“In a world that keeps moving, the nomad is the one standing still.”

— Nanako Umemoto

A few people have contacted me with some objections to my idea of the ‘nomad archetype’. They took issue with the thought that such a thing would be desirable or should be spoken about in a positive way. As they gave their reasons for their objections, it became clear to me that what they had in mind when they thought of ‘nomadism’ or the ‘nomad archetype’ was not at all what I intended or what I meant when I wrote of these things. In fact, what they had in mind was the exact opposite of my intention and meaning.

The mistaken understanding of the ‘nomad archetype’ is essentially what is often referred to on the internet as ‘rootless cosmopolitanism’. Encapsulated in this term are all the modern concepts of tourism, ‘loss of place’, alienation, and a restless loosing from any sense of depth of tradition, culture, home, family, identity, etc.

While on the surface there may be a superficial similarity with the ‘nomad’ idea: the ‘jet-set’ people, the permanently displaced, chronically rootless Millennials, etc. There is certainly an element of restlessness and constant movement, but how similar are these people to traditional ‘nomad’ peoples?

Traditional Nomadic People

As pointed out in my previous articles, traditional nomadic peoples had a unique and intimate relationship with the land in which they inhabited and with their surrounding geography. Though they were nomadic, their relationship with the land was not transient nor superficial. The land was their source of sustenance, as well as their home — even if they were often on the move. They treated the land with respect — even sacred reverence. The land shaped who they were — their customs, their social life, their mythology, their diet, and most (if not all) aspects of their life.

It was in this landscape — this ‘In-Between’ — that they often experienced the Divine. It was in the desert that Moses saw the Lord in the burning bush. It was in the fields with their sheep that the shepherds saw the angels appear to them. It was on the mountain top, in the valley, by the river, in the cave, on the plain… that the wandering nomad experienced Revelation or the hand of God.

These were not just places. These were Sacred Places. The forest grove. The holy well. The battlefield. The mysterious desert…

As we see in many traditional narratives, the advent of cities brought about a state in which man began to be disconnected from the land and from place — as well as from God. We can see this a bit in Biblical narratives and in early mythology, but in many ways, this truth is particularly apparent in our modern context.

Modern Alienation

As the global population has become less and less rural, there is an increasing disconnection from natural, physical surroundings and from traditional identities. Globalization, urbanization, and digital communication contribute to this phenomenon, as people often find themselves in transient environments where community ties and local identities are weakened.

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard spoke of what he called ‘simulacra’ which are copies or representations that no longer have an original to refer to. In the context of our modern cities, urban environments often feature spaces designed to evoke a sense of place without being rooted in specific cultural or historical significance. These spaces — such as shopping malls, theme parks, and urban developments — create an experience that feels real but is constructed and superficial. There is a simulation of something that is real — but is not really real anymore in any traditional sense of being rooted somewhere or in something.

This leads to the idea of the ‘hyper-real’. The ‘hyper-real’ refers to a condition where the distinction between reality and simulation becomes blurred. In hyper-real environments, experiences are designed to be more engaging or desirable than reality itself. Modern cities often embody this through artificial landscapes and curated experiences, leading people to navigate a world where their sense of identity is shaped by media, advertising, and commodified experiences rather than genuine connections to place. Las Vegas is a great example of this concept of the ‘hyper-real’. Out of the once sacred desert emerges a Mecca of the ‘simulacra’ and the ‘hyper-real’, dedicated to the curation of sensation, to consumerism, to consumption, and to the search for worldly joys and material prosperity. A town in the desert full of pilgrims searching for the American Dream.

What is seen in its most pure form in Las Vegas is often modeled in other contemporary cities. This modern divorce from place and identity manifests in a hyper-real urban landscape where individuals seek belonging in constructed realities. The taproot to traditional place and identity is cut, as personal identity becomes intertwined with the simulated experiences offered by the city, often prioritizing consumption and spectacle over authentic community engagement and with real experiences.

The Nomadism of Dajjal (Antichrist)

Out of this contemporary, consumer, 21st century world comes a modern sort of ‘nomadism’. However, I would submit that this modern sort of ‘nomadism’ is indeed a ‘nomadism’ of sorts: but it is the ‘nomadism of Dajjal’ or of the ‘Antichrist’. It is a nomadism of the un-real. Or of the ‘hyper-real’. It is a restless nomadism that has lost all sense of place. All sense of tradition. All sense of values. All sense of ancestry. All sense of the sacred.

It is a nomadism of filling desires. Of a sort of bottomless consumerism. Of seeking out ‘experiences’. Of a bored sense of ‘on-to-something-else’ — and never being fulfilled or satisfied. It is a nomadism in which Paris or Mecca or Tokyo or San Francisco or the Vatican or Mt. Shasta or Tibet… or anywhere are all just flat places where one can get an experience. And one is interchangeable for another. Different colors. Different flavors. The world is your personal Baskin-Robbins, and you can sample a little of this and a little of that…

And this doesn’t have to be true only for places. This is the ‘post-modern’ way of things. We try on different identities. We filter through different fads. Different beliefs. We ‘deconstruct the text’. Everything is ultimately arbitrary. Words can mean whatever we choose them to mean. A shared reality becomes subjectivized and thus rendered meaningless, in a larger sense — save the meaning that we ourselves superficially give it, depending on our mood, inclination, whimsey, desires, etc. Not seeking ‘truth’. Not seeking ‘beauty’. Not seeking anything, really. But consuming and feeding the bottomless appetites of our ego.

