Dichotomy genus-state in the conceptualization of nomadism

The article addresses the problem of conceptualizing nomadism by the genus-policy dichotomy under the deconstruction of the classical western paradigm defining social as equal to the state. The author argues that the dichotomy ‘clan-state’ reflects the opposition of nomadism and sedentarism, and focuses on the social-philosophical studies of segmental societies through the dichotomy ‘clan-state’ claiming that segmental society does not allow the concentration of power. The article is based on the studies of the tendencies of neo-tribalism and reorganization of kin relations by O.L. Lushnikova, Ch.M. Lamazhaa, N.T. Nurullo-Khodjaeva and on the works reconsidering eurocentrism and evolutionary one-line historical process that turned modernization policies into violent sedentarization of the nomads. Historiographic studies also prove the need to revise the generally accepted method of studying the genesis of nomadic cultures that J. Scott defines as a ‘periphery’ of the historical process. The social-political perspective allows to consider tribal relations through the institutions of gift-exchange and potlatch (M. Moss) as preventing the system of power based on suppression. The deconstruction of evolutionism and logocentrism changed the emphasis in the dichotomy ‘genus-state’, so the state is no longer considered an absolute good. A. Giddens and P. Bourdieu define nomadism as ‘another sociality’ in which segmentation is the main principle of conjunction. The substantial episteme of sedentarism opposes the processual episteme of nomadism according to the analysis of the social-political concepts of Aristotle and Ibn Haldun. Thus, the opposition of nomadic and sedentary cultures as a dichotomy of genus-polis is based on an aporia of identity and difference, myth and logos, feminine and masculine, which defines the conceptualization of nomadism.