As populist parties are set to come to power everywhere, we must return to the fundamentals: I have often pointed out (particularly in *The Nomadic Man*, published in 2003) the fundamental distinction between two ways of life: nomadic and sedentary. I have pointed out that, as far back as we can go in time, humanity was nomadic and only began to become sedentary ten thousand years ago—while remaining largely nomadic—through great migrations of peoples and the ceaseless travels of merchants, explorers, conquerors, and migrants.
Others have defined this contrast in a more polemical way, distinguishing between “the rootless, who live in airports” and the “organic community,” attached to millennia-old values; or between “cosmopolitans” and “those with deep roots.”
Nomads love movement and bring with them novelty and difference. Sedentary people love the regularity of the seasons and build farms, villages, and cities. Sedentary people see nomads as invaders, as parasites; nomads see sedentary people as obstacles to progress and new freedoms. Nomads defend the right to autonomy, to break boundaries, and to innovate; the settled defend the right to the permanence of identity and sovereignty.
Nomads sometimes become settled, sometimes to the detriment of those who are already settled and take them in, adopting their habits and flaws. The same is true for the settled.
I made a bet—which I still stand by—that, thanks in particular to digital tools, the future will increasingly belong to the nomads, whether they are real or virtual, whether they are very rich or very poor; and I predicted that the sedentary would become increasingly defensive in an effort to prevent this shift.
Here we are: the settled are on the offensive everywhere, and their values are on the rise.
It all began with Brexit ten years ago, when British journalist David Goodhart coined the terms “Somewheres” (“those who are from somewhere,” the sedentary) and “Anywheres” (“those who are from nowhere,” the nomads) to explain the rise of populism.
The former viewed globalization and foreigners as a mortal danger, while the latter embraced them. In his view, half of Britons at the time were Somewheres; a quarter were Anywheres; and the remaining quarter swung back and forth between the two. The Somewheres, he argued, lived in the deindustrialized strongholds of the Northeast and Wales, while the Anywheres were concentrated in cosmopolitan cities, primarily London.
In the United States, Donald Trump’s election was also a rebellion by the settled residents of the Rust Belt, rural areas, and mid-sized cities against the nomads and globalists of the coastal cities on the East and West coasts.
We see this same distinction in Germany, where the AfD is recruiting in ever-greater numbers in the eastern states (the former GDR), which have suffered from post-reunification deindustrialization and feel scorned by the pro-Europeans in Berlin, Munich, or Hamburg, who vote for the Greens, the Liberals, or the SPD. Similarly, in Italy, Giorgia Meloni and Fratelli d’Italia are mobilizing the settled populations of the industrial North and the marginalized South, who feel exploited by the globalist and nomadic elites of Milan and Rome.
In France, the so-called “governing” parties (from the Social Democrats to the Republicans) embody nomadic values, while the parties on the extremes—both left and right—embody those of the sedentary. As elsewhere, the nomads are pro-European and globalist; the sedentary are anti-European and sovereigntist. As elsewhere, the sedentary are on the rise; the nomads are on the defensive. The nomads live in large, globalized cities, while the sedentary live in medium-sized towns, villages, and the suburbs. A very current example of this is the proposed bill on Corsica, which would grant the island’s native inhabitants specific rights—distinct from those of other French citizens—regarding the region’s future. Similarly, there are growing calls for specific legislation for former nomads who have become sedentary (such as some first- or second-generation immigrants who remain deeply attached to their communities of origin).
We can therefore understand why, for two millennia, sedentary people (today on both the far right and the far left) have, by nature, been tempted to reject the Jewish people—who, in their eyes, are the perfect embodiment of nomadism—forgetting that the Jewish people’s original identity also finds its source in their attachment to a land.
Anti-Semitism, which is making a strong comeback, is therefore indicative of a much broader tension.
And this is precisely what this people is saying: all humans are both nomadic and sedentary at different points in their lives and throughout their history.
When we are nomads, we must not forget that sedentary people are not necessarily enemies, because we must trade with them, and because we may need to seek refuge with them; nomads must therefore respect the way of life of the sedentary people who welcome them.
When we are sedentary, we must remember that nomads are neither parasites nor destroyers of identity, but rather bringers of scarce goods and innovations; thus, sedentary people must take an interest in the unique characteristics of nomads and draw inspiration from them.
Whether nomads or sedentary people, depending on the circumstances, we must therefore abandon the illusion of a fixed, closed identity that is hostile to others; and recognize that all thriving peoples are a blend, in which the dominant sedentary culture draws the best from the nomadic cultures it hosts.
This conciliatory stance is difficult to maintain. It requires a level of empathy that is sometimes out of reach, unless one has received a proper education. Yet it alone will enable humanity to avoid getting bogged down in childish quarrels—which would once again lead to horrific massacres—and instead focus on the immense common challenges that threaten its very existence and demand the mobilization of everyone’s talents.