Citizen = Western. Tribesman = Eastern. These are two different breeds of cat, who see the world in diametrically opposed ways. Can we Westerners impose “citizen values” on a tribal society?
View the credits and transcript for Episode 2.
Recent Discussion
josh says:
this is good advice for a musician/songwriter. the hook in my song is the star of the moment when i’m...
Steven Pressfield says:
Actually, that’s one thing I scrupulously NEVER do, Jeremy. I want to keep with the...
Jeremy says:
I love this post and the “Write for a star” axiom. When I’m writing novels, I almost always have...
Alexa Ispas says:
That’s really great advice Steven, thanks. As writers, we sometimes forget that people care...
S.J.B says:
Looks like James Scott Bell ‘graciously’ pre-empted your book by publishing , The Art of War...
37 Comments
Steve,
Brilliant, It is AFT someone brought some intelligence and wisdom to the fiasco we are calling war in this tribal region. Why we think our way of life is superior is beyond me. All we have is smarter machinery. We have no sense of place, purpose or being outside of the shopping mall. On the other hand, just in case mine gets cut off, unless one is raised in that tradition, it to us as yucky as the thought of eating grubs. I look forward to viewing the next videos.
Mr. Pressfield notes that perhaps tribalism has some attributes that we should indulge in or at least consider as better to ours (the Western world). Let me say that I agree in some part but also disagree.
Here is why… the current state of the US, as well as Western Europe, is one of out-and-out socialism or quasi-socialism (I believe that Washington DC has been putting us on this path gradually for some time now…. irrespective of which of the big two parties you consider)… and if I was left to a choice between this socialsm or tribalism, I would definitely take tribalism. The reason being, tribalism mirrors the one aspect of the US that the US founding fathers envisioned. Obviously not the same vision but it does parallel in that it was thought that the local community would determine it’s own affairs much more so than some grand central gov’t far away that had no idea of what the local culture was like.
This more or less leads to why I respectfully disagree with Mr. Pressfield. I think our intention, not what is in place, in terms of political philosophy is individual freedom. In my view, this is what matters most up to the point that you do not infringe on the rights of others. People may argue that it was first the family and then the tribe but I view the first as the individual which is the smallest unit of autonomy, and again, the most important to consider.
This only applies to our nation… all nations have a right to decide for themselves. And it is for that reason, that I most definitely agree with those who speak within this blog that are part of the Pashtuns. What works for them is their business and who am I to judge what is best for them. I think they know better. But back here in the states… let’s get back to what is supposed to be our axiom of life… which is that of liberty for all individuals.
Very interesting and valuable ideas throughout this series. In video no. 2, I don’t agree with the idea of citizen as defined, in fact, in Alexander’s army the Greek members were very close to the tribal mindset compared to the “civilized” Persian empire members. I propose the early city state mentality wasn’t much different from that of a tribe, and the Macedonians and Thracians were considered as rustics or even barbarians by the Greeks. He had the problem of a big, mixed organization and the difference in tactics and equipment, but he and his senior Greek officers had experience fighting mountain tribes in nothern Greece (the Balkans seem to still have the tribal mindset to me).
The tribal mentality (perhaps put in the idea of the clan as a subunit) not only gives the sense of belonging but the real respect for the individual’s worth, and his opinions. Clan leaders are almost always elected by councils, often with the same family holding the leadership from generation to generation, but only with clan – tribal approval. Every few years or when needed tribes will have general meetings where the various clans meet and the main leaders will address the topics of import for the tribe. This also allows interclan ties of the tribe to be reaffirmed.
I believe western democracy and its citizens, especially the founding father’s (celt, saxon, german, frank and viking tribes) has its roots in tribal structure. The ancient “civilized” societies (Eygpt, China, Inca, etc…) put the role of the individual as subservient to the authority, with no choice or input for the normal individual. These societies overwhelmed the older tribal structures by shear size and power of the entity, and the role of cities shouldn’t be underestimated in the rise of totalitarium forms of government. I think the comments by Bobbos above touches some truths. Perhaps even in smaller cities (i.e., Greek city states) promotes the sense of the individual as you describe, the selfish, less communal thinking, as one is not constantly surrounded by one’s family and tribe and a person’s moral role in society is sharply reduced, while the pressures of city life are mounted upon the individual, creating harder, more cynical ways.
