Credit: Andy Sotiriou
We live in an increasingly interconnected world, due largely to globalization and advances in technology, particularly in communications and in travel. We have always needed each other. But it’s never been truer. Perhaps we rely on each other too much. As we’ve recently seen, global supply chains alone have the power to halt the world economy in its tracks.
At the same time, however, it seems like, especially post-Trump, we are living in the most divided time in American politics. That’s probably a recency bias; the Civil War was a pretty divisive time. Still, things aren’t what they used to be. Nixon, a crook, was forced to resign as a result of the Watergate scandal. Trump, on the other hand, having had the requisite number of Republicans in the Senate, could not get convicted, despite two impeachment trials – one for inspiring an impromptu coup against democracy!
I ask, Will tribalism in an increasingly connected world be the end of us?
Defining Tribalism
To be clear, I’m not talking about simply having a tribe. Except in rare cases, we all have at least one: family, friends, neighbors, partners. Journalist Sebastian Junger in the book Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging identifies the quintessential element of belonging to a tribe as the feeling of some obligation to take responsibility for the well-being of the group or one of its members; failing to do so makes one feel “dead inside.”
These groups can help foster a sense of identity and purpose, promote in-group solidarity, and provide much-needed support in troubled times.
Tribalism, though, is typically defined as the negative aspects of strong group loyalty. Some object to the derogatory denotation, arguing it furthers anti-African stereotypes. First, anthropological research cited by Richard Wrangham in his book The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution shows that tribes have, indeed, engaged in regular inter-group conflicts. In fact, despite their relatively peaceful natures, inter-group conflicts tend to be the only times tribal societies reliably contribute to violence. Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, I will use a broader, neutral definition: tribalism here means strong loyalty to a group.
But what does the word “strong” mean in this case? It has to do with valuation. It would be understandable, for example, expected even, to value one’s own family more than those of others. The same goes for people we love. If we were forced to make a choice, most of us would likely save these people over others. The heritability of such a disposition from evolution’s view is obvious. But we do not make our laws favoring one family over another. We try to be objective. We value all equally under the law. It is only when we value our particular group to an extreme that we start to justify unequal treatment: slavery, segregation, nepotism, genocide, etc. But what is an extreme – or strong – valuation? I think it’s one in which the well-being or goals of an in-group are valued so much that the well-being or goals of an out-group do not matter, when we’re no longer willing to be objective. It’s a relative definition.
Now, we can begin.
Tribalism’s Problems
This tribalism is the existential threat.
Division
It’s not difficult to understand how tribalism drives division. We identify with groups we’re a part of. In practice, this means, for many, identifying with its ideas, as well. It’s often difficult to separate the two. Therefore, attacks on ideas become attacks on people. And when it’s your group being attacked, it’s personal.
Nowhere is this more obvious today than in politics. It’s common to see political pundits hurl ad hominems at their counterparts for disagreeing with them. Republicans consistently intimate, if not outright claim, that Democrats are demonic. Conversely, Dems often call Republicans racist, gun-toting lunatics - all this despite a lot Americans agree on, such as the need for infrastructure, education, health care, criminal justice reform, climate change initiatives, and national security.
A binary party system that benefits from discord, also, doesn’t help.
Discrimination
Despite movements in identity politics against discrimination, some of which I broadly support, tribalism may also, somewhat counter-intuitively, lead to greater discrimination. While real-world discrimination exists today, such as in policing and in housing, issues that should be addressed, forming group identities tied to immutable characteristics fundamentally divides groups in ways that can’t be reconciled. If, for instance, there’s one thing that white supremacists and the extreme Left can agree on, it’s the primacy of race. Further, such groups frequently emphasize subjective experience. Yes, it’s important to understand the struggles of others; they may be hard sometimes to notice. A young black man in the Bronx, for example, is likely to have very different interactions with the police than a young white girl from a wealthy neighborhood. Still, in our increasingly mixed and globalized world, fixation on race anchors us to the past. We’ve made much progress because of past struggles. Most of what lies ahead, though, is not a black or white struggle but a human struggle against oppression. In an ideal future, to paraphrase neuroscientist and author Sam Harris, differences in skin color or race should be as trivial as those in hair color.
Closed-mindedness
Tribalism is pernicious, too, in its ability to insidiously close off the mind itself to reason. As alluded to, tribes often come with ideas, not just people. There is usually a pull to accept these ideas and, sometimes, to not question them. The go-to example here is religion. While I find religious people in my own life to be, on net, the best people I know, displaying ideal characteristics of generosity, selflessness, moral courage, and so on, they also seem reluctant to accept ideas that, to me, are plainly obvious: such as the non-issue of homosexuality or of pre-marital sex. While there are open religious communities, accepting of LGBTQ, say, they are, for now, the rule’s exception, and few outright contradict traditional church teaching.
Groupthink
Tribalism also has the tendency of creating echo chambers. It’s comforting to be surrounded by like-minded people who constantly agree with us, who make us feel safe. Democracy, nevertheless, hinges on open discourse; ideally, the best ideas win. We need to be exposed to challenging ideas, to grow. And it’s harder to do that if we feel a strong loyalty to a particular group with a particular set of ideas. Ideas themselves then become things that must be defended.
