Human beings are inherently social creatures. They could not have survived and transitioned from savagery and barbarism to civilization without living in groups. Throughout the historical development of humanity, these groups have taken various forms, the most important of which are: the family, the clan, the tribe, and society.
Sociologists unanimously agree that a clan is composed of multiple families. However, they differ on the historical relationship between the clan and the family. Some argue that humanity began its journey toward civilization by forming families first, which then developed into clans and subsequently tribes. Others, however, adopt the core thesis proposed by Lewis Henry Morgan, which suggests that the clan emerged earlier than the family, with the latter developing in a later stage of social evolution.
Setting aside these differences, we can say that clans, at a certain point in history, came to consist of groups of families. These clans are composed of individuals bound by kinship ties and often bearing the name of a common, real or alleged ancestor.
As for the tribe, it holds a different meaning, as the term "typically refers to a social group bound by ties of kinship and mutual obligations, often associated with a specific region or territory. Members of the tribe share a sense of social cohesion rooted in family ties, along with a sense of political autonomy akin to that of a nation(1)."
“Over time, primitive tribes evolved into more developed tribes, coinciding with the end of the primitive communal era. The tribe then began to establish self-governance, represented by a tribal leader and his aides, as seen in the East, or by a tribal council comprising both military and civilian leaders, as was the case with many European tribes.”
The Complex Role of the Tribe
The tribe is a higher form of social organization, as it consists of several clans. Its social functions are more complex than those of the clan. A tribe may have its own language or dialect, a specific territory, an official structure (such as a leader or a tribal council), and shared ceremonies.
However, some sociologists argue that the tribe, in its primitive form, emerged before the formation of social classes, "contemporaneous with the clan, as the exogamous marriage of the clan necessitated continuous relationships between at least two clan groups. From an archaeological perspective, the emergence of the tribe is only recorded in the Middle Stone Age, when its formation as a social and ethnic group was completed." (2)
In reality, the tribe differs from other ethnic groups that emerged later, as the tribe "is based on the common origin of the clans that compose it, linked by blood ties. It is the blood relationship—the kinship between two or more clans—that makes them a tribe." (3)
Over time, primitive tribes evolved into more developed tribes, coinciding with the end of the primitive communal era. The tribe then began to establish self-governance, represented by a tribal leader and his aides, as seen in the East, or by a tribal council comprising both military and civilian leaders, as was the case with many European tribes. Gradually, private property and social stratification emerged within tribes, leading to the rise of both wealthy and poor clans, the emergence of tribal nobility, and the increasing influence of military leaders, who soon took control of power within the tribe.
Later, tribal federations emerged, accompanied by a separation between the will of the tribe and clan leaders and the will of the individuals they represented. This shift led to the tribe being directed toward the oppression of other tribes, transforming its institutions from tools for managing its affairs into instruments for subjugating both tribal and clan members alike.
Regarding the social structure of the tribe, many social researchers argue that the economic and social differences among its members are minimal. As a result, hierarchical social stratification is uncommon within the tribe, which, in turn, strengthens its internal unity.
What solidifies the unity of the tribe's members is their constant struggle with neighboring tribes in pursuit of glory, revenge, or for wealth and power. Additionally, their conflict with the central authority of the state, especially during times of its weakness or when it adopts discriminatory policies against one of the tribes, further strengthens this unity.
However, we do not, in principle, accept the notion of weak social differentiation within the tribe, except in the case of primitive tribes, which were the subject of studies by European and American anthropologists in modern times. This fact does not apply to more developed tribes.
In any case, the tribe did not disappear with the emergence of social classes. Tribal organization has persisted in many societies to this day, coexisting with pre-capitalist modes of production and, at times, even with the development of capitalist production. The examples of this can be seen in the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula and the Bedouins of North Africa.
Within the context of subsequent historical development (during the eras of slavery and feudalism), tribes evolved into ethnic groups, which represent an intermediate position between the tribe and the nation. During the transition from feudalism to capitalism, these ethnic groups transformed into nations, which are independent political entities based on a shared economic life, not confined by specific territorial boundaries, and whose members adhere to common values and institutions.
It is natural for the tribal system to give rise to what is known as tribalism, or 'asabiyyah (tribal solidarity), which is, in essence, a form of social isolation characterized by strong internal cohesion and solidarity among the members of a tribe, coupled with hostility and discriminatory attitudes toward other tribes, or a general distrust of outsiders.
