The concept of tribalism is often used to explain the current state of American politics, but it is also wielded as a weapon. An expert might note that the unwillingness to compromise is due to tribalism, while a critic might deride the tribalism of the other side. While this short essay is not intended to explore the complexities and formalities of a rigorous definition of the concept, I will endeavor to discuss the matter in a neutral and rational way.
Tribalism is, obviously enough, characterized by loyalty to the tribe. This differs from loyalty to principles or values. After all, a person loyal to a tribe because it is their tribe will typically retain that loyalty even when the tribe shifts values. In contrast, a person who is dedicated to certain principles and values that a tribe happens to have at a certain time will typically cease to be loyal to that tribe if it comes to reject these principles and values. Since the values professed by tribe’s shift, tribalism involves value fluidity: as the tribe changes values, those who embrace tribalism shift their values. For example, the tribe of Republicans endorsed the values of free trade and thus opposed tariffs. They also professed a dislike of deficits and spending. Trump, however, shifted these values and now the Republican tribe largely embraces tariffs, deficits and big government spending. Such is the power of tribalism that it generally trumps professed values.
It might be contended that tribes need values and principles to define them, hence this fluidity is an exaggeration. However, the ease with which tribes shift values shows that such fluidity is real. People even develop the myth that the values they have now, have always been—when a look at history shows that this is not the case. There is also the fact that group identity and hostility to other groups is easy to manufacture. Divide a group of people into two teams, give them different colored
Tribalism certainly has its origin in biology; humans are social animals and tribalism is the human equivalent of unthinking pack loyalty. Animals, after all, generally do not have abstract principles or values. This is one reason that tribalism trumps values—it is unthinking instinct. Tribalism is also, not surprisingly, fuelled by cognitive defects (or biases). The most important is in-group bias, which is the tendency of people to see members of their own group as better that the members of other groups. This bias makes it easy for people to attribute positive qualities to members of their own tribe while easily assigning negative traits to those of other tribes. This probably also helps support value fluidity: whatever changes occur in the values professed by the tribe, they will still generally be seen as better than the values of other tribes. As might be expected, fallacious reasoning also plays a role in tribalism.
There is a fallacy, often called the “group think fallacy”, in which it is inferred that a claim is true (or something is good) because members of one’s group believe the claim (or hold to the values). This is obviously fallacious but has considerable psychological appeal. This also helps fuel value fluidity, since the truth and values are not based on objective assessment, but by reference to the group. While tribalism seems to be a mental defect, it might be wondered whether it is problematic.
One problem with tribalism is that it tends to render the professed values of the tribe meaningless. This is because loyalty is to the tribe rather than a set of values. This does raise some interesting philosophical questions about the basis of tribal identity and some ship of Theseus style problems about when a tribe changes so much that one might wonder whether it is really the same tribe. There are also some other interesting metaphysical problems about identity here as well in terms of what makes a tribe the same tribe across time and value changes.
A second problem is that tribalism tends to encourage irrational behavior on the part of tribe members. That is, they can act contrary to their own interests and against the general welfare because of the dictates of their tribal leaders. On the positive side, tribal leaders could issue commands that do coincide with the interests of the tribal members and the general welfare. However, this is a matter of chance.
A third problem is that tribalism makes it easy for tyrants to gain ready-made followers who happily serve them, no matter how terrible the tyranny. Because of these problems, it would seem best to find ways to counter tribalism.
One obvious solution is improving critical thinking, so that people can recognize the defects behind and of tribalism. However, mere logic is obviously enough—people also need training in values and commitment to values, as per Aristotle. Of course, this also raises a possible problem: people committed to terrible values can be worse than mere tribes.
DH says
August 24, 2018 at 1:35 pmFor the most part, I agree. It’s something I’ve been saying for a long time – sometimes we just call it “Hypocrisy”, though I imagine there’s some subtle semantic difference.
“One obvious solution is improving critical thinking…”
There are very few people in this country who seem to have this capability, unfortunately.
“For example, the tribe of Republicans endorsed the values of free trade and thus opposed tariffs. They also professed a dislike of deficits and spending. Trump, however, shifted these values and now the Republican tribe largely embraces tariffs, deficits and big government spending.”
I think you could come up with a stronger example of this. I don’t think this is true. First of all, you need to make a distinction between tariffs as “policy” and tariffs as “tactic”. I don’t think that Trump or Republicans believe that tariffs are any kind of long term solution or trade policy. He has said many, many times over (like a broken record) that global trade is skewed against the US (he calls it a “bad deal”), and I believe that he has implemented these tariffs as a measure to bring our trade partners to the table to negotiate better trade agreements.
