S2 presents the second in a series of posts that will introduce anthropological concepts. The first concept we will define is a tribe. S2 defines a tribe as “any group of people united by their recognition of organizational hierarchy within their group, who share a cultural identity and make up a unique speech community.” To make this definition more complete we have provided a series of definitions for each of the key terms found in bold above.
Organizational Hierarchy: Formal or informal, a tribe has a decision making apparatus that creates rules members must adhere to in order to remain in good standing with their tribe.
Example: Members of the Ticuna tribe from the Brazilian Amazon must defer to two different leaders depending on the situation. The “Tó-ü” is a war leader or chief who commands the tribe when defending or attacking another tribe. The “Yuücü” is a shaman or sorcerer who controls knowledge about epidemics, natural disasters, etc. In the same way, a modern tribe like the London-based NGO Survival International operate according to a similar hierarchy. An executive governing body made up of trustees decide policy, adopt cases, field projects, and review income, expenditure, activities and plans. A director general is then hired by the executive body to implement those policies, raise and manage funds, and supervise the offices and employees. Whether on the ground or online, theses tribes both share the common interest of Amazon conservation and demonstrate a form of organizational hierarchy.
Cultural Identity: The commonly shared identity of a group. It constitutes an individual’s identity to the extent one is influenced by belonging to that group. Cultural Identity includes: place, gender, race, history, nationality, language, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, aesthetics and interests.
Example: “Hagamos un Record Guinness™ El Grupo Más Grande en Facebook!” (Translation: Let’s Make a Guinness World Record: The Largest Group on Facebook), a Facebook group that indentifies around its advocacy for animal rights and aims to become the largest group on the social networking site. Members of the group generally share the need to belong to a cause or causes as well as receive a sense of fulfillment by joining this particular cause.
Speech Community: A discrete group of people who use language (verbal and non-verbal) in a unique and mutually-accepted way among themselves. Members of speech communities will often develop their own pidgin, slang, or jargon to serve the needs of the group.
Example: Fans of the heavy metal band Man of War, most of whom are not native English speakers, form a speech community in how they react to the music: gestures, their own unique English-based pidgin, etc.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
as one who’s interested in concepts about tribes, occasionally scouts the net to see what others are saying, and finds myself here for a change, i’d like to offer a quick passing comment:
i like the fact you recognize that tribes are a modern as well as ancient form of organization. but in my view, it’s not wise start a definition of tribes with a reference to organizational hierarchy. that’s not what’s most important about tribes. tribes may or may not have much hierarchy; hierarchical institutions are a later form to arise from social evolution. i’d suggest moving the other parts of your definition up front. i’d also suggest broadening the “speech” part, maybe make it “symbolic” instead.
if my views require explanation, they’re elaborated in this .pdf paper:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR433/
to the extent you are interested in national security matters, the following blog may interest you: “it’s the tribes, stupid” at
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/
onward.
Hi David,
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your challenge to our attribution of hierarchy in tribal groups. Our goal is for these posts to become a productive discussion forum.
In response to your comment, by placing the key term “organizational hierarchy” first, we did not intend to bestow more weight on it than the other two. Just as you hinted at in your comment, we also debated whether or not to include hierarchy in the definition. One example we considered was Persian society and consensual decision making practiced there.
The key term “organizational hierarchy” was ultimately chosen to represent the arrangement of the political dimension or “power structure” inherent in tribalism. S2 believes that formal or informal, fluid or stagnant, some arrangement of power must be present for a tribe to function. We agree that such structures mature over time, but feel that some semblance of hierarchy (even the most fluid of structures) should be a necessary precondition. That said, we would be interested in any examples you or anyone else had of people organizing independent of leadership/hierarchy.
We found your point about broadening the term “speech community” into “symbolic community” very provocative. This term was meant to address the linguistic element of a tribe without simply emphasizing written/spoken language. While you are correct from an anthropological perspective, a concept like symbology is discipline-specific and for that reason somewhat esoteric. Our goal is to create accurate terms that are still easy to grasp by non-anthropologists. Often times when non-anthropologists uses the term “symbolic” what they are meaning to say is “iconic”. We wanted to avoid a similar confusion.
We look forward to reading the links you provided and all future commentary you contribute.
Thanks again for your comment!
Hello again. Just for the record, I’m a cultural anthropologist, or one in training as I’m currently working on my PhD dissertation. However, my research has always been based in the United States — currently I’m studying political movements and the development of Internet-based media models. So, admittedly, I’m not well-versed in traditional anthro concepts like “tribe” or even pay attention to a lot of ethnographic research on the discipline’s traditional exotic other subjects.
That being said, I think your definition of tribe, while I see what it is reaching toward, is so vauge and un-specific that it could describe any group. For example, it would fit a nation-state if you applied it, wouldn’t it? Every group, no matter the scale, has organization, cultural identity, and shares symbolic communication — ie., the United States. I think many people try to define or use the concept of tribe to describe a group that is smaller in scale, less hierarchical (though it does exist), and perhaps does not rely on rational institutions, like law, for power or decision-making. Economic structure plays into it as well.
