Culture and Conflict in the Middle East

by Philip Carl Salzman

In an era of increasing interaction between the United States and the countries of the Middle East, it has become ever more important for Americans to understand the social forces that shape Middle Eastern cultures. Based on years of his own field research and the ethnographic reports of other scholars, anthropologist Philip Carl Salzman presents an incisive analysis of Middle Eastern culture that goes a long way toward explaining the gulf between Western and Middle Eastern cultural perspectives.

Salzman focuses on two basic principles of tribal organization that have become central principles of Middle Eastern life—balanced opposition (each group of whatever size and scope is opposed by a group of equal size and scope) and affiliation solidarity (always support those closer against those more distant). On the positive side, these pervasive structural principles support a decentralized social and political system based upon individual independence, autonomy, liberty, equality, and responsibility. But on the negative side, Salzman notes a pattern of contingent partisan loyalties, which results in an inbred orientation favoring particularism: an attitude of my tribe against the other tribe, my ethnic group against the different ethnic group, my religious community against another religious community. For each affiliation, there is always an enemy.

Salzman argues that the particularism of Middle Eastern culture precludes universalism, rule of law, and constitutionalism, which all involve the measuring of actions against general criteria, irrespective of the affiliation of the particular actors. The result of this relentless partisan framework of thought has been the apparently unending conflict, both internal and external, that characterizes the modern Middle East.

Genres: Middle East, Nonfiction, Politics

224 pages, Hardcover

First published February 27, 2007

Reviews

[Robin Rosenblatt · Rating 5 out of 5]

To all those people living in the Land of Oz .
We are in a World wide Islamic Cultural War or 1400-year-old Jihad.

We each see a different parts of it in the world and if you put all the violent parts together it adds up to only one cause: a 1400 year old Islamic Cultural War. It is the same as that joke of four blind men touching the elephant.

The names of the Arabs and Muslim Terrorists change but the behavior has been always the same for the last 1400 years.

It is not about land, rights or settlements, water or being politically left or right. If it were it would have been solved long ago. It has not.

It is Cultural War that means Islamic Culture must destroy Western Culture or Western Culture must destroy Islamic Culture. It is a Cultural Genocidal War, just like the American/Indian wars. This time we are the Indians.

Muslims have been fighting each other and others for 1400 years or more. There is no reason that it will stop now. If we want peace we must change Islamic Culture.

The book "Culture and Conflict”, explains it clearly. It shows that current cultural conditions in the Arab Middle East will not support internal development, advancement or peace until there is a major cultural change. “It is critical that we understand our enemy. That is step one in every conflict,” RR. Philip Carl Salzman, INSB # 978-1-59102-587-0.

[Strahil Peykov · Rating 4 out of 5]

In many Arab tribal societies, everything rested on a principle called “balanced opposition.” What that means is that conflicts were limited by family ties, the extent of any fight was essentially defined by the family tree. For instance, if two families were fighting, the battle would involve just those two families. It wouldn’t escalate into a massive war with thousands fighting a handful; it was always proportional to the size of the family group.

Now, let's say a conflict begins between two individuals whose lineage connects only as far back as a great-grandfather. That could pull in everyone descending from that ancestor, turning a personal fight into a large-scale family feud. And if, in a different scenario, one group’s member gets into trouble with someone from another branch of the family tree, suddenly all members tracing back to one common ancestor might be expected to take sides. This system was a fundamental part of how Arab tribal societies organized themselves, perhaps even before the rise of the caliphates or the Ottoman Empire.

The beauty of balanced opposition was that it created a decentralized form of social order. No central authority had to command someone to fight; the expectation was clear within the family network. If one family member was wronged by someone from another branch, anyone from the wronged side could seek vengeance or demand reparations. This structure maintained order and ensured that no single side could easily overpower the other, preserving a kind of built-in fairness.

It’s interesting to note how people in the West often view the state as the evolution from such tribal organizations. However, Salzman argues that early states often existed alongside these tribal systems, and that the best tribal systems were sometimes far superior to the early, often oppressive, states. Early states, in many cases, were little more than extortion schemes targeting settled peasants (e.g. farmers), who, because of their fixed locations (farms), were vulnerable to raids. Nomadic or tribal peoples, who could move around and avoid such extortion, often enjoyed far greater personal freedom.

