Tribalism, Barbarians and the Body Politic

Thursday, June 3, 2010
I consider myself an "American." Not an Irish-American, or a European-American, or a White-American. I'm American (but not in an "America - Fuck, Yeah!" kind of way). There is no doubt where my first loyalty lies, and I trust that while my behavior reflects that loyalty, I'm not a nationalistic nutbag with no sense of proportion or clarity about my own government.

As an American citizen, I feel that I have a obligation to make decisions and form opinions about political issues based on two factors: First, what is right, in an ethical sense. Secondarily, what is best, for the majority of people who live in this country. That seems simple, but we all know it's not - it's very easy to give in to fear, or regionalism, or split loyalties. Which brings me to a topic that I've been thinking about a lot lately, but I've been somewhat loathe to write about - tribalism.

I'm beginning to think tribalism really isn't good for America. Not good at all.

Please note I'm not talking about diversity, or multiculturalism. Ensuring people have the opportunity to maintain their cultural identity is not the same as focusing exclusively on the well-being of your own group to the exclusion of everyone else in the body politic.

It seems to me that people who indulge in tribalism make decisions and form opinions about political issues not based on what is right and what is best for the majority, but exclusively on what is best for their tribe. If a program is good for their tribe but bad for the majority, in their mind, it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not it's right. If it's bad for their tribe, regardless of other considerations, it's simply bad.


Is tribalism a sort of a cancer on the body politic? If members of a tribe exercise their franchise for the good only of the tribe, rather than the whole, then how long will it be until the whole suffers irreparable damage? I can't answer that - I don't think anyone can, but I'm pretty sure such behavior can't be good for the whole.

It goes both ways, of course. When Arizona passed its draconian law regarding the demand for proof of legal residence, I opposed it. I opposed it because it was wrong, not because I'm Hispanic, or have Hispanic relatives. The first criteria for me was whether or not the law is ethical, not whether or not it was good for my tribe.* As a citizen, I have an obligation do what's right, and I think sometimes tribalism blurs that line in the mind of those who indulge in it.

Many years ago, I read a novel by a Jewish author. One of his primary points was that Jews were fundamentally barbarians, because as a group, their first concern has always been, "What's best for the Jews?" I think that stereotype may have a grain of truth for a variety of historical reasons, but I'd hesitate to apply it to every Jew on the planet. I will posit, however, that groups who indulge in tribalism may be accurately described as barbarians, for their failure to look outside their group and take the larger world into account.

__________________
*It's not good for my tribe. I'm just using it as an example.

10 comments:

Phiala said...

It's still tribalism, but with a broader definition of tribe: country, or continent, or world.

This is a good thing, because it provides a way to link into hard-wired components of the human brain. We just need to figure out how to get people to define tribe much more broadly instead.

Janiece said...

Phiala, that's an interesting idea. The most positive end result being that people look at "humanity" as their "tribe."

Unfortunately, I suspect an outside threat will be required to achieve that goal.

mom in northern said...

Can we include our Teachers union under the tribal heading?

Eric said...

Exactly what Phiala said.

We're social animals, it's how we evolved; it's the reason we are now on top of just about everything in the food chain except bacteria (maybe it's more of a food loop) even though, look at us: we don't have awesome, constantly replaced serrated knife teeth like a shark, thick skin like a rhinoceros, a cheetah can run us down without breaking a pant, and it's a no-brainer who wins a wrestling match between a silverback gorilla and a hominid (you weren't using that spine for anything, were you?). But as a pack--holy crap, as a pack we are the baddest mothers on the planet whether we use that power for good or to bring the whole place down around our own ears by accident.

And tribalism is a piece of that. Tribalism is why we throw the weakest members of the pack over our shoulders and carry them out of a disaster, tribalism is why we nurse our sick and old, tribalism is why we respond to a crying child even if it isn't our own. Tribalism is why we pass the secrets of fire, the wheel, and nuclear fusion down to our litters.

And tribalism is the reason we poke each other in the eyes with spears and burn another tribe's fields because we want the land they're living on.

See, tribalism isn't inherently a bad thing or a good thing; it's a human thing, an innate, species-preserving virtue and a fatal vice all in one, depending on context.

