Nomad lives
| , ,Part 1. Nomads and nomadism
Nomadism
A forgotten paradigm
Résumé
Un paradigme oublié : le nomadisme
Cet article a pour ambition de revenir sur la manière dont la sociologie rend compte de l’éternel conflit entre nomades et sédentaires. Il part du constat que la philosophie politique occidentale, et, avec elle, les visions de la démocratie, du contrat social et de la société, sont des visions de sédentaires. Pourtant, ceux-ci n’ont pas cessé de cohabiter, de façon souvent conflictuelle, avec des nomades auxquels « la mondialisation » donne à nouveau la possibilité d’être des acteurs historiques importants ; pourtant, ils restent cachés pour la théorie, puisqu’invisibles aux yeux des tenants du paradigme dominant, comme le montrent les ouvrages d’Alessandro Monsutti sur l’Homo-Itinérans de la planète afghane, de Michel Peraldi sur les « Commerçants à la valise », aventuriers du nouveau capitalisme, et d’Alain Tarrius sur les « Transmigrants », …
Les travaux sur la migration prolifèrent mais certains d’entre eux n’abordent jamais des enjeux pourtant cruciaux à appréhender si l’on veut comprendre le nomadisme dans sa forme moderne, ne pas se contenter de décrire le déplacement mais élucider ses raisons : condition sociale, commerce, guerre, travail, mobilité, mobilisation… Notre hypothèse est qu’il en va de même à propos du nomade, rejeté par les populations sédentaires. Comme l’habitant du tiers monde, l’immigré ou la femme, il est considéré non seulement comme illégitime mais, à l’égal des peuples colonisés, il est pensé au mieux comme une bizarrerie, au pire comme une manifestation de la barbarie. Or, rien ne ressemble plus à un acteur du monde globalisé qu’un nomade.
Dans un premier temps, nous reviendrons sur les origines du paradigme « nomade », en nous focalisant notamment sur les termes clefs qui le caractérisent comme la famille, le clan, la tribu, mais surtout en démontrant l’incompréhension et l’invisibilité dont il pâtit. Dans un deuxième temps, nous analyserons les difficultés que pose aux nomades l’ordre « rationnel-légal » de la bureaucratie capitaliste. Enfin, nous tenterons de réfléchir à une nouvelle épistémologie de la recherche adaptée à ce nomadisme moderne.
Précisons-le : nous questionnons le paradigme « nomadisme » dans la temporalité restreinte de la sociologie et de l’histoire, et non à l’échelle temporelle de l’archéologie. En outre, nous nous sommes focalisés sur la figure du nomade « rejeté », ce qui nous a permis de la relier à celle du transmigrant étudié par Alain Tarrius mais qui entraîne un biais en réduisant la complexité du phénomène envisagé. La vocation de notre texte est donc de revenir sur l’émergence de ce paradigme nomade.
La vocation de notre texte est donc de revenir sur l’émergence de ce paradigme nomade.
Première approche du paradigme
La littérature sur les nomades étudie l’organisation des principaux peuples de pasteurs-guerriers ou de pasteurs caravaniers qui vivent dans les steppes désertiques. Grâce à elle, il est possible de relever un certain nombre de caractéristiques communes aux Toubou, aux Mongols, aux Touaregs, aux Baloutches ou aux Masais, etc. Des écrits de géographes et d’anthropologues naît une généralité formelle que nous nommons, faute de mieux, le paradigme « nomadisme ». Le plus probable est que les nomades sont issus de groupes minoritaires de sédentaires rejetés qui se sont mis à élever des bêtes dans des steppes désertiques : « C’est dans cette conjoncture d’une agriculture pauvre et de grands troupeaux aux confins nord des grands États d’Asie (Chine, Corée, Japon) que se développa le nomadisme. Fuyant les collecteurs d’impôts, [des Mongols] abandonnèrent les champs et partirent plus loin vers le nord où les pluies intermittentes rendent l’agriculture aléatoire mais entretiennent de riches pâturages. La plupart des auteurs insiste sur ce qui les réunit, par-delà des systèmes politiques très différents : « Les éleveurs nomades d’Asie centrale et d’Afrique saharienne ont des valeurs partagées — respect pour la nature, importance de l’hospitalité —, qui trouvent leur source en grande partie dans leur mode de vie ». Il convient donc de dresser la liste de ces valeurs qui engagent des comportements identiques, pour caractériser l’humain nomade.
