Tribes

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.