Tribalism: good, bad, or just a fact of life?

Start with the definition:

Tribalism
1 : tribal consciousness and loyalty
especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups
2 : strong in-group loyalty

In an article in the New Yorker (naturally ... though it might as well have been the Atlantic or Mother Jones), the Trump-hating writer observes:

Everything in American politics today entrenches tribalism: our winner-take-all elections, the dehumanizing commentary on cable news and social media, the people we choose to talk to and live among. The trends are not new, but they’ve dramatically accelerated and intensified under a President who rules by humiliation because he lives in fear of being humiliated.

My problem with that statement is the insinuation, the claim really, that we are tribalized because of Trump, due to Trump, as a consequence of Trump.

But small tribes, platoons if you will, are a natural and normal and happy form of social organization. A "nation" is not. It is artificial, especially one requiring conformity from people in the Deep South, the mid-Atlantic, New England, the midwest, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, for God's sake, and Southern California to share moral and social values articulated by liberal academics and a news media trained by those same academics.

There's a reason that the French and the English don't particularly like each other and stay among their own. Same with Eagles and Cowboys fans. They are different, or are happy to think so, and they know it. Isn't that a lesson for Americans expecting adherence to a standard set of policies, values and manners set in New York and Washington?

 

I notice a similarity.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult?s=t

 

The tribalism of the French and the English led to a 1,000 years of war and millions dead. That is the main lesson of tribalism.
We are seeing dozens of tribal Republicans filling the hospitals right now because of Trump's play on tribalism during a pandemic.

 

I'm sorry. It's reality.

 

It’s going to get worse. Technology changes exponentially and one side is adverse to much change at all. The division will widen, especially with Trump wanting to hang around followed by Trump Jr.

 

That's fine.. You would force diverse people to adhere to the same rules, customs tradition, and even speech codes because ... why exactly I don't know.

I would not. It's unnatural.

 

I would not either but what you've described in your first paragraph is a trumper and you criticize me for thinking that's wrong???

 

As could apply to any POTUS.

It is interesting that trying to call individuals who believes in preservation of a country, a cult. I suppose one could also apply that to virtually any group in existence? Anyone who supports a person or idea, according to your link. Does that include sports figures? Starbucks? Bernie Sanders?

 

Representing my literary tribe, I will say that I think you meant to say that, "one side is averse to much change at all," though adverse, which you used, is probably more accurate.
(Averse means disinclined towards, adverse means antagonistic toward).

 

I agree that tribalism has been part of human nature since the first tribes. But the silly arbitrariness of judging others based on which team they root for is not comparable to U.S. politics, since we're all supposed to be on the same team. As I'm sure you realize, the repercussions of who one votes for, & who gets political power, are much more tangible than the effects of another person not supporting your particular sports team.

Tribalism is just the progressives' new, "hip," term for partisanship. And partisanship is stupidity. While this feature of human psychology can certainly be beneficial, bringing humans together in support of one another, and to achieve common cause, it can also be used to do just the opposite, that is, to keep us from making common cause with others, when plain old reason dictates that we should. The solution is something that is difficult to imagine happening: teaching people to recognize that impulse, so that they may lessen its power over them in situations when it does not make sense to judge through a partisan lens.

 

I guess it depends on what one considers their tribe and to the extent their tribalism manifests itself in a kill or be killed attitude. IDK. I don't even care about my state that much, let alone the whole country. Just my little area of the world. It doesn't mean I want bad things to happen to anybody else. I am just not going to waste much energy on outlanders so to speak, let alone bend over backwards or sacrifice to help them.

 

Tribalism is just a function of even more fundamental pack behaviour, just projected through the lens of our intelligence and social structures. It isn't exclusively good or bad but can clearly have positive and negative aspects depending on how it presents. It's essentially the basis for our entire society but is also the cause of so much of the division and conflict within it.

I would say that some of the negative aspects have increased in US politics in recent years and while it certainly isn't all down to Trump, I feel he is a factor in his attitude of never compromising or (honestly) negotiating, instead approaching issues from a "my way or the highway" style.