La famille, le clan et la tribu sont des formes d’organisation omniprésentes : elles coexistent avec des signes d’appartenance plus symboliques, tel un même blason ou totem brandis. Cette prééminence des relations personnelles, qui n’excède pas les limites du clan ou de la tribu, rend les coalitions fragiles et les confédérations instables.
Les comportements de certains nomades qui s’adonnent aujourd’hui au commerce légal, aux marges de la légalité et illégal relèveraient de l’art de la guerre pour deux raisons. La première est historique : les nomades ont dominé pendant mille ans l’histoire de l’Eurasie par la terreur qu’ils inspiraient. En se sédentarisant, ils ont conservé leur état d’esprit, fondé sur le culte du chef de la tribu et la confiance dans les liens du sang, ainsi que les valeurs viriles qui en découlent (bravoure au combat, patience dans l’adversité, ténacité dans la vengeance). La seconde tient à la fluidité d’un mode de vie où tout est toujours provisoire : dispersés avec leurs troupeaux dans d’immenses steppes désertiques, les nomades ont développé une vision du monde incompatible avec les institutions stables des sédentaires.
Le nomadisme et l’ordre rationnel-légal
Une autre façon de caractériser les nomades serait d’analyser les difficultés qu’ils rencontrent avec ce que Max Weber nomme l’ordre « rationnel-légal » de la bureaucratie capitaliste. La colonisation française offre un exemple d’une politique de « civilisation » des nomades, dans des zones ou à des époques où la colonisation de peuplement n’était plus de mise. L’administration favorisa systématiquement l’agriculture stable des oasis en cherchant à améliorer ses rendements, l’aide à la sélection des animaux ne faisant l’objet que de rares recherches, d’où le malaise profond d’une partie des nomades sédentarisés et les nouveaux débouchés des nomades sans troupeau : la guerre ou le commerce.
Dans la plupart des pays, les gens qui n’ont pas de toit et vivent dans la rue sont appelés « habitants de la rue », en France, ce sont les « sans domicile fixe », et, même s’ils cherchent à revenir tous les soirs sur le même bout de trottoir, ils sont considérés comme des vagabonds. La capacité à se mouvoir jette le trouble dans un ordre public qui repose sur le contrôle de proximité. Il a fallu attendre 1893 pour qu’une loi oblige tout « résident » à s’immatriculer dans la mairie de la commune où il résidait, ce qui permettait de l’intégrer aux fichiers de l’administration centrale. Toutefois, comme la loi oblige à une certaine sédentarité pour que l’on soit considéré habitant d’une commune, certaines catégories socio- professionnelles (marins et mariniers) ont été longtemps privées du droit de vote. En somme, la différence entre nationalité et citoyenneté reposait sur le fait d’être sédentaire. Pas de papiers sans résidence, pas de citoyenneté sans papiers..
Plusieurs recherches sur les étrangers venant d’Afrique, d’Asie et du Moyen- Orient suggèrent l’existence de nouvelles formes migratoires marquées par des initiatives économiques internationales en réseaux. Les Tsiganes devraient aussi entrer dans cette distribution de rôles car eux non plus ne trouvent pas leur place dans les hiérarchies locales des préséances identitaires. En nous inspirant du paradigme du nomadisme, nous pouvons affirmer que ce n’est pas la misère, la pauvreté, la dépendance, qui frappent l’observateur de populations qui se tiennent ou sont tenues à distance mais leurs initiatives, leur puissance, leur capacité de mobilisation, leur faculté à entrer et à sortir fréquemment de nos univers de normes et de nos territoires, pour en créer de nouveaux, temporaires ou durables, hors de portée de l’entendement des citoyens sédentaires.