Conflict and Violence
The most problematic aspect of tribalism is that it sometimes leads to violence. Tribalism itself doesn’t necessarily lead to violence. Jains and Sikhs, for instance, can be very tribal but rarely engage in violence. Not all tribalism is the same. Doctrine matters. Yet a wide range of doctrines may lead to violence. What do Trumpists and BLM supporters, for example, have in common? Both reacted in violence to what they perceived as a rigged system: for the former, a fraudulent election; for the latter, systemic racism. Self-defense is one thing - I support it; but violence against innocent people and property, rioting and looting, I do not. Failing to defend one’s group is often considered disloyal, which usually warrants expulsion from the group, or worse. There’s a lot to lose.
These problems of tribalism, despite the aforementioned good they occasionally engender, slowly degrade our ability to work together. Without that capacity we may, as with the Neanderthals, go extinct. Perhaps AGI will usurp us like we usurped the Neanderthals in Europe. It’s hard to say; there are many unknowns, by definition, with the future. Or, perhaps we are our own worst enemy. In a nuclear age, discourse is our main tool for preventing radioactive oblivion.
Tribalism’s Solutions
So, what can be done about all this, especially given the natural tendency to form groups?
Encourage empathy and understanding
One obvious thing is to encourage wider empathy. Psychologist Paul Bloom points out that we tend to be more empathetic toward those who are more similar to us. There is likely an evolutionary explanation; those who shared our genes looked more like us. But this a bug, not a feature. The whole point is to understand and share in the feelings and thoughts of others because we care, presumably because others are sentient and can suffer. Empathy may not be the whole answer; Bloom extols the virtues of rational compassion. But I think wide empathy is a recognition of our common humanity, and, therefore, the first step to any rational or compassionate approach.
Moreover, in this increasingly multicultural and intersectional world it is important, if we are to have empathy, to see ourselves in everyone, including those that not only do not share our race or gender but neither our politics nor religion. The most direct way of doing this is for groups to encourage diversity: in members and in thought. And smaller tribes, all else equal, are, thus, more problematic than larger ones since they are more likely to promote smaller empathy. To me, the best tribe to focus on is the human tribe. Here there is a real obligation, a shared identity. We are all we have; and we are all, as evolution tells us, the same.
Promote critical thinking and independent decision-making
Next, groups should promote critical thinking and independent decision-making skills. Here religion still needs much in the way of progress, though I acknowledge we’ve certainly made progress. I mean, we used to burn people at the stake for questioning the Church. However, not all religions are the same. While dogma or fundamentalism is the main enemy, critical thinking will always be impaired if one is bound by a deeply flawed source material – another idea I first encountered in a forceful way with Sam Harris. There is a reason many churches still drag their feet to accept homosexual love, say. Regular debate and interactions with those who share differing worldviews, should be commonplace.
Address structural inequalities
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention especially after criticizing some aspects of identity politics, that structural inequities are a real thing. If we do not address these, then it will be difficult to move past these issues; they hold people back. How can African Americans, for example, move beyond race issues if they are still being disproportionately shot dead by police when unarmed, about five times as often per capita when compared to whites, according to a Washington Post database? More, there is a wide range of scientific data out there about systemic racism and innate bias. I would invite anyone to learn more. Ironically, one way to fight tribalism, as defined here, is by understanding when to engage your tribe in a fight, and when to join a bigger, more inclusive one. Over time, as these issues are addressed, the latter tribe type should be favored.
Conclusion
Lastly, it’s important to note that tribalism doesn’t inevitably lead to conflict. This is the main point of “The Myth of Tribalism” by Dominic Packer and Jay van Bavel, an article published in the Atlantic in 2022; “groupishness,” a human tendency to identify with social groups, the authors claim, can, also, lead us into acting altruistically, “embracing diversity, and helping people radically different from ourselves.” They cite psychological researchers who found that “Participants [in the study] who [were] led to believe that their group normalizes fairness engage in less in-group favoritism than do people who think that their group has a discriminatory norm.” They go on: “Most people want to fit in, and the promotion of inclusive social norms unlocked their desire to be good group members.”
What is needed is to embrace the complexity: “Understanding how group identities combine with norms to shape human behavior also empowers people—and especially leaders—to focus more on cultivating healthy norms within their group.” Yes, we can.
Are we currently moving away from tribalism?
It’s hard to tell. But one positive sign is that it seems as if Republicans are finally starting to reject Trump. According to The Hill, a recent conservative poll shows Trump might not win the Republican primary this time around. It might go to someone like Ron DeSantis, who, despite his flaws, does not appear insane. Further, according to a recent Marist National Poll, Trump would also lose in a hypothetical 2024 head-to-head with Biden, who, despite his flaws, isn’t nearly as divisive.
Or, maybe I just have Trump Derangement Syndrome and am a Libtard.
Either way, we’ll see. I, for one, will move away from tribalism and toward greater acceptance of our differences and more understanding of our commonalities. It’s a work in progress. Let’s work together.