But how does this all lead to individual freedom if you’re constantly dragged into family feuds you can’t opt out of? The key is that the system encouraged individuals to behave honorably. Since your personal honor and that of your entire family were on the line, you had every reason to act carefully. Sure, you might fight with your brother or cousin if needed, but starting a feud that involved distant relatives meant that everyone in your family tree could be forced into conflict with someone else. This social pressure helped maintain order, everyone knew that reckless actions could have serious consequences for the whole group.

It was all a form of organization that worked for its time. Salzman argues that understanding balanced opposition is key to grasping how early Middle Eastern societies operated and even how these patterns might still influence modern Middle Eastern politics.


One interesting point is how Islam effectively integrated this system. Islam provided a unifying figure, Muhammad, and a clear divide between “us” (the Muslims) and “them” (the infidels). This allowed the balanced opposition framework to extend beyond kinship, mobilizing entire communities to fight an external enemy, thus reinforcing the societal balance.

It’s important to note that this whole setup doesn’t require an organized army. In these tribal structures, every man was expected to be a fighter from an early age. When conflict arose, it wasn’t about deploying a regimented military force, it was more like an all-hands-on-deck brawl. Against a formal state with an organized army, these tribal systems were at a disadvantage. The decentralized, family-based approach, while effective for internal balance, couldn’t always stand up to a united external force.

[Silah · Rating 5 out of 5]

A different perspective.

I highly recommend this book; Middle East problems of tule of law and democracy are far deeper than just having elections every now and then or sparkling moments of Arab Spring.

[Susan Valenti · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book explains a lot

What is demonstrated in this book should be more widely known. This is the real Middle East and not an idealized one.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Controversial and disturbing discussion by an anthropologist of what he sees as the inherent strengths and flaws in "Arab" culture. I was shocked when I read, "An overarching, universalistic, inclusive constitution is not possible." 160 He then goes on to try to refute the image of a "golden age" during which Jews and Christians lived undisturbed in Muslim lands. I would love to see some counterarguments (there must have been some) since it is hard to know how selective is choice of passages from old texts to back this claim were. His conclusion:

"These four factors--the defense of honor, segmentary opposition*, transference [by leaders] of discontent outward, and conflicting material interests--militate in favor of alienation between the Arabs and Israel and the tenacious rejectionism of the Arabs. These two cultural factors--honor and opposition--are influences deeply embedded in Arab character. What appears to be reasonable to Westerners will not appear reasonable to Arabs. Such is the power of culture." 170

While I try not to choose my beliefs based on what is comfortable or politically correct, his position is both disturbing and extreme enough that I would need to do some serious research before I come to any conclusions at all. Can one really refer to "Arab" culture when discussing such a large and diverse group of peoples? Even if his understanding of the culture is correct (a large if), can cultures really not change?

*Balanced opposition, a decentralized system of defense and social control characterized by self-help, is a 'tribal' form of organization." 13

"The principle of affiliatin used is 'always side with closer kin against more distant kin. . . . Loyalty and honor require siding with the closer." 68

[Eleanore · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book with a controversial thesis. It is certainly of relevance to anyone who is concerned with international security or with the region. His style is fairly self-conscious particularly with regard to his field-work with the Baluchistan tribes of Iran. His textual navigation of the currents of underlying academic politics is also not at all clear. It could easily have been more tightly written and edited....

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Culture and Conflict in the Middle East by Philip Carl Salzman seems to be written as a primer for an intro class in Middle East studies. It is a breezy short book that packs in the information. It will be a boon to anyone really wanting to understand the cultural aspects of the area, yet let it be a start, not the alpha and omega of learning.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good anthropological work on tribal culture and fighting including the pursuit of balanced force size in the conflicting units, and the importance of kin groups in both fighting and preventing hostile acts by foolish member of their kin group. Fascinating stuff.

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant! This moves straight to the "top shelf". A fascinating and very useful book for anyone living or working in the Middle East.