Même si, jusqu’à une époque récente, la France a reçu et intégré vaille que vaille des vagues d’immigrants/immigrés, aujourd’hui, dans les espaces européens, des migrants nomades écrivent une nouvelle histoire : ainsi, des Marocains dont les migrations, moins diasporiques que nomades, les placent dans des situations plus favorables aux dispersions transnationales qu’à des formes d’intégration sédentaire « locales-nationales ». Ce « malaise dans l’identité » a provoqué en France, pendant l’été 2010, des conduites politiques ségrégatives et violentes à l’égard de minorités Roms
LLe cas particulier des nomades qui sont en même temps commerçants, qui sont nomades parce que commerçants et dont la vie professionnelle repose sur la plus-value qu’ils dégagent entre les biens qu’ils achètent et revendent, a été étudié par Alain Tarrius, Michel Péraldi et leurs équipes. Le premier s’intéresse depuis longtemps aux élites qui concrétisent leur position en se déplaçant dans les endroits stratégiques de la planète : la Californie, Dubaï, le Qatar, la côte méridionale de la Chine, Singapour. Mais, ces destinations ont vu affluer peu à peu des voyageurs modestes qui font des ports intermédiaires, comme Istanbul ou Trébizonde en Turquie, des plateformes où les échanges s’intensifient, où les « fourmis de l’Europe » rencontrent les « fourmis de l’Asie » pour des échanges « poor to poor ».
Conclusion : transmigration versus itinérance un un nomadisme « moderne » ?
La typologie des migrants internationaux s’est donc enrichie, depuis vingt ans, de la classe des transmigrants, population mobile présente sur tous les continents qui échappe aux seules questions de la migration économique et de la relation post-coloniale et que Monsutti qualifie d’homo itinerans, sujet de mobilités multiples. Ces nomades « modernes » accomplissent des parcours qui sont à la fois très ordinaires et très singuliers. Ils mettent en scène, à travers le monde entier, une nouvelle mondialisation, faite aussi bien de barrières à franchir dans des situations chaotiques que d’événements paisibles dans des contextes tranquilles. Ces parcours révèlent tout ensemble la prégnance des politiques migratoires appliquées par différents États et la politique de qualification qu’ils appliquent, au prix d’une tension forte entre destin assigné, bifurcation, aventure, mobilisation … C’est ainsi que les nomades « modernes » s’affranchissent des normes locales au moment même où celles-ci sont maintenues, voire aggravées, dans le nouvel univers où ils arrivent et circulent.
Le nomade s’organise grâce aux liens de sang et de voisinage qu’il a noués, dans une hiérarchie souple fondée sur la réciprocité et la reconnaissance des places et rôles différenciés entre protecteurs et protégés. Sa relation à un espace doté de frontières où l’on peut être sédentaire est nécessaire à sa survie mais il ne fait qu’y passer.
Entrées d'index
Mots clés :
paradigme, nomade, sédentaire, contrat social, clan, tribu, protection, fluidité, migration, transmigration, globalisationKeywords :
paradigm, nomad, sedentary, social contract, clan, tribe, protection, fluidity, migration, transmigration, globalizationTexte intégral
Introduction: in sociology, forgotten or hidden paradigms exist
1Since Kuhn’s seminal work on scientific paradigms (Kuhn 1962), it has been established that paradigms inform both how scientists structure the questions they posit, as well as the answers that are found. In Abbott’s (2001) fractal model, every twenty years the same competing themes emerge in the public arena of the academic world, with different vocabularies, but filling the same space. The fact that these debates recur demonstrates that they are part of the same paradigmatic universe, “standard examples” of the same model (Kuhn 1990). On the other hand, new assertions may appear that may take that which is considered universal to be special, and parallel paradigms are established that may cohabit and even complement each other (Feyerabend 1969). Anne Cheng (1997) comes to a similar conclusion when she argues that Chinese thought cannot, as Granet (1981) stated, be reduced to Confucianism alone, but is rather the result of parallels, complementarity, and confrontation between Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. At the dawn of this new century, the concept of the coloniality of power and subaltern knowledge explores how the tenets of sociology have been contingent and dependent on a reversible situation of power, that of colonialism. The effects of this hegemony persist even today, especially as the field continues to revere its founding fathers (Marx, Pareto, Tarde, Durkheim, Weber, etc.) (Quijano 2000; Dussel 2002; Mignolo 2000; Wallerstein 2006; Bhabha 1994; etc.)
