Although we should avoid defining the tribe solely in contrast to the state, the two entities do come into contact, and their interactions are mediated in a variety of ways. The obstacles to understanding the general nature of tribe-state interactions are clearly apparent in the context of modern geopolitics, which offers a more immediate sense of the unease and ambiguity that results when these three independent concepts — nomads, tribes, and the state — are integrated. In places like Kenya and Iraq, the tensions at play between tribal and state allegiances are perhaps most visible (Salzman 2008). For example, Fox (2007) recently addressed this very tension by explaining that in Iraq, “the family, clan, tribe and sect command major allegiance, and the idea of the individual autonomous voter, if necessary and commonplace in our own systems, is totally foreign.” Although Fox addresses tribes and the modern democratic nation-state, issues that are not germane to the ancient world, his statement is nonetheless telling because it speaks to the enduring myth of the tribe-state dichotomy — to the idea that tribal structures cannot coexist with state structures. On the contrary, several chapters in this book show that not only can tribes and states coexist and even share social elements, but that we must begin to question the very idea that tribes and states are categorically not the same thing. What Fox’s statement shows, concerning modern Iraq as much as anywhere else, is just how tangled the integration of tribe and state can be.2 Each individual element can be called upon to either increase solidarity among disparate groups, or emphasize distinctions between groups (Dresch and Haykel 1995). Thus, just as nomads can become sedentary without giving up their nomadic identity, tribes may not only become states, but they can also become state-like, exhibiting urban features and political hierarchies, while still remaining in some sense, fundamentally tribal.
World History
