(the question is if they ever did). On the other, it had to reexamine its conventional logic and
assumptions. One of the first attempts to manage these challenges was made by Abner Cohen in

20
his book Custom and Politics in Urban Africa: A study of Hausa Migrants in Yoruba Towns.
Coincidence or not, this book was published in 1969, the same year when Barth’s book on
ethnicity was published too (Osaghae, 1996: 2, 42).
Cohen conducted his study 1962-1963 concerning Hausa minority in the Yoruba city
(Ibadan, Nigeria) in the period of 1906-1963 (Makinen, 1970: 613). This people, Hausa, he
claims to be traditionally organized in highly centralized political system, which was based on
common religion – Islam (Osaghae, 1996: 42). During that period, the Hausa held monopoly
over certain field of trade such as trade of cattle, kola nuts and the butcher trade (Makinen, 1970:
613). As a part of process of political changes, urbanization influence on the Hausa. Here Cohen
suggests the new point of view. Instead of claiming that “traditional groups” detribalize and
assimilate once they move to cities, this author suggests that what happens is quite opposite and
he indicates on the process of retribalization. Cohen argues that in this new situation, in order to
maintain the trade monopoly, the Hausa mobilized they tribal identity as a social group. Cohen
defines the process of retribalization as:

“a process by which a group from one ethnic category whose members are involved in a struggle for power
and privilege with the members of a group from another ethnic category, within the framework of a formal
political system, manipulate some customs, values, myths, symbols, and ceremonials from their cultural
tradition in order to articulate an informal political organization which is used as a weapon in that struggle”
(Cohen in Osaghae, 1996: 42).

From this definition it is can be concluded that Cohen perceived ethnicity as a political
tool, not cultural phenomenon. He argues that Hausa continuously negotiated and mobilized
forces of their ethnical distinctiveness in order to create exclusive political and economical
organization to protect their interest (Osaghae, 1996: 42). Furthermore, he disagrees that
“tribalism” is a notion that is necessarily related to conservative and traditional matter. From his
point of view, as he showed on the case of Hausa, it can be in connection with dynamic, rational,
but also political and economical negotiation in context of solving struggles in urban contexts.
Last, but not least, the great contribution given by Cohen in this study is a new perspective to be
used not just in analyses of preindustrial value, but also, as Makinen pointed out in his review, in
studies of phenomena in Western societies, such as Black Nationalism (Makinen, 1970: 613).

21
 Conclusion or why “tribe” matters

As I (hopefully clearly) discussed previously, from the late 19th century to the 1950s tribe
was used by anthropologist to mark sociopolitical organization of “primitive” societies of Asia
(primarily Middle East), South America, Africa that were under the thumb of the West and
civilized centuries. This term was constituted of ideas that were to explain how societies that o
not have state work and maintain social order. To achieve this, academic derived fact from the
history of the society they belonged to and ascribed it to the “noncivilazed” ones. Tribe was
taken from ancient society of the West (such as Roman and Greek), not just in etymological
sense, but also in conceptual. The history, value, and development of the countries in power
position was perceived to be the “objective” and, thus, common for all other societies. Therefore,
Western countries did not imposeto Third World countries just their political and economical
principles. They also imposed their own history, culture, and values. This can be seen when one
goes through the history of tribe in anthropology.
“Tribe”was firstly used by evolutionists to designate a certain stage of evolution through
which all societies are to pass, or at least that was the assumption. Also, tribe was perceived as a
certain type of sociopolitical organization of a certain stage. This theory supported the
conceptual division in Victorian thought between modern world, which has states, and traditional
one, which has tribes. After this theory was rejected, tribe was reappropriated by structural-
functionalists and it was used mostly in that sense until 1950s. In this period, tribe was still used
to mark a specific type of organization of so called primitive societies. Tribe implicated such
organization that is based on structure of kinship ties, to be precise, of descent kinship. Both of
the paradigm suggested that traditional societies are organized in social groups, tribes, which are
separated, isolated, without mutual intertwining and based on firm structure.
Period of 1950s is followed by changes both in political and anthropological field. The
countries of the Third World freed themselves from the colonial power and formed their own
countries. Those separated and isolated tribes from anthropological book united and confused
theory that misrepresented them, as anthropologists were to realize in this period. Thus the
theory changed, possibly under the pressure of political context. On the one hand, sociality was
not seen any longer as a firm and completed structure. Rather, it was seen as an unceasing
process of becoming. On the other, the base of boundary between modern and traditional world

