Concerns About Tribalism

Author: Tim Platnich

Published: April 27, 2024

A tribe, in the most general sense, is a group of people who identify with the tribe's defining characteristics.

Over the course of human history, families joined into clans; clans into small tribes; small tribes into bigger tribes; and bigger tribes into nations. The smaller units did not necessarily cease to exist. Rather, they just identified with larger and larger groups. Historically, tribes were formed broadly for three purposes: to protect the tribe members; to obtain resources for the tribe and its members; and to protect the resources of the tribe and its members. Tribal culture was collective in nature. Individuals were secondary to the collective. We retain many cultural instincts today. These instincts predispose us to tribalism or, to some, 'neotribalism'.

Ancient tribal protection related to protection from nature and protection from other tribes. Tribes competed for resources. Resources included territory like hunting grounds, fishing areas and generally access to the necessities of life. Tribes sought power to better compete for resources with other tribes. In many ancient tribes, the warrior class was the most celebrated. It was the mark of a man to be a good warrior.

History is replete with examples of tribal warfare. In the area of what is now Canada, prior to the arrival of Europeans, tribal warfare was central to the Aboriginal way of life. [see "Warfare in Pre-Columbian North America"]. There were dozens of tribes (or 'nations') located across the country. Although some tribes were cooperative with other tribes, many were adversarial. For example the groups of tribes known as the 'Algonquins' and the 'Hurons" were legendary foes of the 'Iroquois'; as were the Blackfoot with the Cree. In the Canadian context, scalping, torture and cannibalism were some of the aspects of indigenous warfare. Also, with west coast tribes, enslavement of captured enemies was an additional aspect of warfare. [see "Rising Greatness: The History of Canada" by Conrad Black]

In the area of modern day Mexico, the Aztec tribe(s) were so despised by their neighbouring tribes that Cortez was able to enlist their support in defeating the Aztecs.

In the European context, ancient Celtic tribes were almost in a constant state of warfare with one another. Their propensity for inter-tribe strife was used by the Romans to keep the Celts divided in the conquest of both Gaul and Britannia.

There are many tribes in modern society. These are not the tribes of ancient times but they serve the same functions. They satisfy instinctive tendencies and, politically and economically, are a means to power.

Some modern day tribes include: white extremists; feminists; racial groups (BPOC); LGBTQ groups; minority religious groups, and various 'victims' groups not already caught by the foregoing. These groups formed for protection and to fight for equal rights for their members. Having largely succeeded in many of these areas, these tribes no longer just seek equality but rather they seek equity. Equity, in their terms, means many things but includes special treatment based on past wrongs. Special treatment includes monetary compensation, affirmative action, quota allocations of positions in both government and private institutions, leaner treatment for legal infractions, non-enforcement of laws for the protection of private property or public order, to name a few. Much of this equitable treatment falls under the acronym DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or more broadly, social justice. This special treatment also falls under the common description of identity politics.

My purpose in this post is to raise some of the concerns about modern day tribalism. I do not propose to deal substantively with the myriad of arguments used to support DEI or to delve into the quagmire of defining social justice.

Concerns about tribalism include as follows: collectivism vs. individualism; the fracturing of society leading to hostility between groups and even violence; and the undermining of traditional norms that have evolved since the time of the Enlightenment including individual rights such as freedom of speech.

Tribal collectivism poses a threat to both its individual members and to individuals outside the tribe. Let's take feminists as our first example. Feminists have fought hard for women's equality in the work force. This included equal access to all facets of the workforce and equal working conditions within it. Yet, some feminists attack women who choose to not enter the workforce and become stay-at-home moms. One would have thought feminists would applaud having achieved a state where individual women now can choose the route they prefer. The point here is that the tribe can quickly turn against individual tribe members where the tribe believes its collective interests are at risk.

Another interesting example of the foregoing has arisen in the context of tribe 'intersectionality'. A subgroup of women are now transgender or at least transgender activists. Some feminists, like J.K. Rowling, have expressed concerns about the safety of women where transgendered women (born male), simply by declaring they are transgender, are permitted into female spaces. She has been set upon by transgender activists including from her tribe of feminists.

Tribalism potentially creates an 'us against them' dynamic. Where one group is vilified and blamed for the circumstances of another group, without regard to whether a particular individual member of the group is guilty of any misconduct, the individual may be punished. Guilt is assumed simply by association. In other cases, the misconduct of some members of a group may lead to a belief that the entire group must be punished with the infliction of group punishment. These dynamics are not conducive to either individual fairness, or to cooperative relations between members of the different groups.

Tribalism can exist at many levels and in many circumstances in addition to those referenced above: town vs. town; sports fan vs. opposing sports fan; progressive vs. conservative; Democrat vs. Republican; and so on. Because of the instinctual basis of tribalism, tribalism can quickly turn mean, hostile and even violent.

In "The Fatal Conceit", Friedrich Hayek argues that the rules of morality have evolved over time in a manner somwhat analogous to evolution by natural selection in biology. He says that the rules of morality that exist today are the rules that have survived the test of time. These rules have evolved largely to counter the negative effects of the instincts of primitive humans. These primitive instincts served a purpose in primitive times, but now, according to Hayek, are destructive. Contrary to the teachings of the ancient Greeks, Hayek argues that emotion is not controlled by reason but rather, instinctive tendencies are controlled by following the rules developed by trial and error over time which rules have led to greater human happiness.

Until very recent times, the rules of morality underlying at least western culture have been directed at treating all humans fairly, equally and with dignity and respect. These rules, when followed, have been successful in countering tribalistic instincts. Unfortunately, these rules have not been universally followed and now are under increasing attack by those seeking a contrived vision of social justice that, at its core, is tribalistic.

History has taught us about the dangers of tribalism. Let's know our history so we are not doomed to repeat it! [a take on the quote from Edmund Burke - "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."]