2Our hypothesis is that this is also true for the theme of the nomad, which is rejected by sedentary populations. Like colonized peoples, Third World inhabitants or minorities, immigrants, and women, the nomad is considered not only illegitimate, but, as with colonized peoples, he is thought of at best as a quirk, and at worst as a manifestation of barbarity. However, no person is more fully an actor in the globalized world than the nomad. We will first return to the origins of this “nomadic” paradigm by discussing the key terms that characterize it, such as “family,” “clan,” and “tribe,” but above all by demonstrating the incomprehension and invisibility of this paradigm. We will then consider the nomads by analyzing the difficulties they encounter with what Weber calls the “rational-legal order” (Weber 1922).
3We would like to make it clear from this introduction that we are exploring the paradigm of the “nomad” within the temporality of sociology and history, and not from an archaeological viewpoint. Our sociological approach therefore frames our study within a limited temporality. Furthermore, we would like to recognize that we have certainly reduced complexity and created a bias by focusing on the figure of the “rejected” nomad. This figure has allowed us to formulate a connection between nomad and transmigrant, a figure that will be discussed in the chapter “Naissance d’un peuple européen nomade (Birth of a Nomadic European People)”, by Alain Tarrius. The purpose of this short chapter is thus to explore the emergence of the nomadic paradigm.
Initial approach to the nomadic paradigm
- 1 By using the term “minority” we are assuming a choice of direction for our chapter.
4The literature on nomads focuses on the organization of the main nomadic groups of pastoral warriors or pastoral caravaneers living in the desert steppes. Thanks to this research, it is possible to identify a number of common characteristics shared by the Toubou, the Mongols, the Touaregs, the Baloch, the Maasai, etc. There is a certain generalization of form that emerges from the writings of geographers and anthropologists, which we have decided to call the “nomadic paradigm,” for lack of a better term. It is most likely that nomads were minority groups1 of sedentary people who, having been rejected, began to raise animals in the desert steppes (Watt 1962; Bataillon et al. 1963; Lattimore 1966; Bonte 2004; Gardelle 2010): “It is in this context of poor agriculture and large herds on the northern borders of the large Asian nations (China, Korea, Japan) that nomadism developed. Fleeing from tax collectors, (Mongols) abandoned the fields and moved further north, where intermittent rains made agriculture unpredictable but provided rich pastures” (Lattimore 1966: 64).
5They would share certain behaviors: “Nomadic pastoralists in Central Asia and the Sahara have shared values - respect for nature, the importance of hospitality - (despite very different political systems) that are largely rooted in their way of life” (Gardelle 2010: 19). Therefore, it would be appropriate to list what these people have in common, in order to have a general understanding of what characterizes the nomadic human.
Family, clan, tribe
6“Borders don't matter to us, only tribes do. In the sky, there are no borders,” (Ag Assarid 2006, cited in Gardelle 2010: 59). For the nomad, family, clan, and tribe as forms of organization are omnipresent in every aspect of life. Other, more symbolic ties of blood or belonging also exist, such as a shared coat of arms or totem, as enslaved people also belonged to the family and the clan, as did animals, who were branded with its seal. According to Bataillon (1962: 40-41):
The dispersion of men over vast distances, the risks caused by the hostile environment, which threatens death through hunger or thirst, the risks caused by insecurity and a permanent state of war between neighbors, have created a need for both respect for extended hospitality and a system of precautions when interacting with strangers. [...] Social life is made up of personal relationships, concrete ties between individuals. The weak hold over the material environment seems to by offset by a number of ties and controlling attitudes between individuals, whether or not they are members of the same family. While political institutions are basic, everyone is required to know their place in the community through the names of their ancestors.