 

I don't recommend judgment. I don't even recommend tribalism. I just think birds of a feather flock together as a matter of preference, and they should be allowed to do so.

 

For the most part, I totally agree. People are different from one another, & we should all have the freedom to associate with the ones we wish.

But I do think that it might be beneficial to discourage this, when it comes to politics. Not to discourage people from having their own political views: You believe in the importance of keeping the budget balanced-- good for you. You believe in the principle of free speech, or what have you-- great! But we both know that's not how partisan politics works. A party takes a particular view on one issue, or in a certain circumstance, then reverses itself in another. And the uber-partisan supporters act as if they wouldn't know hypocrisy amongst their, "own kind," if it bit them; yet are so keenly perceptive to it in the opposition, whose motives they generally treat as suspect. And this way of acting only further encourages more of the same from the other side.

Again, I am speaking now of an ideal that I don't see as easily realized. And, to be clear, I'm not giving my critique in a partisan way. Though I did not support Trump, & I feel there was plenty, during his tenure, to fault him for, I also saw the hypocrisy of some on the left who jumped to premature conclusions over every little thing Trump did, when they certainly would have been whistling a different tune if they were talking about a fellow Dem. Everything was, "the worst ever, in our country's history," which, in many cases, was not the truth. I can get more specific, if I need to, but I'd rather not rehash a bunch of old issues. Let me give some more generic examples, first.

Rachel Maddow is thought of so highly, generally speaking, by progressives, as this serious-minded, issue-focused commentator. She points out if a Republican, or if FOX NEWS, is acting childish, or mean-spirited, which they sometimes are. She'll upbraid any on the Right for being petty. But, I feel, she should then set an EXAMPLE with her OWN behavior.

Instead, when Rick Perry changed his look, Rachel did an entire segment showing his picture and making fun of him for wearing glasses, in order to look smarter, she proposed, and for being short, compared to his body guards. Again, I am no fan of Rick Perry, but that is worthy of serious news commentary? It was the puerile behavior of a grade-schooler. And if FOX did the same kind of segment on a Dem, making fun of their looks, she wouldn't think it was childish, & beneath the dignity of, "responsible journalism?"

I also heard her mock some Republican for mispronouncing the vowel in the last syllable of Asst. AG Weinstein's last name. Really, is that important? What about all the regular English WORDS (not foreign names) that get mispronounced by both hosts & political expert guests on MSNBC-- does she ever play that card? Hell, a person who calls it yuh-HOO news, instead of YAH-hoo news, is in no position to fault others' pronunciations, to imply that they are lacking in intelligence or knowledge pertinent to what they are discussing. But the partisan heart wants what it wants; and that is to try to diminish its opponent, and no way is too shameful.

I do believe Rachel does good stories, sometimes, though she's become so REDUNDANT that I find it difficult to tolerate her for very long (esp. because she often starts off a long way from her ultimate point, & takes a circuitous route to get there, full of repeated words, phrases, & ideas). And I am no fan of Sean Hannity, over on FOX (though I've not seen much of his work, to be fair). But there was an instance involving, I think, some women's college basketball team. Numerous talking heads on the Right were being critical, and Rachel made a big case, speaking as if to those commentators, trying to encourage them to take back their allegations. She appealed to their sense of journalistic integrity, speaking as a diplomat for the left, wanting to welcome those news people into the fold of fact-based news reporting.

As facts came to light, Hannity actually did make a public admission that he had been wrong. And Rachel's reaction to Hannity's progress, having the maturity to take responsibility for his actions? She LAUGHED AT HIM! Made FUN of the very thing she'd been appealing to him to do, admit the truth. And as soon as he does, like Lucy pulling away the football from Charlie Brown, she reverts to a partisan child, mocking him. And the animosity between progressives & conservatives deepens.

How old is she, ten? Well Hannity may not be very bright, & may have many other faults, besides, but based on that situation, he apparently has more of one thing than Rachel: class.

