7 ms·

An Introduction to Tribalism for the Modern World That Has Forgotten It

82 points by spyckie2 1y ago

pnutjam 1y ago
wow: "Why would a clan that guarantees its own justice ever yield to a system that promises justice to its enemies? To do so is to voluntarily surrender its greatest strengths: the power to protect its own, punish its rivals, and maintain its position in the world. It is not merely a loss of advantage; it is the dismantling of the clan’s very foundation." White nationalism and conservatism in a nutshell...
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  > White nationalism and conservatism in a nutshell... Do you think people in Africa think otherwise? I know the political climate is charged right now, but cmon people.
  - gcr 1y ago
    Yes, I find folks in other countries are highly collaborative in a way that my own country (USA) often is not. I think the general sentiment in my country is driven by goal-seeking behavior dominated by individualistic fear, and I see less of that elsewhere. "Political charged"-ness is both a contributor and an outcome.
    - fidotron 1y ago
      > driven by goal-seeking behavior This is a bad thing now?
    - mantas 1y ago
      Huh? There’s plenty of deeply divided countries. Especially in Africa where many borders were drawn with no respect to ethnic and tribal situation.
      - reliabilityguy 1y ago
        Most of the borders in the Middle East and Asia are drawn without any consideration of the locals
        Jensson 1y ago
        That is true everywhere though, locals only have a say when they rebel and throw out their overlords. It isn't like the Irish were particularly happy about England pushing them around and so on.
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        Still. Afghanistan effectively rebelled, and yet they still use the British-drawn borders as the borders of their state.
        pakthrow 1y ago
        As a matter of power in the global scope, sure. Locally, it's messier. The British had to concede to local autonomy across the border they drew in what is now north-western Pakistan, and that formal arrangement persisted past partition (and informally persists to this day.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_...
- tolerance 1y ago
  Has it occurred to you that a White nationalist and conservative may be reading that same passage and bringing whatever you are to mind? Or the entire article for that matter.
  - skrebbel 1y ago
    This is not a novel insight. The attitude described is basically textbook conservatism, as per Wilhoit's law [0] Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect For a majority of HN readers (and I assume the commenter you're replying to) that in-group is their country's white majority but in other circles it's other groups. They may be groups who don't call themselves conservatives but that doesn't mean they aren't. In other words, I agree with their claim that said quote is conservatism in a nutshell. Anti-conservatism isn't rooting for some other group, it's being against this kind of tribalism wholesale. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#Misattribution_of_Wilhoit's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#Misattribut...
    - luckylion 1y ago
      "Some random 59 year old from Ohio wrote this, so it's well known that that's conservativism in a nutshell" is a strange stance. > Anti-conservatism isn't rooting for some other group, it's being against this kind of tribalism wholesale. Do you have any examples of that? I've never seen someone who doesn't go mild on people who share beliefs he holds dear and judges harshly those who don't.
      - skrebbel 1y ago
        The ACLU was pretty anti-conservative in the past (before they got captured by the regressive left). Eg they helped protect the right of free expression of nazi groups, stuff like that. ps. Fair, I agree that it's weird to elevate one random blog commenter's words to a "law", though this particular one is widely quoted because, I think, it resonates and hits the nail on the head. I do feel that "tribalism" is a better word for the concept, but "conservatism" isn't far off since every conservative group I know of (at least in the US and Europe) support this kind of tribalism to a fair extent.
- benreesman 1y ago
  The tribes in the United States used to be called Yankee and Dixie. Now they're called other things, sometimes "red" and "blue", sometimes "MAGA" or "woke", but the geography (Mason-Dixon line), the sympathies, the prejudices, all very visible to this day. Americans have no trouble seeing tribalism or clannish behavior when its in the Middle East, or in Africa, but seem to think America is differentnt (a phenomenon that also has a name: American Exceptionalism). In my view, the Yankee/Dixie tribal cold war combined with American Exceptionalism is some pretty stiff stuff indeed.
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    > (a phenomenon that also has a name: American Exceptionalism). I’m not American by live in the US, and I agree. This inability of Americans, on average ofc, (regardless of the degree, social status, race, etc) to accept that people in other countries may view A THING differently than what Americans think these said people think is mind boggling.