22
that was supported by different notions, such as tribe, was redefined by articulating such concept
that can be applicable on both sides.
The two-sided current culminated in 1969, when both Barth and Cohen published their
books in which they both suggested one term for all socialites. They both suggested that a notion
that was previously used just for one side of a coin to be used for explanation of a certain domain
of the both. Namely, Barth suggested his theory of ethnic groups, which was used to mark social
identities of modern society, to be used for both and eventually to repress “tribe” from
anthropological theory. Cohen introduced academic public with “retribalization”, a process of
symbolical creation of collective identities in order to protect political interest. Even though he
articulated this notion on ethnographical data in Nigeria, he claims that this analytical term has
also great heuristic value in study of Western country.
I started writing this essay with an idea that I will simply present the history of “tribe” as
an anthropological term and how it was replaced by “ethnicity”. It did not take me long to realize
two things. Firstly, there is nothing simply in presenting history of a term. Secondly, political
and historical background of power relations between a researcher and researched is necessary in
order to explaining the theoretical and methodological changes in anthropology. Therefore, in
this essay I concentrated more on the process from tribe to ethnicity, than on the concept of
ethnicity itself. From my point of view, tribe, as a concept, is a great platform for representing
certain transitions both in history and in anthropology, which was my intention in this essay.

23
Bibliography:

1. Abu-Lughod, L. 1989. Zones of Theory in the Anthropology of the Arab World. Annual
Review of Anthropology. 18, 267-306.

2. Balaša, V. 2009. ApatinskiNemci: Etničkarevitalizacijajedneskrivenemanjine.

Antropologija, 8 (8), 129-144.

3. Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In: Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization
og Culture Difference. (ed. Barth). Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 9-39.

4. Blohm, R, Godelier, M. 1973. The Concept of Tribe. Diogenes. 21 (1), 1-26.

5. Caton, S. C. 1991. Anthropological Theories of Tribe and State Formation in the Middle
East: Ideology and the Semiotics of Power. In: Tribes and State Formation in the Middle
East (ed. Khour, Kostiner). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 74-108.

6. Cohen, R, Middleton, J. 1967. Introduction. In: Comparative Political Systems. Studies in

the Politics of Pre-industrial Societes (ed. Cohen, Middleton). Austin and London:
University of Texas Press. ix-xiv.

7. Cohen. R. 1978. Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology.Annual Review of

Anthropology. 7. 379-304.

8. Eriksen, T. H. 2010. Ethnicity and Nationalism. Anthropological Perspectives. London:

Pluto Press.

9. Evans-Pričard, E. E, 1983.PolitičkouređenjeNuera.Socijalnaantropologija. Beograd:

Biblioteka XX vek. 306-383.

24
10. Fried, M. H. 1966. On the Concept of “Tribe” and “Tribal Society”. Transactions of the
New York Academy of Sciences. 28 (4), 527–540.

11. Hutchinson,S. E. 2000. Identity and substance: the broadening bases of relatedness
among the Nuer of southern Sudan, In: Culture of Relatedness. New Approaches to the
Study of Kinship,(ed. Carsten) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 55-73.

12. Ivanović, Z. 2010. Da li supostojalana “srodstvuzasnovanadruštva”? O

(de)konstrukcijijednogantropološkogkoncepta, Etnoantropološkiproblemi. 5 (3), 19-32.

13. James, W, 1975. The Anthropologist as a Reluctant Imperialist. In Anthropology and the
colonial encounter (ed. Asad). London: Itaca Press and Atlantic Highlands, N.J:
Humanities Press. 41-71.

14. Llewellin, T. C. 2003. The Development of political Anthropology. In: Political

Anthropology. An Introduction.Westpoint: Preager Publisher. 1-15.

15. Makinen. E. 1970.Custom and Politics in Urban Africa: A Study of Hausa Migrants in
Yoruba Towns. By Abner Cohen. The American Political Science Review. 64(2), 613-
614.

16. Mitchell, T. 2003. The Middle East in the Past and Future of Social Science. In: The
Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines (ed. Salzon).University of
California Press. 1-33.

17. Moerman, M. 1965. Who Are Lue. American Anthropologist. 67(5), 1215-1230.

18. Nedeljković, S. 2007. Čast, krvisuze. Beograd: Zlatnizmaj.

19. Osaghae, E. E. 1994. Trends of Migrant Political Organization in Nigeria: The Igbo in
Kano. Ibanon: Institutfranscais de recherché enAfrique.

25
20. Ribić, V. 2007.Primenjenaantropologija – Razvojprimenjenihantropološkihistraživanja u
VelikojBritanijiiSjedinjenimAmeričkimDržavama. Beograd:Srpskigenealoškicentar
andOdeljenjezaetnologijuiantropologijuFilozofskogfakulteta u Beogradu.

21. Sharp, J. 2005. Tribe. In: The Social Science Encyclopedia. (ed. Kuper, Kuper). Lonon:
Routledge.

22. Swarts, M. J, Turner, V. W, Tuden, A. 1966. Introduction. In: Political Anthropology (ed.
Swarts, et al). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. 1-43.

23. Wagner, R. 1974. Are There Social Groups in the New Guinea Highlands? In: Frontiers
of Anthropology: an Introducion to Athnropological thinking.(ed: Leaf, Campbell, et al).
New York: Van Nostrand. 95-122

26