 

Tribalism is obviously bad because it is an idea that is based on very primtive premises such as neglect of the individual, free will and reason.

It is true that tribalism is becoming more and more present in all aspects of our culture, but this has been an ongoing tremd for many decades and blaming it all on Trump is - ironically enough - yet another expression of this everincreasing tribalism.

Trump is a symptom,, not the cause.

It is a very cliche statement, but repeating it is important; the political battle is not one of "Left vs Right", but rather one of "Collectivism vs Individualism" and ut is very sad to see that it is collectivism that is winning.

 

If it wasn't for Tribalism we'd have no borders, no immigration, no way to determine the difference between PRC China or the United States of America for example.

 

This question has been debated for a very long time and there is no clear answer.

Here is the general belief on it.
It has always existed in some form in all aspects of nature mainly because of protectionism. People and animals ultimately feel safer when they are with others like themselves. Whether it's good or bad is actually an irrelevant question because just like most things in life, that is subjective....there is actually no such thing as right or wrong.

Will tribalism ever end?

Once again the general belief is that it won't but it will certainly change. As humanity gets closer to being one race with every generation that form of tribalism will end.

Globalization ended quite a lot of tribalism in economics.

In the future as we colonize space it is expected we will do it as a species and not by nations ending that

Even with much of it ending it will still exist in many forms with religion being at the top.

Who knows, you may go into a galactic bar on planet X one day and desperately search for some humans to sit with because you don't trust them aliens with the squinty eyes.

 

I pretty much agree with your take in this post all the way up to the final sentence. Asserting that Hannity has more class than Maddow, even though you qualified it, it still stands as your concluding remark. Now, this is just me, personally, but I try to avoid ever judging the overall degree of a class inherent in a person. I also find it presumptuous when other people do it, because it implies that they consider their own character to have a sufficient amount of class to judge who has class. But in the case of a singular action or behavior, then sure, I find calling something out as a classless move to be entirely appropriate. For example, Tyson biting Holyfield, not a class move. For some reason I have a little bit of tolerance for someone asserting that someone else is a class act - even though it still carries the same level of presumption that I already complained about.

I think you might consider this editorial change for your final sentence.

Interesting, I thought I was gonna have to change it more, but it seemed like a single consonant swap was sufficient.

Ugh, hahaha... as Soren said, boredom is the root of all evil....

 

Just as there is an Eagles or Cowboys 'tribe', there is a Trump tribe. People gather among those who share similar views. It doesn't matter what part of the US they come from, they are members of the tribe who support Trump.

 

Oh. Are Democrats a tribe as well. A cult? Or shall we so pigeonhole and demean only those who belong to "the other team"? I notice that many liberals think that Bernie Sanders leads a cult as well. (Fun and easy).

Footnote: as to "the other team," I do not believe that liberals really disagree with Trump on very much. They just pretend to hate him because it's currently the cool thing to do.

They are no more and no less racist than he is, they are enjoying their swelling stock portfolios more than they want to admit, and are thankful -- presumably -- that we are not at war with Iran or North Korea as predicted. Trump fired John Bolton, don't forget, because Bolton "wanted to go to war with everybody."

 

Anyone who follows any party - right or wrong - is a member of a 'tribe'. So yes, that goes for dems who would support a leader no matter what they did.

 

I think it's just a fact of life. We human being are social being and "tribe" is our natural trend.

It's just a trend that can lead to mutual support, solidarity, and we will always learn a lot from the other.

However, it's has a darker face it's useless to argue on.

The trend for human being to search for groups is as bad or good than smartness. It's just a potentiality.

 

Yes, but some people vote because they like a particular candidate or a particular policy of the candidate, and sometimes just to vote against the other guy. They don't necessarily support the party platform.

 

The original definition of nation is tribal.

nation (n.)

c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation

 

Human societies are tribal, always and everywhere. A marker for tribalism that who speaks is more important than what is said.