  - pnutjam 1y ago
    Exactly my point, this has been going on in America for a long time.
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    Americans see tribalism just fine: we’ve been discussing since Malcolm X how the tribal sentiments of minorities are utilized by a political party in the pursuit of power. And the primary division these days is urban vs rural, with the secondary PMC vs working class. Woke vs MAGA maps onto that divide more cleanly than anything else.
  - lyu07282 1y ago
    I think its much more useful to think of those divides as artificial or manufactured creations, as a tool for pacification, divide and conquer. You can also see that expressed in US foreign policy, the sunni/shia/kurdish divide in Iraq after the war, that too was an artificial creation by the US ruling class.
    - 1y ago
- OrvalWintermute 1y ago
  Despite your clumsy attempt to tie tribalism exclusively to white conservatives, there are many other groups far more tribalist across the spectrum.
  - pnutjam 1y ago
    Who said exclusively?
    - OrvalWintermute 1y ago
      the only example being used.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    you guys always tell on yourselves
lukeasrodgers 1y ago
There are a lot of big claims here and literally not a single reference to anthropological research or even anything resembling it. This article is very badly argued.
- i_dont_know_ 1y ago
  I think there's something about the way this is written that's endemic to our time -- it basically feels right because it gives a possible explanation of current events that has some internal consistency. It doesn't mean it's right, but neither the author nor (most of) the audience care about that part.
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    The same blog has another post for you about this: "The rise of marketing speak: Why everyone on the internet sounds like a used car salesman" :)
- card_zero 1y ago
  Specify what argument is bad? I don't think it needs references. If after "The reason modern individuals agree to give up their right to personal protection is due to their belief in institutions" there was a footnote that said something like "Bigbeard, 1983" how would that help?
  - dcre 1y ago
    “Imagine a small village at the dawn of society.” That part!
tolerance 1y ago
This article is so reductive that by the end I don't know who "we" are and what "we have" to preserve and appreciate or what modern state is worth fighting for if it's the one that raised us on the rule of law that that made us illiterate to the tribal nature that this same state is reviving through its failures?
moritzwarhier 1y ago
I think this is a good piece of writing, the only part I disagree with is the claim that these thoughts would be broadly overlooked or disagreed with. Seems I'm pretty much alone with this, but that's OK. I agree with other comments that it should have more links to prior philosophical and anthropological studies. This is not academic writing or an essay arguing for a point. At least, the point at rhetorical end seems a bit tacked-on. To me this is a stream-of-consciousness like text. Sometimes, being reductive helps in bringing a point across. I think that the article does this well. The close similarity of cronyism and tribalism is pointed out especially well, too. My critique would be that the text is a bit engagement-baity. And it uses the simplistic rhetoric so well that for the most part it feels as if the author is arguing for an abandonment of law and a return to "tribalism". The claim that people have "forgotten" the ideas of this essay seems unneeded. A more humble tone would maybe make this post more interesting to many readers.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  Can it really be good writing if the central premise that we followed a tribal "law of the jungle" for all of human history, is fundamentally flawed? I'd like to see literally any anthropology work from this century advocating it. For what it's worth, modern foragers that we can study are almost to a group stiflingly egalitarian. Being powerful and egoistic gets you quickly cut down to size in the social order. A few people (myself included, but more notably graeber) argue that other social structures were historically common and didn't survive to be recorded ethnographically. Neither of these suggest what the post is talking about. What they're calling tribalism is actually a characteristic of warfare, usually modern. That's not a normal social environment by any means and there's probably an interesting discussion to be had on it, but the author seemingly isn't even aware.
