Haunted
At our last philosophy discussion session I was asked a question that I did not immediately answer. The question posed was did I not think that tribalism would always be with us? We’ve discussed tribalism within our group often, and for many months, years even. The term stands for the defensive posture, the ethnocentrism, that deep seated and ancient bias for one’s own people, for those who share the same language, culture, upbringing, food, education, manner of dress, against those who come from somewhere else. Certainly tribalism is complex, with many modes of expression and is an umbrella label for many other more clearly defined insecurities. Tribalism can cover racism, describes “haves vs have nots” conflict. Perhaps these are two of the most common variants.
I think that the result of the last election was due to the fanning flames of tribalism. The recent repudiation of DACA by the president was an act of tribalism, wrapped in a thin wrapper of legal scruples, in my opinion.
Tribalism lies dormant under the surface, ready to awaken, to divide and inflame, under the right circumstances, with the right encouragement. It feels so natural. Who does not like the vibe of marching in the ranks with one’s fellows? I do. But, it is not natural. It is destructive, depriving the perpetrator of the resources that those who have lived life differently would otherwise offer. Tribalism impoverishes, making victims of us all.
It is not within my purview to predict the future. To offer a “yes” or a “no” answer to my friends query would be just propaganda, an empty con job. I can only speak for myself, that I will continue to work to be a more inclusive person, welcoming to all others, particularly those who are “off putting” –wearing a burka, tattooed up, or wearing a “America First” T-shirt. Will my gesture be reciprocated? I cannot say. But it is the right thing to do.
I offer this as more to the point than anything that I have said:
A great song written by Nick Lowe made popular by Elvis Costello and The Attractions..
3 thoughts on “Haunted”
This is a very important question and, as you, I believe the answer is both yes and no. Tribalism is only destructive when it stays within our subconscious mind and expresses itself through xenophobic means. It is an integral and deep-seeded part of who we are as a species and I doubt if we will be able to fully eradicate the instinctual nature of tribalism from our DNA. On the other hand, by consciously understanding that this is a part of who we are, by staying aware of our own behavioral patterns and reactions to our environment, we do have the capacity to keep the destructive elements of tribalism in check. This takes a constant effort on our part. If we react to someone who looks, dresses or acts differently that we do, we must remind ourselves about where this reaction comes from. Many people choose not to keep tribalism in their consciousness and therefore just react in a negative manner when faced with the unfamiliar. But it does come down to a choice. Does one want to move our species forward towards a more inclusive global society where fear does not dominate behavioral norms or does one want to remain trapped within a destructive cycle (that viscerally feels good) with little or no positive effect on humanity? Trump is a manifestation of holding onto that subconscious tribalistic reaction and those who strive towards curtailing tribalism and eschew this kind of behavior are appalled while others continue to cheer him on. This is the true test of where the path of human nature will lead us. It’s up to us.
A good word.
Jerry,
When I asked you the question, I asked it within the context of the following thoughts on Tribes. Your answer was interesting but it offers me little help in why I asked the question. Tribes seem to me to have been a necessary part of human advancement. Further, unlike a modern state there are some very nice attributes for members of tribes. Maybe after the following you and Tobin would like to try again.
Gary S.
“Guns, Germs, and Steel The Fates of Human Societies” by Jared Diamond
. . . one acre can feed many more herders and farmers – typically, 10 to 100 times more – than hunter-gatherers. That strength of brute numbers was the first of many military advantages that food-producing tribes gained over hunter-gatherer tribes.
. . .Stored food can also feed priests, who provide religious justification for wars of conquest; artisans such as metalworkers, who develop swords, guns, and other technologies; and scribes, who preserve far more information than can be remembered accurately.
“Liberty and Freedom” by David hacket Fisher
p.5 . . the original meanings of freedom and liberty were not merely different but opposed. Liberty meant separation. Freedom implied connection. A person with libertas in Rome or eleutheria in ancient Greece had been granted some degree of autonomy, unlike a slave. A person who had Freiheit in northern Europe or ama-ar-gi in southern Mesopotamia was united by kinship or affecton to a tribe or family of free people, unlike a slave.
“The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins p. 31
Milk is baby food, not intended for adults and, originally, not good for them. Lactose, the sugar in milk, requires a particular enzyme, lactase, to digest it. (This terminological convention is worth remembering, by the way. An enzyme’s name will often be constructed by adding ‘-ase’ to the first part of the name of the substance on which it works. Young mammals switch off the gene that produces lactase after they pass the age of normal weaning. It isn’t that they lack the gene, of course. Genes needed only in childhood are not removed from the gnome, not even in butterflies, which must carry large numbers of genes needed only for making caterpillars. But lactase production is switched off in human infants at the age of about four, under the influence of other, controlling genes. Fresh milk makes adults feel ill, with symptoms ranging from flatulence and intestinal cramps to diarrhea and vomiting.
All adults? No, of course not. There are exceptions. The genes of (some) humans have changed as a result of generations of contact with domestic animals. Lactose tolerance seems to have evolved in a minority of tribes including the Tutsi of Rwanda (and, to a lesser extent, their traditional enemies the Hutu), the pastoral Fulani of West Africa (thought, interestingly, not the sedentary branch of the Fulani), the Sindhi of North India, the Tarareg of West Africa, the Beja of Eastern North Africa, and some European tribes from which I, and possibly you, are descended. Significantly, what these tribes have in common is a history of pastroalism.