In this way, we become totally rootless — physically, geographically, historically, spiritually…

And this is in every way the opposite of my idea of the ‘nomadic archetype’. The superficial analogy may be there, but this is why I compare such analogy to that of the Dajjal or the Antichrist. The ‘Antichrist’ is a sort of ‘false christ’ — a counterfeit. There may be the appearance, outwardly, of a similarity. But this is a counterfeit version of the ‘nomad’ ideal. All image, no substance. Un-rooted. Un-grounded. Un-real. Un-sacred. Un-holy.

Deleuze’s ‘Nomadism’ vs. Baudrillard’s ‘Hyperreality’

In critiquing what I call the ‘Nomadism of Dajjal’, I bring up the French postmodern philosopher Baudrillard, as I see his ideas of ‘simulacra’ and ‘hyper-reality’ as symptoms of the modern loss of place, loss of identity, and, indeed, loss of reality itself. I find Baudrillard to be an important thinker in this regard. But what of that other postmodern French philosopher who I spoke of extensively in Part 1 of this series — Gilles Deleuze? As a ‘post-modern’ thinker, wouldn’t Deleuze also promote ideas similar to Baudrillard regarding the un-fixed nature of ‘truth’ and identity?

I began this series of articles in part because I was inspired by Deleuze’s theory of ‘nomadism’ from his work A Thousand Plateaus. For Deleuze, “nomadism” represents a fluid, decentralized, and dynamic mode of existence that resists fixed structures and rigid boundaries. Nomadism embraces a way of life that is constantly in motion, adapting, and creating new connections. For Deleuze, reality and our understanding of it are constantly in a state of flux — in a state of becoming. (He is firmly in the philosophical lineage of Heraclitus who famously said that ‘one never steps in the same river twice’ — for existence is always in motion. It’s never the same river. It’s never the same man.)

In this sense, nomadism is more about a mental and philosophical attitude than a literal wandering lifestyle. It promotes a “smooth space” where boundaries are blurred and movement is free, versus a “striated space” of grids, borders, and confinement.

Deleuze’s thinking, here, is quite different from Baudrillard. In contrast to the hyperreal, where reality is flattened into endless simulations, the nomad engages with multiplicities, moving through different realities, spaces, and lines of flight, embracing the complexities and layers of existence. Rather than the loss of the real, Deleuze’s nomad is constantly moving through different assemblages and possibilities. Deleuze’s framework encourages a rethinking of reality not as something hyperreal or simulated, but as constantly shifting and becoming. There is no “end” of reality as Baudrillard’s hyperreality might suggest, but rather an ongoing flux. While Baudrillard’s hyperreality suggests a world where the real and the simulated have become indistinguishable and perhaps meaningless, Deleuze’s concept of nomadism invites continuous movement inviting new formations, new spaces, and new connections to emerge. Therefore, for Deleuze, reality isn’t lost to simulation but always in a state of becoming and transformation.

Similarly, while Baudrillard sees hyperreality as a loss of the real and the disappearance of ‘truth’ into simulation, Deleuze, through his concept of nomadism, sees ‘truth’ as constantly emerging within various contexts. For Deleuze, truth is always immanent, constantly in motion and becoming — just as everything is in constant motion. Instead of worrying about the loss of truth, Deleuze is more interested in how truths are continuously transformed and transfigured within different contexts and assemblages.

This way of thinking affirms the richness of reality as always becoming, rather than being reduced to mere simulation or representation. Truth, in Deleuze’s nomadism, is about ongoing process, potential, and movement, rather than a fixed ideal.

This is not to say that truth is relative. I would say, here, that if this is implied by Deleuze, then this is where I would draw the line. Rather, I am closer to the Catholic theologian, Bernard Lonergan. Lonergan saw ‘truth’ as a sort of ‘unfolding’ over time. However, for Lonergan, it is not ‘truth’ that changes, but rather it is our own maturing, our contexts, our understanding, our comprehension, etc. that is constantly changing and evolving. All truth ultimately flows from God — even as human understanding of this truth is dynamic and processual.

And so, while there is a continual flux and movement and process — this nomadic journeying through the ‘smooth spaces’ of open plains — the ultimate ‘Truth’ remains steady like the North Star.

As a friend of mine put it so poetically: “For the nomad, the truth that is transient doesn’t suffice. When the tent stake strikes the ground, it needs something solid.”

The map may change. The landscape may be different. The weather shifts. The nomad is on the hunt. But through it all, the bedrock remains firm.

Conclusion

I wanted to make this post in order to make a clarification and distinction between what I see as the ‘nomadic archetype’ on the one hand and a sort of contemporary, ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ wandering on the other — an existence unmoored from reality, identity, community, place… the ‘Nomadism of Dajjal’.

Furthermore, I wish to stress that this ‘nomadic archetype’ is, in many ways, a more internal state. It is a way of approaching and viewing the world. And as it is, we see these nomadic themes imbedded in various traditions, religions, cultures as an important aspect of their understanding of the world and of man’s place in the world in relation to the Divine and the larger Truth.

I will continue to explore this theme through works of literature, art, philosophy, faith, history, culture, etc. It is my intention that these articles are not merely an exercise in thought and speculation, but will lead to a greater understanding.

As always, I appreciate any compliments, complaints, push-backs, questions, etc. in the comments.

And though I promised it already… I will say it again: in my next article, I will explore the theme of the ‘nomad archetype’ and the ‘Great In-Between’ within the ideas of my personal ‘secular’ hero, Ernst Jünger — especially in his concept of ‘the Anarch’ which was prominent in his final major novel, Eumeswil.

If you like this content, please consider a small donation via PayPal or Venmo. I am currently studying Islam and the Arabic language full-time with no income, and any donation — however small! — will greatly help me to continue my studies, my work, and my sustenance. Please feel free to reach me at saidheagy@gmail.com.

Thank you, and may God reward you! Glory to God for all things!