7This preeminence of personal relationships, which does not extend beyond the limits of the clan or tribe, makes coalitions fragile and federations unstable. The history of nomadic empires, which existed for several hundred years, were conquered or upset (Persia, India, China, and the eastern part of Europe), then lost their geopolitical importance, bear witness to this weakness (Chaliand 1995; Bonte 2004; Attali 2005). The biographies of great innovators, such as Muhammad or Genghis Khan, the importance of the clan’s collective protection is obvious, and very different from the concepts of social contract and civil peace in sedentary societies. The clan must impose itself on the outside world; otherwise, it will disappear. In this way, the nomadic state does not fit into many assumptions of political philosophy, as well as the representations of the Westphalian concept of power relations between nations.
8Since the French Revolution, which placed the people at the head of the state, one of the roles of the state is to determine who makes up its people (Balibar & Wallerstein 1988). The State then attributes to itself the “monopoly of the legitimate means of circulation” (Torpey 1998, 2000). Passports and identity cards are the indispensable tools of this freedom of movement, but they are also a means of locating and controlling people, and obtaining them is, in France, a proof of urban citizenship. Likewise, the State works to set and have recognized of the boundaries of the territory over which it exercises sovereignty (Foucher 2007). Through the passport and consular officials, this State also protects and defends its own people, and may even free them, when they are in danger in foreign territories. It thus performs the same functions as the family, clan, and tribe in stateless societies, functions that the clan once performed for Muhammad or Genghis Khan when they were in danger. But it would be a mistake to believe that simply because the State has taken over, the other institutions would no longer fulfill their roles, or that their ability to protect, defend, and connect would be negligible. Like Marx's prediction of the end of the artisan, the belief that family, clan or tribal groups will come to an end is derived from a unilinear vision of social change that has never been confirmed in practice.
Understanding nomads through the art of warfare
9The art of war can help us to understand the behavior of certain nomads, who currently engage in trade: legal, on the margins of legality, and illegal, for two reasons. The first is historical: for a thousand years, nomads dominated the history of Eurasia through the war and terror they inspired. As they became sedentary, they preserved their state of mind and their virile values (bravery in combat, patience in adversity, tenacity in revenge), their cult of the tribal chief, and their respect for blood ties. Their enemies recognized their cunning and resourcefulness, tactical sense, and ability to circumvent their opponent's power. They fostered the same power relationship that the weak develop against the strong: If the weak do not want to be at the mercy of those stronger than them, they must circumvent them, inverting the power relationship. But how? Through cunning, focused energy, and tactical innovation. Through harassment, corruption, loyalty only to the clan and never outside it, if circumstances require it. These abilities have long been recognized. According to Byzantine Emperor Maurice in Chaliand (1995: 87-88):
Being nomadic peoples, they know how to endure heat, cold and all kinds of hardship. [...] They are very good at assessing opportunities to act and are quick to take advantage of them. They prefer to prevail over their enemies through cunning, rather than by force, using surprise attacks and cutting off supplies. [...] They prefer long-range combat, ambushes, encircling maneuvers, simulated retreats and abrupt turnarounds as well as formation in dispersed groups.
10The second is procedural. As nomads must protect their herds, relying solely on the strength of the family or tribe, as they are scattered across immense, sparsely populated steppes, where “everything is fluid and temporary,” the institutions established by sedentary people, which gradually evolved into a social contract, do not reflect their vision of the world. Rather, these institutions reduce and marginalize nomads.
Nomadism and the rational-legal order
11Another way to understand nomads is by analyzing the difficulties they encounter with what Weber calls the “rational-legal order” (Weber 1922). One example is the Mongol people. Seeking to escape from Chinese domination in the 1920s, their leader decided to meet Lenin. According to Lattimore (1966: 104):
In November 1921, a Mongolian delegation met with Lenin. [...] They asked Lenin whether they should change the name of their party and call themselves communist. Lenin advised them to do nothing. The Mongols, he said, were a pastoral and nomadic society whose problems could not be resolved with a proletarian party.
