A healthy debate about what i believe is probably an archaic and loaded term “tribe” does not necessarily equate to “crying wolf” neither does it equate to criticism of the documentary. Rather, it helps in providing important fodder for other documentary makers to take into account in future Africa themed documentaries.

I think “Ethnic Groups” would have been a more acceptable term to use. Don’t you think?

There are lots of arguments to be made against the use of the ‘T-Word’ (as Nii so eloquently put it). But let’s start with a qualification: Though I do believe that all this is valid independent of who the speaker is, I acknowledge that there is a difference if it is being used by Malians, Ghanaians, Nigerians or anybody else to describe themselves. So, now to a quickly run through the major arguments (though: honestly, check out Low’s article, I think it’s very well explained):

The concept is borrowed from the Bible (i.e. the twelve tribes of Israel – which might lend it some esteem in the eyes of some) and Roman historiography (e.g. Germanic tribes – here, clearly meaning barbarian). Adapted by colonial and immediate post-colonial anthropology it was exclusively used to describe the organization of so-called primitive peoples. This use is deeply rooted in models of social evolution which state(d) that human social organizations developed from its beginnings as bands via clans and tribes to, ultimately, nation states. In this sense the model helped to establish a basic dichotomy between these so-called ‘primitive’ societies and the supposedly superior civilizations of Europe, a dichotomy in which them/us equaled civilized/savage, progressive/static, industrialized/natural and, ultimately, superior/inferior – a distinction that was employed to legitimize ‘their’ colonization. Significantly, the term still carries this connotation of savagery and backwardness, at best romantic simplicity in much of popular discourse in Europe – though admittedly I here can only talk about the UK and Germany from own experience. But I suspect that the alleged self-explanatory quality of ‘tribal conflict’ extends beyond those two countries while, by contrast, my refusal as a Berliner to vote for a Bavarian candidate for chancellorship (to invoke German ‘tribalism’) would usually attract more in-depths explanations simply by virtue of being part of European politics, wouldn’t it?

One of the anthropological arguments against the term is that it designates a one-size-fits-all model for non-European societies (and, admittedly, some European minority societies). Colonial and post-colonial anthropologists have applied it to societies of different size and forms of organization, i.e. societies that had little in common except for the fact that metropolitan discourse considered them ‘primitive.’ As a model it suggested that all these societies shared basic similarities. They all were assumed to represent highly integrated and well-defined social groups in terms of language, culture, and religious system, and ‘traditional’ societies in the sense of only having a relatively simple technology (usually excluding writing and literature) and rather static ‘tribal’ cultures. Very few contemporary anthropologists, art historians etc. would agree that this is an adequate description of the non-European societies they study, describe or originate from. In fact, the model was already criticized in the 1950s by European and American anthropologists who actually went out and engaged with the peoples, societies and cultures they studied. Mention might be made (in case you wanted to continue your own research) of Edmund Leach (1954: Political Systems of Highland Burma).

With specific regard to Africa you might want to check out Aidan Southall’s article ‘The Illusion of Tribe’ (I got a copy I can share with you if you’re interested). Southall, if I recall correctly, argues that most so-called ‘tribes’ in Africa were actually brought into existence only through the colonial administration’s need to clearly define the social and ethnic groups in their respective colonies. I don’t think he (and most others who make this argument) would go as far as to claim that colonial administration actually invented those groups. What they suggest is that pre-colonial concepts of social and ethnic belonging were more flexible and complex. Colonial administration institutionalized one form of social identification at the expense of others. Significantly, these institutionalized ethnic identities were conceptualized along the lines of the contemporary concept of the nation state in Europe. Hence, there is a notion of kinship and shared ancestry as determining of social/cultural belonging. One is born Igbo (to go back to Achebe’s example) or German, for that matter, and there’s no means of becoming or unbecoming Igbo or German. I cannot speak for Igbo identities but as far as being German is concerned I think (outside of rightwing ideologies) this is far more complex – and, yes, to an extent I can choose to identify as German or not, can choose to adapt aspects of German culture (whatever that is) and reject others independently of my birth (and in technical terms one can become German or citizen of most other states anyway). This is not to deny the existence of the social/ethnic/cultural/political identities of being Igbo or German but to say that very few of this is captured by the concept of ‘tribe.’

Ada, I hope that goes some way to explain my objections to the continued use of the term.

As for Dimbley’s African Journey, I’d have to re-watch the documentary to say anything concrete about is use of the term. But I don’t remember getting the impression that a derogatory connation was intended. Though, there are passages when I wonder why he is using this terminology and to which effect. At some point, talking about Ghana for example, he speaks of those ‘tribal men and women’ who still hold ‘modern jobs as lawyers’ etc. So what?