I guess we’ll see about that – but I don’t think he has as much support as you think he has. In June of this year, Burgess Everett published an article in POLITICO with the headline “Republicans Wage Trade War Against Trump”
“…Republicans are finally reaching their breaking point with President Donald Trump on trade.
One faction of GOP senators is pushing Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-Tenn.) legislation that would allow Congress to block Trump’s tariffs — which Trump is trying to kill before it comes to the Senate floor. Another group is holding private meetings with Trump, hoping it can convince him via back-channel negotiations to back off a brewing trade war with U.S. allies before Congress steps in.
However this episode ends, Trump’s decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on Mexico, Canada and Europe has brought a long-simmering conflict with congressional Republicans to a head. And the party is now fretting that Trump’s policies could hurt the economy and divide the GOP just five months before the midterm elections.”
The article goes on to say that most Republicans agree with Corker and with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis), who is working with him, that the tariffs are too broad, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb) said, “The policy continues to be incredibly stupid”; and Corker’s plan is backed by the US Chamber of Commerce and Koch Industries.
All you need to do is listen to Conservative Talk Radio for an afternoon to hear some well known hosts and their Republican guests railing vehemently against the spending and deficits – and even crying out for a fiscally responsible third party.
Brent Bozell, the president of the very conservative “Media Matters” published and article on the web-based CNS News in April, in which he offered a prescription for Republican success which included,
“…Reverse that disastrous $1.3 trillion omnibus. This talk about a revision, or worse, a balanced budget amendment, is the height of hypocrisy and the public’s not going to stand for it. It’s like committing rape and then joining the #MeToo movement. Only tangible results, legislation that reduces the deficit and puts the government on the road to fiscal sanity, will work.”
Both of these examples you give are areas of heated contention about Republican values, and are pretty much the opposite of tribalism.
But aside from that, I think you’re right. Politicians who shift values are said to “evolve” on issues and to a certain extent they may be right. Situations do change, and sometimes we cannot hold to pure values and must adapt – but we must do so with caution. Of course, my core belief is that any politician of any stripe has one main “value”, which is winning and keeping a seat at the table. In that regard, they are all very consistent in acting based on values.
Rank and file Americans are different, though – I think that we see expressions of tribalism all over Social Media and in conversations at the water-cooler, and in the “comments” sections of articles on the web. As you say, this tribalism is marked by a complete lack of any kind of critical thinking or even a superficial attempt at understanding the nuance of an issue.
WTP says
August 24, 2018 at 5:30 pmIt’s almost like tribalism, along with certain perceptions of tribalism, and self-awareness have some sort of an inverse relationship.
TJB says
August 24, 2018 at 10:40 pmMike—two thumbs up on your choice of photo to accompany this post. Works on many levels.
Michael LaBossiere says
August 25, 2018 at 11:19 pmTrump suggested to me when we were out golfing and fighting alligators.
WTP says
August 25, 2018 at 4:12 pmHere’s a thought TJ, DH, Coffee Time, do you suppose academic narcissism and the general disdain for dead white males of the Enlightenment found in academia have had a role in this tribalism problem?
https://youtu.be/6Sxttk5REkM
TJB says
August 25, 2018 at 9:07 pmVery nice video. I encourage everyone to watch it before the SPLC labels it as hate speech and it is taken down.
DH says
August 26, 2018 at 8:04 pmThat video makes me sad, but we get what we pay for, I guess. Students who perceive themselves as “victims” and seek affirmation at the cost of tuition, will just be victims of a different kind.
As a believer in the free market, I have to hope that for the institutions who design their humanities curricula as presented in this video will find their enrollment dropping as alumni begin to look back and count their wasted dollars.
For schools like UCLA, that offer free in-state tuition to residents and illegal aliens, this is proof that nothing is free. Instead of dollars, they take your brain.
It also makes me question how a university defines “success” as it pertains to their graduates, and how they might distinguish between “Education and Indoctrination”. Don’t get me wrong – I am not against “gender studies” or alternate views of history, but they really ought to be placed in context.
At my institution, “Gender Studies” is offered as a non-degree program through the College of Liberal Arts designed to enhance a student’s experience. And Shakespeare is still required for Literature majors.
We had a discussion earlier about the ethics of using “tainted science”, that was obtained by immoral or unethical means. The conversation also included the “consumption” of art – i.e., people like Kevin Spacey or films that were produced by Harvey Weinstein, and questioned whether or not museums ought to take down the works of men like Picasso because of their behavior.