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    I'm not sure. I agree that the "law of the jungle" trope seems like an oversimplification. But the fact that cooperation was also present in pre-modern societies does not completely refute the point. That's why they are talking about tribes, not just families or individuals. I an not a professional historian or anthropoligist, but the scope and phenomenology of cooperation in ancient societies is not a question with a global, settled answer, as far as I'm concerned. I'm currently reading this book: https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschichte/dp/3948075093 https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschicht... It deals with many of these topics, especially the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture. It is more academically rigorous than the submission post, and it quotes other research. Unfortunately, there are two flaws: a) the author has transitioned to what we'd call a far-right activist prior to his suicide. He became known outside the scientific community due to his book "Finis Germania" (which I haven't read). But the book that I am reading was published much earlier, and well-received by the scientific community. The same goes for other works by him. He focused on the living conditions that allowed for a humanitarian mindset to even emerge, basically what humans do to provide the resources for living. b) there seems to be no English translation
dcre 1y ago
This is hopelessly abstract, with not a single reference to any actual historical group or political regime, let alone any rigorous research or writing. For nearly a decade I've watched people use the word "tribalism" to avoid thinking and have never seen anything to convince me of its value. Calling this high school level writing is unfair to thoughtful high school students.
- dudeinjapan 1y ago
  Hey, watch it there! This article was written by my nephew.
  - djoldman 1y ago
    I did actually chuckle at this, so it grudgingly earns my upvote.
- N7lo4nl34akaoSN 1y ago
  .
  - fidotron 1y ago
    Ironically that applies more to your reply than the comment you replied to.
ants_everywhere 1y ago
Forgotten it? Tribalism has been one of the single biggest tropes in pop political rhetoric for at least a decade. It's hard to find a political post on HN that doesn't invoke it in the comments.
spacecadet 1y ago
Yes. This put what I have been saying... "every day feels more and more like survival mixed with fuck you I got mine"... into much better words and concepts. I grew up poor and got involved with "tribes" where power was the goal and we learned growing up that you demonstrated your power. Lucky enough to have escaped that and to have matured into a passivist of sorts- I am troubled by the increasing tribalism and more and more feel my patience eroding and that itch in my id to demonstrate power...
- netsharc 1y ago
  I feel like tribalism is natural (as in, it's the law of nature): our prime concern is the survival of our individual selves. And then of our families. And since we are social creatures, the survival/well-being people around us. And if we're programmed to identify "people who look like me are family", then a tribalism based on appearance is pre-programmed. The next level of programming is "people who think like me and share my values are family"... And the pessimist in me doesn't see how the tribes won't get smaller and more egoistic in this world: population is growing, the melting/burning planet provides less and less resources, and social media is building up the jealousy...
Ozzie_osman 1y ago
This article seems to reduce the world to "fair and non-tribal" vs "unfair and tribal". These probably correlate. But it's not that simple. For example, in many tribal societies, if a man from tribe A harms a man from tribe B, his own tribe might offer restitution to tribe B (or punishment for the criminal). In fact, disputes would often escalate to tribal leaders, who of course might be biased and only look out for their own, but not always. This was how peace was generally maintained. Otherwise, anytime someone from a tribe harmed someone from another tribe, there would be war.
- seadan83 1y ago
  > "fair and non-tribal" vs "unfair and tribal". Interesting framing. Tribalism, or 'rule-of-the-strong' is inherently not fair. "Fair" is not the driving consideration. "Rule of law" does have 'just' as a driving consideration. > For example, in many tribal societies, if a man from tribe A harms a man from tribe B, his own tribe might offer restitution to tribe B (or punishment for the criminal). I'd suggest the restitution is offered because either tribe A & B are of equal strength, or tribe A is weaker. In both cases, tribe A is "offering tribute" to show subservience, to show they are weaker. If they do not, tribe B is forced to show they are stronger; lest other tribes think that they can take similar advantage of them. Hence, it is a lot more of a "I'm sorry - please don't hurt me!" rather than a "well, it is only fair that we compensate you". In tribalism, if you are strong, then you don't offer the compensation. > In fact, disputes would often escalate to tribal leaders, who of course might be biased and only look out for their own, but not always. Is it not always? The reason to offer restitution to a stronger tribe is so that the stronger tribe does not retaliate. > Otherwise, anytime someone from a tribe harmed someone from another tribe, there would be war. I think this is overlooking the case where tribe A is actually stronger. In tribalism, if tribe A is stronger then there would be no recourse for tribe B. By showing dominance over tribe B, tribe A is sending a message to all other tribes that they are not to be messed with.
  - Ozzie_osman 1y ago