“Tribalism, or tribal loyalty, represents one of the greatest challenges to Yemen's transition into a civil society, which can only be achieved through the integration of diverse tribal entities into a new form of human organization known as a nation or civil nationalism, which differs fundamentally from what is referred to as ethnic nationalism.”
Tribalism in the Face of Modernity
It is undeniable that Yemeni society, in its general character, remains tribal. According to the author of the Wikipedia article "Tribes of Yemen," Yemeni tribes make up about 85% of the country's population. However, we believe this figure requires further scientific verification.
Moreover, the tribal organization in Yemen dates back to pre-Islamic times, and significant changes only began to occur after the September 26 Revolution in North Yemen and the independence of South Yemen on November 30, 1967. It was then that elements of modernity began to infiltrate the life and mindset of the tribes. The tribes began to feel that isolation was no longer effective, and a form of social differentiation emerged within them.
However, the impact of the Yemeni cities on the agricultural tribes was not strong, as they (with the exception of the city of Aden) were, until the early 1960s, medieval cities, not much different from life in large villages. As a result, the foundations of tribal organization in Yemen remained largely unaffected.
Tribalism, or tribal loyalty, represents one of the greatest challenges to Yemen's transition into a civil society, which can only be achieved through the integration of diverse tribal entities into a new form of human organization known as a nation or civil nationalism, which differs fundamentally from what is referred to as ethnic nationalism.
In fact, tribalism is a form of racism and social exclusion, and it manifests in many essential aspects of social life in Yemen. One of the most prominent examples is in the appointments and selection of government employees and officials, where privileges are granted to individuals from the tribal group to which the government official belongs, often at the expense of other segments of the population.
The result is the inability to achieve high-quality public administration, as tribal traditions in personnel policies prevent the recruitment and promotion of employees based on their competence, performance, and personal qualities. This phenomenon is further fueled by the appointment of employees through the mediation of higher state authorities, who appoint and promote certain officials and military leaders based on personal or political loyalty.
The detrimental effects of tribalism are not limited to the appointment and promotion of employees and military leaders; they also extend to public affairs. Tribalism becomes particularly evident during the electoral processes and election of candidates for the parliament, as well as in the appointment of the president, prime minister, their deputies, and ministers. These decisions are often made on tribal or sectarian grounds, without regard to the political programs of parties or the competencies of the candidates. The result is the impossibility of building a strong government.
In this context, it is important to highlight a dangerous phenomenon in Yemeni political life: the use of tribes in political conflicts. It is well known that the ruling elites in Yemen, when necessary, resort to activating tribalism and using it for their own benefit. Likewise, this approach is also adopted by some opposition forces. This is one of the reasons that explains the slow erosion of tribal entities.
“Tribalism can only be overcome by changing the economic and social conditions of tribal entities through the development of industry, internal trade, the growth of urban populations, and the widespread dissemination of education at all levels throughout the country. The speed at which a national society is formed, one in which tribal organization and tribalism have no place, depends on the pace of progress in these areas.”
Abolishing the Role of the Government
Furthermore, it is no secret that the social consequences of tribal conflicts driven by revenge, provocations, or struggles for power and wealth are severe. These conflicts sometimes take on an armed form, and as a result, hostility between tribes deepens and escalates, giving rise to new cycles of armed conflict.
Actually, the tribe in Yemen protects its members from rival tribes and government authorities, and often, this protection extends to individuals who have committed criminal or political offenses. As a result, the tribe becomes a real obstacle to the enforcement of laws, effectively undermining the government's role in combating crime and corruption.
It is crucial to address a very important issue here: the prioritization of tribal loyalties over national affiliation. This reality is only denied by those who advocate for the continuation of the tribal system in Yemen, based on the principle that the tribe is the true homeland, which cannot be dispensed with. In contrast, the state can be dispensed with; if it fails or disappears, the tribe will carry out its functions.
It goes without saying that this tribal mentality hinders the building of a national state, which can only be established on the basis of national affiliation. We all know that prioritizing tribal interests over public interests can serve as an entry point for exploiting tribes in the implementation of foreign political agendas.
All this highlights the danger of tribalism to the building of a civil state. The path to a world of civilization and prosperity does not pass through traditional institutions that oppose modernity, but rather through the integration of all tribal entities into a single national framework, with the political foundation being the nation-state.
Accordingly, tribalism can only be overcome by changing the economic and social conditions of tribal entities through the development of industry, internal trade, the growth of urban populations, and the widespread dissemination of education at all levels across the country. The speed at which a national society is formed, one in which tribal organization and tribalism have no place, depends on the pace of progress in these areas.
References
