It has always intrigued me that people so easily and
passionately associate themselves with groups.
Alumni of Ohio State University demonstrate an almost religious devotion
to their football team; Coca Cola employees will never be tempted by another
sugary drink; Chicago sports fans support their baseball teams loyally despite
an almost perfect record of disappointment; Marines put 'semper fidelis' bumper
stickers on their cars and consider themselves lifelong marines; citizens of
every country proclaim the virtues of their land and bind themselves to it by a
fierce nationalism; ethnic groups celebrate their common attributes and find
either refuge or exclusivity in their shared experience.
What is the nature of this tribal impulse, this compulsion
to associate with a group and embrace both its successes and failures, its
triumphs and tribulations? Is there some
deep need within us to belong to something larger than ourselves, to attach
ourselves to a substantial organism so as to avoid the oblivion of anonymity
and solitude?
In some cases, and especially in earlier times, it was clear
that the attachment had a practical and utilitarian aspect. The tribe offered protection from an
uncertain and dangerous world, from wild animals or malicious neighboring tribes. The tribal efforts to procure food and water
would certainly have greater chances of success than the efforts of a single
person or family. Membership in a tribe
bolstered survival chances substantially.
But many of the tribal loyalties in today’s world bear no
relation to our ancient tribal inclinations.
Certainly the intense emotional bond that many have today with their
college or city sports team can no longer be interpreted as having any utilitarian
component. Other than some minor
bragging rights, the success of a sports team has little impact on its fans
lives. Yet fans will go to absurd
extremes in demonstrating their loyalty and tribal membership – even killing
one another in some cases.
The tribal association known as nationalism or love of
country is perhaps more understandable, as it has a direct impact on the
well-being (or at least the perceived well-being) of the citizens. But nationalism is a slippery slope, and it
has been responsible in the past for many a virulent form of fascism or
imperialism. And as the world becomes more global and more inter-dependent, it
may be that nationalism actually works against one’s own self-interest. Yet I suspect that nationalism will not die
easily, as it is the most expedient rallying cry of the demagogue.
Tribalism is sadly interwoven into the fabric and orthodoxy
of most world religions. Part of any
religion’s resilience is its claim to be the single truth and path to
Godliness, and most religions develop a cultural ethos with a strong tribal
hold on their members. Consigning
non-members to eternal damnation or death is a pretty effective tool in
creating a strong tribal message!
Of course the rich diversity of religious culture is
something to admire in the world, and the world would be poorer for its
absence. However, I would argue that the
diversity could be maintained without the absolutism and dogmatism that create
such conflict and disharmony between individual religions as well as the
non-religious.
Cultural and ethnic tribalism are also a complex combination
of positives and negatives. The U.S. has
long been the so-called melting pot of cultures, and has been somewhat successful
in blending cultures to retain interesting attributes while breaking down the
prejudices and separateness that cultural tribalism can easily perpetuate.
One might argue that it is sad to see a melding of cultures
and the loss of the pure essence of a particular group’s heritage. But if no assimilation occurs, then the
probability of alienation and hostility is strong when groups live in close
proximity and share common resources and political/economic systems.
Today some cultures do indeed seem resistant
to ‘melting’ and assimilation. Europe,
for example, has been unsuccessful in assimilating its Muslim population for a
variety of reasons. One might also argue that Jewish populations have also
maintained a fairly separate, tribal unity – understandable for historical
reasons of persecution – but somewhat problematic nonetheless.
So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into these tribal
relationships? Is there some basic
biological need for them? Are they
simply the most readily available form of community, which might be
characterized as a fundamental social need for most human beings?
Are tribal associations an anachronism that should be shed
by the new, progressive man or woman?
Aren’t we citizens of the world, joined together in common plight with
all of our fellow human beings in an ever more challenging and urgent quest to
find harmony on earth and solve common problems? Can we preserve some of the wonderful
diversity of our tribal communities while blunting their sharp edges? Can we be passionate members of our tribe
without also being adversaries with other tribes? Of course we can, and it is part of our required
evolution as a species. If we succeed we
will be the ‘meek who inherit the earth’.
If we fail, then we will join the dinosaurs in the dustbin of the
universe.