At the other end of the spectrum, peoples who have retained the normal human intolerance of lactose as adults include Chinese, Japanese, Inuit, most Native Americans, Javanese, Fifians, Australian Aborigines, Iranians, Lebanese, Turks, Tamils, Singhalese, Tunisians, and many African tribes including the San, and the Tswanas, Zulus, Xhosas and Swazis of southern Africa, the Dinkas and Nuers of North Africa, and the Yourbas and Igbos of West Africa. In general, these lactose-intolerant peoples do not have a history of pastoralism. There are instructive exceptions. The traditional diet of the Masai of East Africa consists of little else besides milk and blood, and you might think they’d be particularly tolerant of lactose. This is not the case, however, probably because they curdle their milk before consuming it. As with cheese, the lactose is largely removed by bacteria. That’s one way of getting rid of its bad effects – get rid of the stuff itself. The other way is to change your genes. This happened in the other pastoral tribes listed above.
“Phantoms in the Brain” by V.S. Ramachandran, M.D., PH.D.
Most religions, even though they pay lip service to the “brotherhood” of mankind, tend mainly to emphasize loyalty to one’s own clan or tribe (hence those who probably share many of the same genes).
“Guns, Germs, and Steel, the Fates of Human Societies” by Jared Diamond
. . . bands and modern states represent opposite extremes along the spectrum of human societies. . . . a simple classification based on just four categories – band, tribe, chiefdom and state.
BANDS are the tiniest societies, consisting typically of 5 to 80 people, most of all of them close relatives by birth or by marriage. In effect, a band is an extended family or several related extended families.
Probably all humans lived in bands until at least 40,000 years ago, and most still did as recently as 11,000 years ago.
Bands lack many institutions. The band’s land is used jointly by the whole group, instead of being partitioned among subgroups or individuals. . . . all able-bodied individuals forage for food.
. . . the TRIBE differs in being larger (typically comprising hundreds rather than dozens of people) and usually having fixed settlements. However, some tribes and even chiefdoms consist of herders who move seasonally. . . . tribal organization began to emerge around 13,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent.
Besides differing from a band by virtue of its settled residence and its larger numbers, a tribe also differs in that it consists of more than one formally recognized kinship group, termed clans, which exchange marriage partners. Land belongs to a particular clan, not to the whole tribe. However, the number of people in a tribe is still low enough that everyone knows everyone else by name and relationships. . . . Those ties of relationships binding all tribal members make police, laws, and other conflict-resolving institutions of larger societies unnecessary, since any two villagers getting into an argument will share many kin, who apply pressure on them to keep it from becoming violent.
Many villages do have someone known as the “big man,” the most influential man of the village. But that position is not a formal office to be filled and carries only limited power. The big-man has no independent decision-making authority, knows no diplomatic secrets, and can do no more than attempt to sway communal decisions. Big-men achieve that status by their own attributes; the position is not inherited.
Since tribes lack economic specialists, they also lack slaves, because there are no specialized menial jobs for a slave to perform.
[See: SLAVERY]
With the rise of CHIEFDOMS around 7,500 years ago, people had to learn, for the first time in history, how to encounter strangers regularly without attempting to kill them.
Part of the solution to that problem was for one person, the chief, to exercise a monopoly on the right to use force. In contrast to a tribe’s big man, a chief held a recognized office, filled by hereditary right. Unlike big-men, chiefs could be recognized from afar by visible distinguishing features.
Chiefdoms varied considerably, Larger ones tended to have more powerful chiefs, more ranks of chiefly lineages, greater distinctions between chief and commoners, more retention of tribute by the chiefs, more layers of bureaucrats, and grander public architecture.
STATES arose around 3700 B.C. in Mesopotamia and around 300 B.C. in Mesoamerica, over 2,000 years ago in the Andes, China, and Southeast Asia, and over 1,000 years ago in West Africa.
Early states had a hereditary leader with a title equivalent to king, like a super paramount chief and exercising an even grater monopoly of information, decision making, and power. Even in democracies today, crucial knowledge is available to only a few individuals, who control the flow of information to the rest of the government and consequently control decisions.
Many, perhaps most, early states adopted slavery on a much larger scale than did chiefdoms.
Internal conflict resolution within states has become increasingly formalized by laws, a judiciary, and police. The laws are often written, because many states (with conspicuous exceptions, such as that of the Incas) have had literate elites, writing having been developed around the same time as the formation of the earliest states in both Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica. In contrast, no early chiefdom not on the verge of statehood developed writing.
Every state has its slogan urging its citizens to be prepared to die if necessary for the state: Britain’s “For King and Country.” Similar sentiments motivated 16th-century Aztec warriors: “There is nothing like death in war, nothing like the flowery death so precious to Him [the Aztec national god Huitzilopochtli] who gives life: far off I see it, my heart yearns for it!”
Such sentiments are unthinkable in bands and tribes.