    > rule-of-the-strong I'm not sure this is what tribalism is. It's more loyalty to a group rather than to a nation, laws, etc. In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money.
cjfd 1y ago
One can present these two systems as equal alternatives but there is a very big difference. The system with the rule of law leads to much more prosperous societies than the tribal one. Corruption is economically extremely expensive. Like, one it really gets going, it can easily decrease GDP by a factor of 10. The same with dictatorships. As long as the dictator makes somewhat reasonable decisions it is more or less okay but any dictatorship is only a few bad decisions away from becoming much poorer. And when it depends on the good judgement of a single person these bad decisions are certainly going to come.
- igor47 1y ago
  The problem as usual is the tragedy of the commons. We might be collectively better off under rule of law, but the tribal law of the jungle system produces concentrated winners, who will use their winnings to continue to subvert rule of law.
- rayiner 1y ago
  I’ve changed my mind on dictators. Name one asian country that became prosperous without a phase where it was ruled by a highly authoritarian ruler? Even in the west, the civil institutions that underpin democracy were mostly created under “enlightened despots” (or so I learned in AP Euro). You probably need a dictator to break the familial and clan ties and organizer the country around individuals interacting with the civil organs of the state.
  - OgsyedIE 1y ago
    Isn't the rebuttal that these states merely were able to kickstart the import substitution process and could not produce endogenous economic progress without a developed country to borrow memes from?
    - rayiner 1y ago
      I don’t think that’s a rebuttal but instead an orthogonal point. Lots of countries are stuck in dysfunctional situations where they can’t even copy progress from developed countries because of corruption, civil unrest, etc. A dictator can help cut through that.
PicassoCTs 1y ago
Eh, the west has forgotten it. The rest of the world, played along and embraced it. The middle east- genocided flat along tribal lines. 99% shia, 99% sunnis, the rest all gone or about to go, copts, zhorotastrians, jesidi, druse, alewite, jehudi - and the genocide is still going on, burning its way through sudan. Nobody cares about it, its right there in public, in the population statistics of the middle east- provided by the UN who never made a single resolution against it. China is a pure ethno-state where every minority dwindles and vannishes - and some are kept around for a happy Disney dance around the reservation. Turkey has thrown its proxxies ISIL/HTS into syria to continue the genocide on the kurds, driving them out of the towns towards the mediterranean, after its ally to the east has driven the armenians into retreat in mount kharabach. Russia is deeply tribalist, the moscowian throwing the other minorities into battle to capture new minorities to throw into battle. Its a grim world out there, once you rip the western centric googles from your eyes. Nobody cares about the law, about the west and about morals or history books.
seadan83 1y ago
I think many of the comments in this discussion are confusing the concept of "tribes" (in-groups & out-groups) with 'tribalism' - the form of civic society. This article is about the civic society called 'tribalism'. The contrast to 'tribalism' is 'rule of law'. Tribalism is essentially a belief that the only reason others won't bully you is because they can't. Bully or be bullied. Rule of law instead says that it is the civic code who is the arbiter of right. 'Tribalism' vs 'rule of law' are both essentially frameworks of society and government.
- Nopoint2 1y ago
  [dead]
Nopoint2 1y ago
[dead]
marssaxman 1y ago
Have we really forgotten it? What this author describes as "tribalism" sounds like what I think of as "the way things really work, underneath the fancy idealistic stories", which are ultimately propaganda meant to keep people from rising up and overthrowing the wealthy, for whose benefit those stories were made. There is no justice; there is no fairness; the law is a coin-operated cannon. Once you see this, much of what it does stops seeming so outrageous, and looks more like the predictable consequences of a thin abstraction layer over a system fundamentally built on violence and expropriation.
rayiner 1y ago
The word “modern” is misleading and confusing. Most “modern” people are tribalistic. What the author appears to mean is “western european.” People who have weak inter-familial ties, in comparison to most other people in the world, who organize themselves into tightly knit extended families.
lucas_membrane 1y ago
J. K. Galbraith identified a solution to this problem utilized in the USA. A theory of countervailing power that relied on strong and stable institutions each doing a decent job of nonviolently representing the various interest groups at work. That time is gone; this too shall pass.
PestoDiRucola 1y ago
For a pretty good book on this topic and why western societies managed to break from tribalism I recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...

