Nomadism and tribalism are not one and the same phenomenon, although they can be related. The distinction between tribalism and nomadism has been expressed by David J. Marsden (1976:9) in The Qashqa*i of Iran, wherein he stated:
To presume that all tribes are nomads and that all sedentary agriculturists are non-tribal is to confuse economic with political issues. . . . Tribalism is predominantly associated with an organizational form; a political means of defining population. Nomadism on the other hand is primarily associated with adaptation to environmental conditions, through a particular type of resource management. The nomad, the villager, and the city dweller can quite easily belong to the same tribal group, and this is given recognition by the Qashqa*i and other tribal groups in southern Iran through the employment of the terms, khaki and badi, when referring respectively to sedentary and nomadic sections of the tribe.
A tribe is a product of social process; it is a superstructure and a mechanism that influences certain aspects of its members’ lives. A tribe is a common bond. A people united by the tribal bonds adhere to a culture that may have been formed over a shared history. Tribal organizations have been preserved throughout ages because of conditions that required this preservation. The tribal organization in certain respects is similar to other organizations in other forms of societies. Each has its own hierarchy and its own mechanisms that serve to maintain unity within the tribe.
The unity in every form of society, including tribal societies, is essential for sustaining of the socioeconomic and political components.
Features of Traditional Societies
The M.I.T. Study Group (1969) viewed tribal societies as traditional, and recognized the following features to be basic to traditional societies:
1. Limited technology. Traditional societies have developed within an environment of limited technology. However, at times they have shown a high degree of proficiency in certain directions, but in general they have not been able to generate a constant flow of inventions and innovations or to continue to sustain the growth process because the bulk of their economic activity is taken up with acquiring food.
Recognizing that the history of traditional societies has not always been static, this study group suggested that the traditional society could not break through into sustained economic growth because they lack the adaptability to adjust their behavior to new circumstances. That is why population pressure, wars, the disintegration of central rule, and similar events have brought about periodic breakdowns in traditional societies.
2. Lack of social mobility. The research group of M.I.T. also found that lack of social mobility was a feature of traditional societies. In these societies, individuals value one another in terms of intimate connections rather than their ability to perform specific functional tasks. However, sometimes traditional societies provide a channel for able men of the lower economic classes to rise to power; nevertheless, a kind of fatalism seems to
pervade traditional societies.
Changes in Traditional Societies
For the purpose of this study, it is essential to examine the discoveries made by social scientists concerning elements that have a great impact and influence on traditional societies. The alterations caused by such factors are of great significance to humanity; in fact, certain aspects of these issues are causing division in the world today.
For instance, the technological phase of modernization has caused a socioeconomic revolution. Vast differences have emerged between nations which are technologically advanced and those which are more traditional. The twentieth century, more than ever before in history, is witnessing change of every nature in human societies, and traditional societies are no exception. Many forces are responsible for the alteration and breaking up of traditional societies. The M.I.T. group of scholars (1969) held the following four factors accountable for setting the static traditional societies in motion.
First, intrusion by advanced societies in pursuit of their own interests and execution of new policies have directly affected the economic, social, political and cultural life of traditional societies. Ports, docks, roads, and railroads have been built, primarily for the economic or military advantage of the colonial power, but they have had wider effects in creating national markets, commercializing agriculture, helping cities to grow, and bringing backward areas in contact with elements of modern life. In addition to colonial rule, the defeat of traditional societies in war against a more advanced power has often played an important role. That is, colonial rule was not the only form of intrusion that helped unhinge traditional societies.
Secondly, economics is another significant and influential factor in the process of change. Contact with more advanced societies has led to a spreading awareness of what modernization could do in terms of human welfare.
Thirdly, the communication o* ideas and skills has also played an important role. Training and skills have been disseminated by direct contact and other means of communication throughout the traditional world. The results
have caused alteration.
Finally, once a traditional society has experienced physical intrusion, economic contact with relatively more advanced societies, and the communication of ideas and skills, there is a certain point when independence becomes the moving factor. This focus on independence is aimed at overthrowing the prevailing authority system, be it colonial rule or the traditional ruling class. This process joins together elements in the society or country which traditionally hold quite different views and hence view the modernization process differently. The struggle for power against either or both the traditional leadership or colonial government has been in itself an active element in the transitional process.
The changes that have taken place in the twentieth century have affected the entire world community, although not all societies have been influenced equally. The impact on certain societies has been great and on others negligible or virtually nonexistent. In many parts of the world, for instance, farmers still employ primitive tools for farming, or nomads .still hold on to the ways of life that their ancestors cherished; but one cannot deny that the progress of urbanization, communication, modernization, health care, and the like have left some mark on them. In this century, modern medical findings and other improvements in living conditions have added greatly to the increase in the number of persons on the earth. This in itself produces a change in the world ecosystem, both physically and socially.