I’m not trying to nitpick though, I support your project — just trying to engage in a dialogue that can give it more power!
regarding your reply (#2 above): it often makes a difference what is placed up front in a definition, especially when there is no statement about the weights of different components. but even if you fix that, i’d still propose that it’s inadvisable to define tribes in a way that leads the eye first to hierarchy. the consideration you gave to another pattern — consensus — may apply better to the nature of classic tribes.
according to your definition, with its lead-off emphasis on “organizational hierarchy,” wouldn’t the catholic church or a special forces unit qualify as a “tribe”? do you mean for that to be the case? also, one of your examples of a tribe with a hierarchy — survival international — isn’t really a tribe; it’s an ngo that represents tribes, not a tribe itself. its own web pages offer a definition of “tribes” that says nothing about requiring a hierarchy. i would suggest opting for a definition that can identify the tribal qualities that may persist in such organizations — as well as in the grand kind of tribalism that commenter charles correctly indicates about nationalism — but that does not allow for turning all such organizations into examples of tribes.
the “power structure” of a tribe resides less in a hierarchy it may have than in the codes of honor and other codes of conduct that are embedded in the tribe. a tribe’s people are not primarily “united by their recognition of organizational hierarchy” but rather by their sense of identity, kinship and solidarity (as in the second, far-more-essential part of your definition). furthermore, your definition of hierarchy posits “a decision making apparatus that creates rules members must adhere to in order to remain in good standing with their tribe.” but that’s more like a definition of an administrative, judicial, or bureacratic hierarchy than a tribal hierarchy. for everyday matters, classic tribes have a cultural apparatus (the best term?) that sets codes and rules, more than a political decision-making apparatus. if issues arise that require a tribal council, then some hierarchy may well come into play — but so do norms for consensus.
apropos this, you note that you “would be interested in any examples you or anyone else had of people organizing independent of leadership/hierarchy.” i presume you mean in reference to tribes. but is that really a key question? instances of leadership or hierarchy normally crop up sometime somewhere in most all forms of organization, tribes included. and it’s conventional for modern analysts and strategists to go looking for leaders and hierarchies in all organizations. but according to the literatures i’ve scoured, classic tribes may not even have full-time chiefs, just the episodic “big man” depending on the matter at hand. and chiefs, when present, may not wield much hierarchical power. where tribal chiefs do exist, it’s crucial to recognize them (as in conflict zones in iraq and afghanistan); but it’s also crucial to recognize what lies behind them (e.g., pashtunwali codes). beyond that, the more a hierarchical chiefdom is present and enforced atop a tribe, the more that society lies somewhere between being a tribe and becoming a state or element of a state.
i’m reminded of a documentary about a bad-ass low-life motorcycle gang in a city back east that was organized as a club and had an elected president who ran meetings and organized club activities. true to classic tribal dynamics persisting into the modern era, the president noted that he really didn’t run anything and couldn’t enforce anything on his own; anybody could do pretty much as he or she pleased, as long as they remained true to the club. so much for the importance of organizational hierarchy; it’s there, but not in the way or to the degree your definition presently poses. tribes tend to be anti-hierarchical as much as, if not more than, pro-hierarchical. indeed, your definition may fit a warlord and his clan better than a classic tribe.
on another note, my suggestion of “symbolic” was offered with a “perhaps” — and i remain uncertain what is most advisable here. yet, i’ve never before heard that use of the term “symbolic” implies what you claim it does: “symbology” of a “discipline-specific” “esoteric” or “iconic” sort. i had no such academese in mind, and just thought it would be advisable to broaden beyond your stress on “speech” even though language is normally a significant attribute of a tribe.
in sum, stick with speech community if you must. but do reconsider the emphasis your definition places on hierarchy. move the second part of your definition up front. and make sure that the definition enables analysts to distinguish between what are tribes and what are organizations or patterns of behavior that are not tribes yet have some tribal qualities. something along those lines.
though i remain interested in concepts about tribal forms of organization, it’s been years since focused on that. i don’t recall any studies that defined tribes by putting hierarchy up front as you do. heterarchy yes, but not hierarchy. so i’d be interested in learning what sources you’d cite for this aspect of your definition.
onward.
Part of identity is place, which is why tribal names are often the same as a body of water or sacred landmark denoting their indigenous territory. Common language, economic practices, cosmology and ceremonies comprise aboriginal nations of autochthonous tribes. Governance within indigenous societies varies according to the unique history of each tribal people, but a widespread characteristic is a system of law and order based on systematic generosity that makes a place for everyone. One of the taboos of US Pacific Northwest Coast Salish culture is hoarding; thus the ongoing ancient practice of ritualized gift-giving known as Potlatch–a practice that was outlawed by the governments of Canada and the US as a key element of terminating indigenous self-governance and cultural identity during the 19th and 20th centuries.