82 points by spyckie2 1y ago

wow: "Why would a clan that guarantees its own justice ever yield to a system that promises justice to its enemies? To do so is to voluntarily surrender its greatest strengths: the power to protect its own, punish its rivals, and maintain its position in the world. It is not merely a loss of advantage; it is the dismantling of the clan’s very foundation." White nationalism and conservatism in a nutshell...

reliabilityguy 1y ago
> White nationalism and conservatism in a nutshell... Do you think people in Africa think otherwise? I know the political climate is charged right now, but cmon people.
- gcr 1y ago
  Yes, I find folks in other countries are highly collaborative in a way that my own country (USA) often is not. I think the general sentiment in my country is driven by goal-seeking behavior dominated by individualistic fear, and I see less of that elsewhere. "Political charged"-ness is both a contributor and an outcome.
  - fidotron 1y ago
    > driven by goal-seeking behavior This is a bad thing now?
  - mantas 1y ago
    Huh? There’s plenty of deeply divided countries. Especially in Africa where many borders were drawn with no respect to ethnic and tribal situation.
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      Most of the borders in the Middle East and Asia are drawn without any consideration of the locals
      - Jensson 1y ago
        That is true everywhere though, locals only have a say when they rebel and throw out their overlords. It isn't like the Irish were particularly happy about England pushing them around and so on.
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        Still. Afghanistan effectively rebelled, and yet they still use the British-drawn borders as the borders of their state.
        pakthrow 1y ago
        As a matter of power in the global scope, sure. Locally, it's messier. The British had to concede to local autonomy across the border they drew in what is now north-western Pakistan, and that formal arrangement persisted past partition (and informally persists to this day.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_...
tolerance 1y ago
Has it occurred to you that a White nationalist and conservative may be reading that same passage and bringing whatever you are to mind? Or the entire article for that matter.
- skrebbel 1y ago
  This is not a novel insight. The attitude described is basically textbook conservatism, as per Wilhoit's law [0] Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect For a majority of HN readers (and I assume the commenter you're replying to) that in-group is their country's white majority but in other circles it's other groups. They may be groups who don't call themselves conservatives but that doesn't mean they aren't. In other words, I agree with their claim that said quote is conservatism in a nutshell. Anti-conservatism isn't rooting for some other group, it's being against this kind of tribalism wholesale. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#Misattribution_of_Wilhoit's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#Misattribut...
  - luckylion 1y ago
    "Some random 59 year old from Ohio wrote this, so it's well known that that's conservativism in a nutshell" is a strange stance. > Anti-conservatism isn't rooting for some other group, it's being against this kind of tribalism wholesale. Do you have any examples of that? I've never seen someone who doesn't go mild on people who share beliefs he holds dear and judges harshly those who don't.
    - skrebbel 1y ago
      The ACLU was pretty anti-conservative in the past (before they got captured by the regressive left). Eg they helped protect the right of free expression of nazi groups, stuff like that. ps. Fair, I agree that it's weird to elevate one random blog commenter's words to a "law", though this particular one is widely quoted because, I think, it resonates and hits the nail on the head. I do feel that "tribalism" is a better word for the concept, but "conservatism" isn't far off since every conservative group I know of (at least in the US and Europe) support this kind of tribalism to a fair extent.
benreesman 1y ago
The tribes in the United States used to be called Yankee and Dixie. Now they're called other things, sometimes "red" and "blue", sometimes "MAGA" or "woke", but the geography (Mason-Dixon line), the sympathies, the prejudices, all very visible to this day. Americans have no trouble seeing tribalism or clannish behavior when its in the Middle East, or in Africa, but seem to think America is differentnt (a phenomenon that also has a name: American Exceptionalism). In my view, the Yankee/Dixie tribal cold war combined with American Exceptionalism is some pretty stiff stuff indeed.
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  > (a phenomenon that also has a name: American Exceptionalism). I’m not American by live in the US, and I agree. This inability of Americans, on average ofc, (regardless of the degree, social status, race, etc) to accept that people in other countries may view A THING differently than what Americans think these said people think is mind boggling.
- pnutjam 1y ago
  Exactly my point, this has been going on in America for a long time.
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  Americans see tribalism just fine: we’ve been discussing since Malcolm X how the tribal sentiments of minorities are utilized by a political party in the pursuit of power. And the primary division these days is urban vs rural, with the secondary PMC vs working class. Woke vs MAGA maps onto that divide more cleanly than anything else.
- lyu07282 1y ago
  I think its much more useful to think of those divides as artificial or manufactured creations, as a tool for pacification, divide and conquer. You can also see that expressed in US foreign policy, the sunni/shia/kurdish divide in Iraq after the war, that too was an artificial creation by the US ruling class.
  - 1y ago
OrvalWintermute 1y ago
Despite your clumsy attempt to tie tribalism exclusively to white conservatives, there are many other groups far more tribalist across the spectrum.
- pnutjam 1y ago
  Who said exclusively?
  - OrvalWintermute 1y ago
    the only example being used.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  you guys always tell on yourselves