Rapid decreases in human communities as a result of such natural disasters as famine, flood, and earthquakes, or from man made causes such as war, as well as the sudden increases in population we are experiencing at present, bring about upheavals of various kinds.
All the changes that have taken place and that are currently taking place could be termed transformation. Transformation and its impact have not always been positive. National governments have often instituted and facilitated transformation, or have implemented policies that have resulted in disaster. The forced settlement of the many tribes, which will be examined later in this study, is an example of such policies. Transformation in life style and the basic mode of production creates many results, including social disorganization. Eisenstadt (1966:20) wrote:
The continuous process of urbanization, of migration from the countryside to urban centers, has often disorganized both rural centers and the older types of urban setting, and has created, especially in its initial phases, many manifestations of social disorganization and sheer misery.
Transformation in communities of Iran. The settlement of nomads in rural or urban areas is an act of passing from one socioeconomic and political form to another. The patterns change. Departing from ancient customs and adapting to different ways has many drawbacks. For example, nomads going through changes in their pattern of work and production face disruption, their social behavior requires modification, and their political loyalties come under challenge.
A look at the alterations of the communities of Iran in this century clearly reveals that some form of transformation has been taking place. According to Bharier (1979), in 1910 the majority of the Iranian population resided in rural areas, with 25 percent of the population nomadic. In 1910 the total population of Iran was estimated at 9.8 million. Only 20 percent lived in 100 towns of over 5,000 inhabitants, and 2 percent— or no more than 200,000 people — lived in Tehran, the capital.
In later years in Iran, as in other parts of the world, rapid urban growth became the trend, due to some of the following factors. The government began to exert more control throughout the country. Road and rail communications improved/ and the exodus to the cities began.
The population of the capital alone grew to 540,000 by 1939 (Iran Almanac, 1976). It can be assumed that the process was accelerated by the second world war, the coming of the Allied Forces into Iran, and the gradual increase in oil revenues.
Between 1960 and 1970 the population of Tehran grew by 6 percent a year to 3.2 million. The national average growth rate was less than one half of this. When the next census was taken in 1976 the growth rate had slowed to 4.2 percent a year. However, population growth in some suburbs of Tehran was increasing by 12 percent a year. The population of Tehran is now over 4 million (Bharier, 1979).
Bharier (1979:27) also added:
The attraction moreover is not just toward large cities. Iran now has 365 towns of over 5,000 inhabitants. The urban population is 46 percent of the total and it is increasing at three times the rate of the rural population.
This is a remarkable change for a traditionally rural society. This fast pace of migration of rural and nomadic people to urban centers is due to factors that have always attracted such migrations: better access to education, health facilities, the media, jobs, and money.
The most recent statistics concerning tribal societies and nomadic life in Iran indicate that the trend among these societies also is toward urbanization and settlement. However, the research of Keshavarz and Nazem- Razavi (1975) revealed that the tribal population of Iran in 1975 was 4,819,921, and they estimated that more than one half of this number, or 2,409,960, were still nomadic. They also indicated that most of the population of large tribes of Iran such as the Qashqa’i, Bakhtiari, Shahsavan, and Buyr Ahmadi, were still nomadic— up to 60 to 90 percent of these tribes could have been classified as nomads.
Keshavarz and Nazem-Razavi (1975) also believed that most developmental projects designed in recent decades for tribal and nomadic populations, including the settlement project, were not comprehensive, long term, or designed according to the needs of those societies. The government’s design which was implemented in certain parts of Iran, failed because of the lack of comprehensive understanding of the needs of tribal peoples. In many cases, after removal of the army and other blockades, nomads returned to nomadic patterns of life. The designers, without having a reasonable insight into the organization and mechanism of tribal life, had assumed that such incentives as building of living quarters and such deterrents as use of force to settle nomads would be sufficient to establish a settlement program.
However, they failed to realize that migration in itself is not the only aspect of nomadism which draws them to this life style— there are many other dimensions. It is the totality, the inclusion of all aspects of this lifestyle that must be understood when alternatives are planned. Nomadism meets the needs of the nomads. The pastoral and nomadic forms of life construct possibilities for production, social structure, and political institutions. The settlement attempts that take into consideration only certain aspects and not the whole, cannot succeed.
Barth (1965:2) explained the attraction of nomadism in the following way:
The drama of herding and migration; the idleness of pastoral existence, where the herds satisfy the basic needs of man, and most of one’s labour is expended on traveling and maintaining of a minimum of personal comfort, and hardly any of it is productive in any obvious sense; the freedom, or necessity, of movement through a vast, barren and beautiful landscape— all these things assume a growing aesthetic and moral importance as one participates in nomadic life, and seem to call for an explanation in terms of the specific circumstances which have brought them forth.