12Thirteen years later, those in power sought to force the Mongols to collectivize their herds by forming cooperatives. A famine ensued and a bloody rebellion broke out. It subsided only after the herd was returned to the shepherds, and the threat of Japan's invasion of nearby Manchuria raised fears for Mongolia's collective destiny (Lattimore 1966).
13Another example of a policy seeking to “civilize” nomads was the French colonization in areas or at times when colonization through settlement was no longer appropriate. The French Administration systematically encouraged stable agriculture in the oases, seeking to improve yields, while assistance in selecting animals was rarely sought, creating a deep unease among some of the settled nomads. According to Sarel-Sternbert (1963: 129-130):
From the very beginning, the French protectorate (of Morocco) favored sedentary people. For almost the same population, the financing dedicated to the extension of the oasis [...] was at least ten times greater than the amount earmarked for pastoral improvements [...]. In fact, the French Administration favored sedentism, more than the sedentary people themselves. The traditional patriarchal relationships of the past were replaced by other relationships that resembled both serfdom and capitalism, or even administrative interventionism. But the mentality [...] remained a nomadic mentality, if only because of the contempt for farming and for direct ownership.
14This led to limited opportunities for nomads without a herd: war or trade.
France and nomads
15That France does not tolerate nomadic peoples is demonstrated by semantics: in most countries, people who have no roof over their heads and live on the street are called “street dwellers.” In France they are “sans domicile fixe (without fixed residence),” and even if they try to come back every night to the same piece of sidewalk, they are considered vagabonds. The ability to move disrupts a public order created through control of proximity. Recalling the Ancien Régime, the Republicans were reluctant to introduce passports and identity papers. It was not until 1893 that a law was passed requiring all residents to register with the town hall in their place of residence. This record was the centralized with the central government. The mandatory French identity card appeared in 1915, in the middle of the First World War. According to Noiriel (1991: 179-180):
The nationalization of French society between the 1880s and the First World War not only led to the creation of a new social group composed of citizens with shared interests and a sense of belonging to the same community, but it also led to the invention of a new type of identification for individuals. As an essential tool for creating a closed, homogeneous, peaceful and centered political space, this technology became a fundamental means of [...] establishing rights. The card gave material form to the abstract categories constructed by law and to impacted all the individuals concerned directly. As such [...] it constituted a fundamental tool of the social state.
16In short, it is not possible to have identity papers without a residence, and there can be no citizenship without identity papers. As the law requires a certain degree of sedentism in order to be considered a resident of a town, seamen and sailors have long been deprived of the right to vote. Seamen did not have this right until 1924, while sailors did not earn it until 1969 (Le Marchand 2011). In short, the difference between nationality and citizenship lies in the fact of being sedentary. A child may be born French, but if he lives on his parents' boat, then on his own, he cannot, for many years, be considered a full-fledged citizen. As a child, he will have many problems with schooling. These issues are shared by land-bound itinerants and transient peoples, as well. For this “fixed residence” must have be in some way solid, immutable. It cannot be a tent, a mobile home or an unused shipping container. As students are simply temporary visitors, they are entitled to a certain number of social benefits if they live in this type of structure, while other inhabitants are not (Le Marchand 2011).
17Thus, through the institution of the passport and the existence of consular officials, the State protects and defends its own people when they are in danger in foreign territories, as discussed earlier.
Towards a socio-anthropology of movement, or nomadism as epistemology
- 2 It is not, therefore, a question of those “excluded from inside” that Pierre Bourdieu and Patrick (...)