lukeasrodgers 1y ago

There are a lot of big claims here and literally not a single reference to anthropological research or even anything resembling it. This article is very badly argued.

i_dont_know_ 1y ago
I think there's something about the way this is written that's endemic to our time -- it basically feels right because it gives a possible explanation of current events that has some internal consistency. It doesn't mean it's right, but neither the author nor (most of) the audience care about that part.
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  The same blog has another post for you about this: "The rise of marketing speak: Why everyone on the internet sounds like a used car salesman" :)
card_zero 1y ago
Specify what argument is bad? I don't think it needs references. If after "The reason modern individuals agree to give up their right to personal protection is due to their belief in institutions" there was a footnote that said something like "Bigbeard, 1983" how would that help?
- dcre 1y ago
  “Imagine a small village at the dawn of society.” That part!

tolerance 1y ago

This article is so reductive that by the end I don't know who "we" are and what "we have" to preserve and appreciate or what modern state is worth fighting for if it's the one that raised us on the rule of law that that made us illiterate to the tribal nature that this same state is reviving through its failures?

moritzwarhier 1y ago

I think this is a good piece of writing, the only part I disagree with is the claim that these thoughts would be broadly overlooked or disagreed with. Seems I'm pretty much alone with this, but that's OK. I agree with other comments that it should have more links to prior philosophical and anthropological studies. This is not academic writing or an essay arguing for a point. At least, the point at rhetorical end seems a bit tacked-on. To me this is a stream-of-consciousness like text. Sometimes, being reductive helps in bringing a point across. I think that the article does this well. The close similarity of cronyism and tribalism is pointed out especially well, too. My critique would be that the text is a bit engagement-baity. And it uses the simplistic rhetoric so well that for the most part it feels as if the author is arguing for an abandonment of law and a return to "tribalism". The claim that people have "forgotten" the ideas of this essay seems unneeded. A more humble tone would maybe make this post more interesting to many readers.

AlotOfReading 1y ago
Can it really be good writing if the central premise that we followed a tribal "law of the jungle" for all of human history, is fundamentally flawed? I'd like to see literally any anthropology work from this century advocating it. For what it's worth, modern foragers that we can study are almost to a group stiflingly egalitarian. Being powerful and egoistic gets you quickly cut down to size in the social order. A few people (myself included, but more notably graeber) argue that other social structures were historically common and didn't survive to be recorded ethnographically. Neither of these suggest what the post is talking about. What they're calling tribalism is actually a characteristic of warfare, usually modern. That's not a normal social environment by any means and there's probably an interesting discussion to be had on it, but the author seemingly isn't even aware.
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  I'm not sure. I agree that the "law of the jungle" trope seems like an oversimplification. But the fact that cooperation was also present in pre-modern societies does not completely refute the point. That's why they are talking about tribes, not just families or individuals. I an not a professional historian or anthropoligist, but the scope and phenomenology of cooperation in ancient societies is not a question with a global, settled answer, as far as I'm concerned. I'm currently reading this book: https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschichte/dp/3948075093 https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschicht... It deals with many of these topics, especially the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture. It is more academically rigorous than the submission post, and it quotes other research. Unfortunately, there are two flaws: a) the author has transitioned to what we'd call a far-right activist prior to his suicide. He became known outside the scientific community due to his book "Finis Germania" (which I haven't read). But the book that I am reading was published much earlier, and well-received by the scientific community. The same goes for other works by him. He focused on the living conditions that allowed for a humanitarian mindset to even emerge, basically what humans do to provide the resources for living. b) there seems to be no English translation

