Warfare among Tribal Societies - Research Paper Example

?Warfare among Tribal Societies Introduction Historians and anthropologists greatly debate about the origin of human fighting or war. This is so considering that the definitions of war are quite diverse. However, it is beyond doubt that from the time of the first war, human conflicts that have ended up in wars are beyond number. The modern society is so punctuated with warfare and fighting to an extent that it is almost a norm considering the extents of the world. Beyond doubt, tribal societies have engaged in wars for various reasons and to achieve various goals. This paper will analyze the issue of warfare with special focus on tribal societies. Discussion Tribal Societies A tribe may be defined as a group of individuals in a barbarous or primitive developmental stage, claiming to have a common ancestor, and pledging their allegiance to a chief. A tribe may also be defined as a social group of individuals united in dialect, having affiliation to a territory, endogamous without specializing in functions, appreciating distance with other tribes and ruled by tribal chiefs (Harrow, 2005). A tribal society on the other hand may be defined as a way of life in such a way that individuals pursue their own activities as independent local communities. These communities are composed of clan and families without states or central governments. Members of tribal societies are related by their districts, to their neighbors according to Harrow, (2005). Smaller groups of tribal societies have their specific customs, local communities and languages and sometimes engage in conflicts with each other. It is for this very reason that anthropologists claim that such societies are not capable of defending themselves from outside forces. Majority of the tribal societies know how to deal with their environments and they have ensured their survival through organizing themselves along the lines of kinship and clans. The way the tribal society views and utilizes the environment is entirely based on the strong cultural ethos held by this tribal society (Rose, 2000). These tribal societies are prone to the pressure of nature. However, the pressure is minimized through the formation of clan systems. A clan is described as a group of family responsible for some of the aspects of the tribal life. Allegiance is offered to each of the tribe by the clan and the clan is responsible for some of the functions in the economy, society and religion. This type of diffused responsibility offers a broad-based insurance policy that ensures the survival of the tribe (Champagne, 1999). Cultures that are organized as large states have numerous cultural concerns such as the emphasis on personal mobility, personal safety, personal freedom, individual effort and the material well-being (Rose, 2000). Chronic disputes are very common in most of the tribal societies but these disputes are usually directed externally. The normal survival of a tribal society was not very much threatened by internal conflict although within these small societies there was no clear definition between internal and external conflicts. These tribal societies lacked government and their form of rule was anarchic. They were also characterized by economic self sufficiency and self rule or freedom (Bodley, 2007). Internal order was well maintained although they lacked formal legal codes, formal political offices, and specialized law enforcement institutions. The maintenance of order by the tribal society is attributed to the cultural and social conditions. In the tribal societies, the individual self interests do not conflict with the interests of the entire society. Theft, excessive conflict, hoarding of resources and the use of force in the tribal society was detrimental and lacked logic because everyone depended on each others’ cooperation and mutual trust. Other than stability and ecological success, the interests of the tribal societies have as maintained the population equilibrium. Conflicts in a low-density tribal society were minimized by extreme flexibility of the group members and the small size of the face to face local residential group (Bodley, 2007). The tribal society systems were not fully integrated because there were areas of partial dependence and partial integration within the system. The partial dependence and partial integration allowed for the possibilities of moderate changes within or without the systems (Grinker, Lubkemann and Steiner, 2010). Pan-tribal mechanism exists in tribal societies; the mechanism integrates and cuts across all the local sections of the tribe into one unit. The mechanism is composed of the tribal associations such as the age, clans, gender and secret societies. The pan-tribal associations create unity in the tribe against any form of external threat. However, these integrating forces are temporary political fixtures. The integrating mechanisms are only applicable when there is an emergence of an external threat (Andreatta and Ferraro, 2009). Warfare among Tribal Societies Tribal groupings, as observed above are a way of primitive retreating that attempts to offer convenience of power to the weak who find it difficult to face social challenges in isolation. It can be argued that perhaps such collective retreat by the same minded group is primarily aimed at creating a social weapon that the tribe uses to climb to a better bargaining voice and power against a certain common enemy. According to Harrow (2005), the factors that facilitated major tribal warfare such as the one that resulted in the Rwanda genocide can only be used to in the affirmative to demonstrate the need for synergism in pursuit of power. The author states that there are several versions of the explanation given to observed rivalry in Rwanda, where scholars attempting to unravel the intricacies make divergent contributions. “Narratives of the genocide in Rwanda, counter narratives denying one version or another, return to the foundation fantasy, to the objectification of the other, and to historicist constructions that obscure as they reveal their perspective on the events…,” (Harrow, 2005, p34). An important position developed in the work by this author illustrates the need to approach the tribal warfare with a sober and informed social process perspective. According to Ferguson and Whitehead (2005), there is an apparent tendency of tribal groups to adjust to the