Traditions are of very high importance in tribal culture, and difficult to change. The Spanish culture in the Andes is just a veneer, even after almost 500 years. I agree that tribe members do not respond to being told what to do by outsiders, while “civilized” groups are easily led by any new authority. But from my experience traditions often can be overcome or modified with clear demonstration of the benefit of the change-especially education. But all must be done with respect, for example, you cannot send in a woman to address the leadership of a tribe, which is a major sign of disrespect in almost any tribe. Distrust of outsiders is strong, and over history they are often killed on first contact by tribe members. However, once an outsider is accepted, trust is very strong and that person will be protected to the death if need be, even from other members of the tribe, as long as he demonstrates the trust is well placed (from many personal experiences).
From my experiences of over 25 years, some more basic ideas: Do not use PC bs with any tribes, study the history of the tribe, the region, who are the enemies, and politely treat all members with the respect as a man is due, but you must show you also are a man of respect. Never make a promise you can’t keep; I will always speak the truth, even if it hurts my arguments (and even anger my distant bosses), because to have the trust is more important than to have an agreement. If your word is true, even as an adversary you have gained respect. Lawyers aren’t a good idea; plain, simple language is always a plus, in fact, city folk from the tribe’s country usually are a major hindrance in gaining trust, (here in the USA too). If you don’t understand some words, apologize for yourself and ask the words to be repeated, with tribal leaders every word can have import.
Your comments in this video on the benefits of tribalism are great, but I think individual liberties – quirks are probably better tolerated, as long as one respects the tribe. Great stuff.
Stephen, you mention the dichotomy of east versus west, citizen versus tribesman. The largest populations in the East of course are in India and China. I am sure in the rural areas there are still deep evidences of tribalism in those two countries, but are there not vast numbers of Indians and Chinese migrating over to becoming “citizens” or at least more citizen-like as their countries become more and more urbanized, materialistic and ever eager to increase the influence of capitalism?
I am not criticizing capitalism or urbanization…I perceive a migration away from tribalism that you indicate has not only been firmly implanted in the east for thousands of years but most likely will stay implanted. Please speak on this issue when you get a chance.
Mr Pressfield, Excellent analysis and great thought provoking recommendations. Having commanded an infantry battalion in both Afghanistan and then Iraq, I view any advocates of a “transplant” of the Anbar awakening with GREAT suspicion, so I was pleased to hear that you did not oversimplify any parallels. As you know, in Afghanistan, every valley is its own little war. On your recommendations for “how to win,” I would humbly offer that not only do our more junior troops need more training in “how to make the deal,” they need the authority to do so. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, I felt like I could not push down the full range of authority that my company and in many cases, platoon commanders or squad leaders needed. In short, we have US and coalition military fighting insurgents while PRTs and State Dept officials try to fight the causes of insurgency. To a tribal society, we must look quite dysfunctional. Thanks and keep up the great work!
Mr Pressfield,
Listening to your videos, struck me all of a sudden. You are talking about the street gangs in this and other countries. You could also include the Mafia, I suppose.
How can you say Tribalism is the greatest way to live? You contradict your own statement with the Marine Sgt example. In the West we are able to progress as an organized nation by revering individual merit, coupled with the ability to select precisely which “tribe” we wish to join within that national structure. Afghan Tribal society, and any Tribal society in general if we are to believe your assertions, is static and any attempt at change or advancement is met with violence – how is that better?
As an aside: I’m sure it isn’t intentional, but this series (particularly its title) seems to paint a picture of you as some great prophet of the Tribal-Insurgency connection. It would be great if you’d mention some of the originators of the research surrounding the matter, and low-intensity conflict in general.