dcre 1y ago

This is hopelessly abstract, with not a single reference to any actual historical group or political regime, let alone any rigorous research or writing. For nearly a decade I've watched people use the word "tribalism" to avoid thinking and have never seen anything to convince me of its value. Calling this high school level writing is unfair to thoughtful high school students.

dudeinjapan 1y ago
Hey, watch it there! This article was written by my nephew.
- djoldman 1y ago
  I did actually chuckle at this, so it grudgingly earns my upvote.
N7lo4nl34akaoSN 1y ago
.
- fidotron 1y ago
  Ironically that applies more to your reply than the comment you replied to.

ants_everywhere 1y ago

Forgotten it? Tribalism has been one of the single biggest tropes in pop political rhetoric for at least a decade. It's hard to find a political post on HN that doesn't invoke it in the comments.

spacecadet 1y ago

Yes. This put what I have been saying... "every day feels more and more like survival mixed with fuck you I got mine"... into much better words and concepts. I grew up poor and got involved with "tribes" where power was the goal and we learned growing up that you demonstrated your power. Lucky enough to have escaped that and to have matured into a passivist of sorts- I am troubled by the increasing tribalism and more and more feel my patience eroding and that itch in my id to demonstrate power...

netsharc 1y ago
I feel like tribalism is natural (as in, it's the law of nature): our prime concern is the survival of our individual selves. And then of our families. And since we are social creatures, the survival/well-being people around us. And if we're programmed to identify "people who look like me are family", then a tribalism based on appearance is pre-programmed. The next level of programming is "people who think like me and share my values are family"... And the pessimist in me doesn't see how the tribes won't get smaller and more egoistic in this world: population is growing, the melting/burning planet provides less and less resources, and social media is building up the jealousy...

Ozzie_osman 1y ago

This article seems to reduce the world to "fair and non-tribal" vs "unfair and tribal". These probably correlate. But it's not that simple. For example, in many tribal societies, if a man from tribe A harms a man from tribe B, his own tribe might offer restitution to tribe B (or punishment for the criminal). In fact, disputes would often escalate to tribal leaders, who of course might be biased and only look out for their own, but not always. This was how peace was generally maintained. Otherwise, anytime someone from a tribe harmed someone from another tribe, there would be war.

seadan83 1y ago
> "fair and non-tribal" vs "unfair and tribal". Interesting framing. Tribalism, or 'rule-of-the-strong' is inherently not fair. "Fair" is not the driving consideration. "Rule of law" does have 'just' as a driving consideration. > For example, in many tribal societies, if a man from tribe A harms a man from tribe B, his own tribe might offer restitution to tribe B (or punishment for the criminal). I'd suggest the restitution is offered because either tribe A & B are of equal strength, or tribe A is weaker. In both cases, tribe A is "offering tribute" to show subservience, to show they are weaker. If they do not, tribe B is forced to show they are stronger; lest other tribes think that they can take similar advantage of them. Hence, it is a lot more of a "I'm sorry - please don't hurt me!" rather than a "well, it is only fair that we compensate you". In tribalism, if you are strong, then you don't offer the compensation. > In fact, disputes would often escalate to tribal leaders, who of course might be biased and only look out for their own, but not always. Is it not always? The reason to offer restitution to a stronger tribe is so that the stronger tribe does not retaliate. > Otherwise, anytime someone from a tribe harmed someone from another tribe, there would be war. I think this is overlooking the case where tribe A is actually stronger. In tribalism, if tribe A is stronger then there would be no recourse for tribe B. By showing dominance over tribe B, tribe A is sending a message to all other tribes that they are not to be messed with.
- Ozzie_osman 1y ago
  > rule-of-the-strong I'm not sure this is what tribalism is. It's more loyalty to a group rather than to a nation, laws, etc. In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money.