But here's the cool thing: we're also reasoning creatures, capable of processing our instincts and thinking about them and forming analogies. And we're empathic creatures--it's actually part of the wiring that results in tribalism. We are, in other words, capable of seeing someone or something that's different and extending tribe membership to it. (And I say something because it's not just humans: e.g. we see a dog, notice it has a face, and instinctively start to try to reason out what the dog's face is telling us based on what human faces tell us, and after a few thousand years dogs end up with some form of honorary membership in every human tribe on the planet, whether it's as third-class servants or coddled near-equals.)

Phiala mentioned this, too, and I'm merely amplifying it: the trick is getting us to use those rational and empathic instincts to extend the tribal instinct to the broadest group possible. And we're some way along that road: there are a number of places where sub-tribal sentiments have been replaced by national sentiments, for instance. I tend to think that if we don't kill each other first (on purpose, or maybe just by accident), we'll make it a nigh-universal sense of being members of "The Tribe Of Earth." (Or, maybe, I just read and watched too much postwar SF and am naive. Still--hopeful signs of our ongoing social evolution are all around when you step back and look at where we are now against the sweep of the rest of human history.)

Anne C. said...

Well, I *was* going to say something similar to what Eric and Phiala said, but Eric pretty much covered it plus some. So...

Word.

Janiece said...

Eric, I don't disagree - I took anthropology, too.

My issue is with those whose interests are so narrow they appear to be incapable to expanding their view of tribalism to a larger construct - for whatever reason.

John the Scientist said...

Janice, have you read this?

(Sorry the War College original site is down, had to link to that one).

I quote:

Family Values

After the exclusion of women from productive endeavors, the next-worst wastage of human potential occurs in societies where the extended family, clan, or tribe is the basic social unit. While family networks provide a safety net in troubled times, offering practical support and psychological protection, and may even build a house for you, they do not build the rule of law, or democracy, or legitimate corporations, or free markets. Where the family or clan prevails, you do not hire the best man (to say nothing of the best woman) for the job, you hire Cousin Luis. You do not vote for the best man, you vote for Uncle Ali. And you do not consider cease-fire deals or shareholder interests to be matters of serious obligation.

Such cultures tend to be peasant-based or of peasant origin, with the attendant peasant's suspicion of the outsider and of authority. Oligarchies of landed families freeze the pattern in time. There is a preference for a dollar grabbed today over a thousand dollars accrued in the course of an extended business relationship. Blood-based societies operate under two sets of rules: one, generally honest, for the relative; and another, ruthless and amoral, for deals involving the outsider. The receipt of money now is more important than building a long-term relationship. Such societies fight well as tribes, but terribly as nations.

At its most successful, this is the system of the Chinese diaspora, but that is a unique case. The Darwinian selection that led to the establishment and perpetuation of the great Chinese merchant families (and village networks), coupled with the steely power of southern China's culture, has made this example an exception to many rules. More typical examples of the Vetternwirtschaft system are Iranian businesses, Nigerian criminal organizations, Mexican political and drug cartels, and some American trade unions.

Where blood ties rule, you cannot trust the contract, let alone the handshake. Nor will you see the delegation of authority so necessary to compete in the modern military or economic spheres. Information and wealth are assessed from a zero-sum worldview. Corruption flourishes. Blood ties produce notable family successes, but they do not produce competitive societies.


I have thoughts on the Chinese diaspora - in actuality, the clan structure of traditional Chinese society was broken down by the diaspora, and people from various regions were forced to mix, as well as patriarchal control from the ancestral viallage being weakened. Overseas Chinese bond by linguistic group, which has the effect of making, say, Fujian, into a defacto country for natives of that province who live all over the Pac Rim, whereas Fujianese in Fujian are still split by regional sectarianism.

I recommend "The Lords of the Rim" for a deeper look at the mechanics of the Chinese diaspora.

That being said, Peters's point is re-enforced by clarifying that issue, not weakened by it.

neurondoc said...

Janiece, your comment about Jews and tribalism is right on, given my experiences. I see it in TheHusband (and it makes we want to pull his hair to make him stop). I try hard not to do that, but I never examined why or what I do instead. Must think now and thinking is hard. :-)

Janiece said...

John, I had not read that article. Thanks for the link.

NeuronDoc, we aim to encourage thought, even if it is hard.

Must stimulate the middle age brain, doncha know.

neurondoc said...

Must stimulate the middle age brain, doncha know.

Ahem. I prefer to think of it as a "continuously maturing brain" myself.