Are great works of the past now suspect simply because they were produced by white men? By racists, xenophobes, misogynists, or slaveholders?
Maybe employers will pay more attention to the “EDUCATION” line item on resumes, and act accordingly.
WTP says
August 26, 2018 at 8:37 pmAs a believer in the free market, I have to hope that for the institutions who design their humanities curricula as presented in this video will find their enrollment dropping as alumni begin to look back and count their wasted dollars.
For schools like UCLA, that offer free in-state tuition to residents and illegal aliens, this is proof that nothing is free. Instead of dollars, they take your brain.
Except the free market here, ironically, isn’t free. In-state tuition isn’t free. Someone is paying for it. So long as the taxpayers are there to be fleeced, they will be. Until you run out of OPM.
DH says
August 26, 2018 at 10:45 pmWell, yes, of course. I really was talking about “no tuition bill to the student”, if you want to parse it. My point is that you get what you pay for – and if a student wants to go to an institution that doesn’t charge him tuition, well, he’ll get the courses that the government says should be there.
But to your point – the student’s don’t really care if someone else is paying their bill – but they ought to realize that they, too, are bearing the cost in a different way, by virtue of what is being stuffed into their tabulae rasae.
WTP says
August 27, 2018 at 1:10 pmI know you understood that, but it needs to be stated and emphasized as much as possible. We should be very wary of glossing over it because it is not well understood. And relevant to your point the student’s don’t really care if someone else is paying their bill – but they ought to realize that they, too, are bearing the cost in a different way, by virtue of what is being stuffed into their tabulae rasae. …They don’t care because they aren’t mature enough to think that far into the future and many of those few who do, by their very nature expect to be taken care of regardless of their own decisions. Partly due to the narcissism both inherent in people, especially young people, and that being reinforced by the academia in their class subject matter. For those who even bother going to class, anyway. The pressure to put a stop to this madness is not going to come from the students. It can only come from those people who pay the bills. As this burden has shifted away from students and parents, supposedly the end consumers, and on to tax payers the quality of the product has deteriorated significantly. The tax payers are not in a position to see or assess the quality of education until well past, years/decades past, the delivery of the product. And even then, their ability to control how the money is spent is extremely diluted and obfuscated by layers of government and academic administrative bureaucracy.
CoffeeTime says
August 25, 2018 at 10:35 pmSerendipitously, the NYT today brought me to this:
[W]e must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years […], Washington talked tough but failed to act….[O]ur borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.
Who said it?
That’s a quote from the Democratic Party’s official platform for 1996. Why did they change position? was it for some well-supported philosophical reason, or for party political advantage? It’s memory-holed now; the tribe has changed direction. “We have always been at war with Eastasia.” If the Arts and Humanities can’t handle Shakespeare, maybe they can at least manage Orwell.
DH has already done the heavy lifting, and I’m a little tipsy right now for reliable reasoning. 🙂
Michael LaBossiere says
August 25, 2018 at 11:25 pmGood example. Another one is the “tough on crime” approach adopted by the Democrats in that same time period. As others have pointed out, Bill Clinton helped put a lot of black people into prison.
DH says
August 26, 2018 at 1:56 amWell, for all those examples of politicians changing direction like that, I have to believe that they know what they are doing. They aren’t engaging in tribalism, they are simply exhibiting party loyalty as a strategic move to gain power.
If anything, they are leveraging the tribalism and inability to think critically on the part of their constituents.
Policy makes no difference. It is far more important to oppose the other side than to deal with petty little things like idealism, principles, or values. Keep it simple, stupid.
I certainly don’t want to have to explain which part of tariffs I think might be a good thing, and which part might not be so good. I certainly don’t expect my constituents (motto: “TLDNR”} to stick around and listen to me drone on about Free Market Economics and how tax cuts just might stimulate growth.
It’s much easier to get the tribal rank and file to believe “Democrat = Good, Republican = Bad” or vice versa. Piece of cake.
“Anything Trump does is bad, we have to stop him. Never mind what we said last year – in fact, forget it.”
Or,
“The Democrats want to turn this country into a Socialist nation!” (do you even know what “Socialism” is? It doesn’t matter! It’s bad! Democrats are bad!)
So those in power change their minds and change their support and let their values shift with the political winds – but they have thought it all out very deeply. They know when they are compromising. They know when they are being hypocrites. But they are NOT just acting tribally in the absence of critical thinking. They are very clear in their values and their goals, and they do not waver from them. Power. A seat at the table. Re-election.
For us, though – who has time to study economics or international diplomacy? That’s what we elected these guys for, isn’t it?
I’m with them.