harsh circumstances in their life, especially if violence was looming. Tribal warfare has been represented by these authors as an adaptation mechanism which seeks survival of the established group. By referring areas prone to such violence as tribal zones, the author connects well the adaptation concept with the major tribal warfare witnessed in the world. Expanding states in Europe for instance are included in the explanation why micro societies found tribal warfare as an important tool to achieve such objective. Warlordism is said to thrive in societies faced with tribal warfare since groupings must arise to confront the common threats facing them (Woodward, 1999). According to Cowley and Parker (2001), political organization in human history can be seen as a turning point in warfare interaction between human societies. According to the author, there is no historical relationship or documentation of presence of war in most prehistoric human societies until the period of a settled life when men established political organizations. Tribal warfare is as depicted in this discourse presents a primitive social or political organization where identity and other social circumstances form the basis of their formation. According to the author, different tribes may arise from several factors compelling people to regroup in a comfort association in a process referred to as tribalization. Politics contribute a potent force in existence of tribal wars in a stronger mobilization capacity since political chiefs facilitate cohesion among the members of the tribe. Tribal identities act as the foundation for which warring tribes find an excuse to carry out warfare. Another point of view is held by Kelly (2000), to the effect that warfare is merely episodic in the human society and in existence from antiquity. The nature of the warring societies determines the amount of aggression witnessed in the ensuing warfare. Conclusion The origin of war or human fighting has been long discussed and the occurrences of such wars are unaccountable. The wars can be traced back to the tribal societies and the reasons for engaging into any form of fighting varied from society to society. The same has been passed on to the modern warfare. Tribal societies have simple structures and they are composed of families and clans that lack state or central governments. The tribal societies have their own customs, language and local communities and they are related to their neighbors through districts. The tribal societies have their own modes of survival in the environments they live in. Their organization into kinships and clans has facilitated the survival of these tribal societies. Most of the disputes that occur within the tribal societies are directed externally. It is argued that internal conflicts within the tribal societies were kept at check by the cultural and social conditions. It is imperative to note that the tribal societies lacked any form of government system. It is important to note that the tribal society systems were not fully integrated; there were areas of partial dependence and partial integration. Pursuit of power can facilitate tribal warfare as witnessed in the Rwanda genocide. There is a tendency among the tribal groups to adjust to unfavorable conditions especially when violence is eminent. Tribal warfare in this case presents a primitive political organization. Politics instigate most of the tribal wars because of the power and influence the political chiefs have on the tribe members. Personal Reflection Starting a debate over the issue of human aggression and warfare, there is profound agreement that humans are not ordinarily wired to coexist with hostility against each other. However, social evolution coupled with other needs of establishment of the human society such as political reasons, it is apparent that warfare comes in handy to assist in relevant development. Tribal warfare, this is because the human society moves from simple organization to more complex ones, with organizational challenges propping out of the need to progress with society evolution. The earliest form of human warfare in prehistoric times is estimated at around the period of time when man adopted a settled life. Tribal warfare, however crude it appears, presents a mechanism through which the tribal society grows from a weak form of life to a more complex organization. The realization of the cost incurred in war can only be a lesson taught through experience, since the desire for power and other social possessions is usually blinding at the heat of the aggression. While it is difficult for the more advanced societies to sit back and watch extreme forms of aggression against innocent human beings, it is vital that lessons of past events of social evolution are allowed to guide compromise. Tribal societies are likely to benefit from lessons of inhumane aggression without necessarily having to pass through the same experience. This fact will make the realization of the fact that tribal warfare is not fashionable any more in this age, with the state offering a sophisticated organization enough for political and social needs of the society. References Cited Andreatta, S. & Ferraro, G. P. (2009). Cultural anthropology: An applied perspective. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Bodley, J. H. (2007). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira. Champagne, D. (1999). Contemporary native American cultural issues. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira. Cowley, R. & Parker, G. (2001) The reader’s companion to military history. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Ferguson, B. R. & Whitehead, N. L. eds. (2005) “Microsociologies- War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare.” Contemporary Sociology, 23(1):80 Grinker, R. R., Lubkemann, S. C. & Steiner, C. B. (2010). Perspectives on Africa: A reader in culture, history and representation. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons. Harrow, K. W. (2005) “Ancient Tribal Warfare: Foundational Fantasies of Ethnicity and History.” Research in African Literatures, 36(2):34-45 Kelly, R. C. (2000) Warless societies and the origin of war. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Rose, J. (2000). Population problems: Topical issues. London, UK: Routledge. Woodward, S. L. (1999) “Failed States: Warlordism and Tribal Warfare.” Naval War College Review, 52(2):55-68 Read More