18Several studies on populations of foreigners from Africa, Asia and the Middle East suggest the existence of new forms of migration (Tarrius 1989, 2001, 2010; Tarrius & Péraldi 1995; Tarrius & Missaoui 1995, 2001, 2012; De Tapia 1996; Missaoui 2003) that are marked by networks of international economic initiatives. The Roma people should also be included in this distribution of roles, because they too do not have their place in local hierarchies of identity precedence. By drawing inspiration from the paradigm of nomadism, we can assert that it is not misery,2 poverty, dependency, which are most striking to the observer of populations that stand or are held at a distance. Rather, it is their initiative, their power, their capacity to mobilize, and their ability to frequently move in and out of our universes of norms, our territories, to create new ones, whether temporary or permanent, that are beyond the understanding of sedentary citizens (Laplantine & Nouss 2001). The importance attached to one’s word, to the honor that creates a binding contract (Sublet 1991), to alliances and loyalty, and therefore to mobilization, characterize the actions of these “people from elsewhere.” How can we describe this fluidity of form that is akin to orality, often made up of spatial mobility as well as cultural and ethical innovation, which are characteristic of their exchanges, if not by acknowledging that they create a unity, a transnationality, that extends far beyond themselves? Thus, nolens volens, they lead to a process of severe erosion and profound, historically significant change to our normative references. Even if, until recently, France had a tendency to absorb immigrant sub-groups, today, in the European space, a specific history of nomadic migrant populations has emerged: in this way, Moroccans with migratory patterns that are more nomadic than diasporic (Tarrius 1989), experience situations that are less favorable to a local-national form or sedentary integration than to transnational dispersion. This is because frequent migrations, while offering better economic and social opportunities, alienate parents and children from local integration processes (Missaoui 2008).
- 3 See the remarkable work on borders, "L’Europe et ses frontières paradoxales", by geographer, carto (...)
19This “identity crisis” was the driving force behind the practices targeting Roma minorities in France in the summer of 2010,3 which led to the reappearance of violence that was thought to have been left in the past. How the sociologist observe the havoc wrought by the refusal to acknowledge the complexity, richness, and legitimacy of the social micro-differentiations of nomads created because they circulate —whether it is purely and simply a matter of denying these differences in the name of egalitarianism, or of erasing them by resorting to the abstraction of a national identity, which can be so violent and arbitrary— without taking a stand and placing the human being at the center of the study of change? This is why we argue that even the smallest communities that are the most distant from the dominant paradigms, such as the Roma or the contemporary nomadic transmigrants, should be seen as a privileged source of renewal for local communities.
20To assert this is to claim that there is a specific space between politics and economics for the production of the social. It is not a question of adopting a normative point of view that considers that “foreigners from outside,” Roma, North Africans, Black Africans, or “foreigners from inside,” such as the Gypsies who first arrived in our cities in the 14th century, are part of a process of integration that leads them, after many trials and tribulations, to the institutional conformity of citizenship. This attitude towards the Roma in France and groups representing “ethnic diversity” or “of immigrant origin” is based on an evolutionary and assimilationist view, an archaic ethnological stance (Lenclud 1996). This has clearly been understood by nomadic transmigrants.
21The specific case of nomads who are also traders, who are nomads precisely because they are traders, whose professional life consists of finding a way to profit from the goods they buy in one place and resell elsewhere, has been studied by Alain Tarrius and Michel Péraldi, as well as some of their colleagues and students. Tarrius has long been interested in elites who secure their status by moving to strategic locations worldwide: California, Dubai, Qatar, the south coast of China, Singapore. However, these destinations, little by little, have seen an influx of more modest travelers. They turn intermediate ports such as Istanbul or Trabzon into platforms where trade is growing, where the “ants of Europe” meet those coming from Asia for “poor to poor” trades (Tarrius 2010). Péraldi has long been interested in trade, in exchange, and has also studied the power system in the city of Marseille, France. Both of these researchers noted the proliferation of North African shops in this city and took an interest both in the circulation of goods produced by these shopkeepers and in their complex supply chains, which were sometimes illegal. Their methods for sourcing goods ranged from legal border crossings for passing goods of varying degrees of prohibition between women of North African origin who resold perfumes, jewelry or clothing that were supposedly for their own personal use, what is known as trabendo (Tarrius 1992; Tarrius & Péraldi 1995; Péraldi 1999; Manry 2009), to the creation of truly clandestine routes to smuggle sophisticated electronic equipment, drugs, and prostitutes, with their corrupt coterie of customs officers, police officers, and local politicians (Péraldi 2009; Tarrius 2010). This perspective centers nomadism at the heart of its research (Adelkhah & Bayart 2009).