cjfd 1y ago

One can present these two systems as equal alternatives but there is a very big difference. The system with the rule of law leads to much more prosperous societies than the tribal one. Corruption is economically extremely expensive. Like, one it really gets going, it can easily decrease GDP by a factor of 10. The same with dictatorships. As long as the dictator makes somewhat reasonable decisions it is more or less okay but any dictatorship is only a few bad decisions away from becoming much poorer. And when it depends on the good judgement of a single person these bad decisions are certainly going to come.

igor47 1y ago
The problem as usual is the tragedy of the commons. We might be collectively better off under rule of law, but the tribal law of the jungle system produces concentrated winners, who will use their winnings to continue to subvert rule of law.
rayiner 1y ago
I’ve changed my mind on dictators. Name one asian country that became prosperous without a phase where it was ruled by a highly authoritarian ruler? Even in the west, the civil institutions that underpin democracy were mostly created under “enlightened despots” (or so I learned in AP Euro). You probably need a dictator to break the familial and clan ties and organizer the country around individuals interacting with the civil organs of the state.
- OgsyedIE 1y ago
  Isn't the rebuttal that these states merely were able to kickstart the import substitution process and could not produce endogenous economic progress without a developed country to borrow memes from?
  - rayiner 1y ago
    I don’t think that’s a rebuttal but instead an orthogonal point. Lots of countries are stuck in dysfunctional situations where they can’t even copy progress from developed countries because of corruption, civil unrest, etc. A dictator can help cut through that.

PicassoCTs 1y ago

Eh, the west has forgotten it. The rest of the world, played along and embraced it. The middle east- genocided flat along tribal lines. 99% shia, 99% sunnis, the rest all gone or about to go, copts, zhorotastrians, jesidi, druse, alewite, jehudi - and the genocide is still going on, burning its way through sudan. Nobody cares about it, its right there in public, in the population statistics of the middle east- provided by the UN who never made a single resolution against it. China is a pure ethno-state where every minority dwindles and vannishes - and some are kept around for a happy Disney dance around the reservation. Turkey has thrown its proxxies ISIL/HTS into syria to continue the genocide on the kurds, driving them out of the towns towards the mediterranean, after its ally to the east has driven the armenians into retreat in mount kharabach. Russia is deeply tribalist, the moscowian throwing the other minorities into battle to capture new minorities to throw into battle. Its a grim world out there, once you rip the western centric googles from your eyes. Nobody cares about the law, about the west and about morals or history books.

seadan83 1y ago

I think many of the comments in this discussion are confusing the concept of "tribes" (in-groups & out-groups) with 'tribalism' - the form of civic society. This article is about the civic society called 'tribalism'. The contrast to 'tribalism' is 'rule of law'. Tribalism is essentially a belief that the only reason others won't bully you is because they can't. Bully or be bullied. Rule of law instead says that it is the civic code who is the arbiter of right. 'Tribalism' vs 'rule of law' are both essentially frameworks of society and government.

Nopoint2 1y ago
[dead]

Nopoint2 1y ago

[dead]

marssaxman 1y ago

Have we really forgotten it? What this author describes as "tribalism" sounds like what I think of as "the way things really work, underneath the fancy idealistic stories", which are ultimately propaganda meant to keep people from rising up and overthrowing the wealthy, for whose benefit those stories were made. There is no justice; there is no fairness; the law is a coin-operated cannon. Once you see this, much of what it does stops seeming so outrageous, and looks more like the predictable consequences of a thin abstraction layer over a system fundamentally built on violence and expropriation.

rayiner 1y ago

The word “modern” is misleading and confusing. Most “modern” people are tribalistic. What the author appears to mean is “western european.” People who have weak inter-familial ties, in comparison to most other people in the world, who organize themselves into tightly knit extended families.

lucas_membrane 1y ago

J. K. Galbraith identified a solution to this problem utilized in the USA. A theory of countervailing power that relied on strong and stable institutions each doing a decent job of nonviolently representing the various interest groups at work. That time is gone; this too shall pass.

PestoDiRucola 1y ago

For a pretty good book on this topic and why western societies managed to break from tribalism I recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...