Mr. pressman, i do not have the academic background to agree with everything you say, certainly your views on the strength of tribalism resonant with me especially as regards NATO efforts in Afghanistan, given the lack of a credible and ineffective central government in Kabul. I have long believed, as does Major Gant in his article, that a key to stablizing Afghanistan, remains outside the cities, within the tribes and their provinces, and that if we as a NATO capacity builder, are able to strengthen their unity of purpose we will utlimately strengthen the Afghan Central Government. I do believe though that a point is missed regarding tribes and education. of the 34,000 villages in Afghanistan, most seem to clamor for more education of their sons and daughters. As that occurs over time, I can see a shift from tribalism to one of “urbanization” as education leads to commericalization. But we are a decade away from that. Having served mutliple tours in Vietnam, then Somalia, Iraq and soon to be Afghanistan, I have always been struck by the strength and reliance of tribesman on the tribe for substenance and livilehood. With a weak central government in Kabul, I do believe a renewed effort should be directed at the tribes and what strengths they can bring to the bargaining and stability table. Reconciliation among tribes is a must, enhancing the economic growth and trade among tribes is a must, and continuing the education of the tribesmen (and women) must continue to grow. I do not necessarily agree with pulling NATO resources out of the provinces, for to give the insurgent free access gives him the ability to communicate far more effectively with the unsatisified tribes who have yet to see services or assistance that is continuous and sustaining from NATO or the central government. Yet, too we must remember that Afghanistan’s 4 major population centers offer economic and educational opportunities that begin to erode some of the former tribal beliefs, and that centering NATO forces in these major population centers (to include other cities) while necessary now as NATO forces regroup in their strategy development, we must be prepared to return to the provinces, to build these relationships, to ensure they are sustained as well as the work accomplished with them, as a NATO, not (U.S.centric) mentor, while giving critical time for the NATO ministries to work with the ever developing Afghan central government, building its capacity to extend itself within the next decade, to provide the services to the tribes and its peoples, uniting Afghan people as one.
Tom,
I hope you don’t mind that I have answered your post, as you sent it to Steve Pressfield. But I will anyway! And it is not really an answer, but an observation based on my time in Mangwel. The very first thing that Malik Noorafzhal (Sitting Bull) asked for, once we had gained his trust through our actions, not with words, was for us to help him get THE GIRLS SCHOOL UP AND RUNNING. Think about that for a moment and all the implications there. You are correct in many of the things you have said in your post. There is something that I would like to point out here…If the tribe and its elders decide to push for education, for whatever reason, and this leads (after many years) to some hybrid form of “tribalism”…that is OK. The key point here being it is what THEY want, not us imposing our will or values on them. It is very hard to sometimes just communicate with the tribesmen becuase there is no basis for simple words or concepts. In other words, one must have a deep understanding of their history (both as a group {Pashtuns} and as a tribe and just as importantly as an individual. Sitting Bull and his ancestors had a very proud history of fighting foreign “invaders”…as did his tribe and the Pashtuns in general…so that played a vital role in how I and my team dealt with him and his tribe. In your case, the role of education will vary from tribe to tribe and the long term outcome of that will effect the current definition of what “tribe” means. I believe we should let the tribe decide that.
Our fate their will in the end be determined by the relationships we build face to face, working and fighting together, and yes helping their children to become more educted if that is what THEY want. And in doing so, we will get “educated” as well.
Again, thanks for your post.
Take care.
STRENGTH AND HONOR
Jim Gant
I think that white educated urban people have been conflated with this interpretation of the citizen. Certainly, in my small town it is family that counts, then county, then state, and the “nation” is some theoretical thing out there faraway that is out of control. People who are “right” are people who are like “us,” who want our goals (practical things like road clearance, dependable electricity — and, no, we don’t have them) and who will not demand so much money in taxes in fees that our old people and low-wage people cannot be independent.
“We” do not like the “other.” They are not trustworthy. Politicians in this country should be as smart about this as the military is becoming in Afghanistan.
Mary Scriver
One Trackback
[...] Episode 2: “The Citizen Vs. The Tribesman” [...]