Conclusion: Is transmigration a type of “modern” nomadism as opposed to itinerancy?
22Over the last twenty years, the types of international migrants have thus been supplemented by the transmigrant class (Tarrius, Missaoui & Quacha 2012), a population of migrants and mobile individuals present on all continents who are not concerned only by the issues of economic migration and post-colonial relations. Monsutti (2018) speaks in his book of homo itinerans, of multiple mobilities. If we have become interested in the dynamics of “modern” nomadism, it is in order to explore these complex trajectories, which are made up of steps, returns, and circulation, that are so different from the bipolar exile (here/there) of the industrial era. In this context of complex, dynamic movements, there a certain number of “carriers” or bifurcations, i.e. shifts in destiny, which simultaneously represent trajectories, events, and changes in direction. They are represent a sort of middle space between biographical illusion and accumulated experience. These “modern” nomads, with their very ordinary, yet very singular journeys, are creating a new experience of human globalization. They are stories of obstacles to be overcome in chaotic situations interspersed with peaceful events in quiet contexts. These journeys reveal not only the importance of migration policies, but also that of qualification policies that are implemented and developed by countries. There is a tension between assigned destiny, bifurcation, adventure, mobilization… These nomads both break free from local norms and at the same time, these norms are maintained and sometimes even more significant in their place of arrival or circulation. What then becomes most relevant is not so much transmigration as bifurcation. Sayad (1999) explains what sociology becomes when we focus on the sociology of migration: it is the sociology of bifurcations, the sociology of subjection. If statistics capture patterns, an individual's approach captures specificities that produce meaning and contribute to a reinterpretation of current mobilities.
23How is the paradigm of nomadism expressed? In order to understand it, we must bear in mind, for example, Thomas and Znaniecki's warning about the types of social personality. According to Thomas and Znaniecki (1919: 50):
The application of sociological generalization to social personalities requires an admission of the existence of what might be called typical lines of genesis. A line of genesis is a series of facts through which a certain attitude develops from another attitude [...], a value from other values [...], but the series as a whole cannot be subject to any law whatsoever, for there are several possible ways of seeing an attitude develop from another attitude, a value from another value, and everything depends on the nature of the intermediate data.
- 4 An armed group in Arab countries, especially in the Sahara, that traveled great distances to surpr (...)
24In other words, the nomad creates an organization based on blood and relationship ties, a flexible hierarchy with reciprocity and differentiated roles between protectors and protected. In order to survive, the nomad must have a relationship to a space with borders where one may be sedentary, but he is only passing through; this becomes a point of intermittent anchorage as long as he can circulate from it. These points acquire multiple social personalities, but they are always different from those of sedentary people, with their urban political constructions involving social contract, democracy, impersonal laws and power both near and far. But, because there is no space for nomads in their conception of the world, sedentary people may fear a violent reaction from rezzou4 at any time, in the most unexpected way, or wake up one morning to discover that their police, legal and customs systems, which are corrupt to the very core, have completely disintegrated. But in order to study these nomads, a new type of researcher is necessary; one who takes up the tradition of great travelers and intrepid journalists, while methodically substantiating his findings.
Notes
1 By using the term “minority” we are assuming a choice of direction for our chapter.
2 It is not, therefore, a question of those “excluded from inside” that Pierre Bourdieu and Patrick Champagne spoke of in 1992.
3 See the remarkable work on borders, "L’Europe et ses frontières paradoxales", by geographer, cartographer and journalist Philippe Rekacewicz. http://blog.mondediplo.net/2006-11-27-L-Europe-et-ses-frontieres-paradoxales
4 An armed group in Arab countries, especially in the Sahara, that traveled great distances to surprise and loot a camp, outpost, or caravan.
Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.