On tribalism
For most of the evolution of the human species cooperation among individuals was organized within the framework of small tribal or family groups. Hunter gatherer societies are known to consist of small clans on the order of 150 people (e.g. see this New Scientist article), which cooperate in procuring food (hunting and gathering) and water and defending their territory.
However, the lack of a consistent incentive for inter-clan cooperation led to very high levels of violent conflict. This can be seen to this day in hunting and gathering as well as other tribal societies, and is the reason for the negative connotations which the term “tribalism” has acquired.
There are two reasons why tribalism is inefficient.
- It leads to frequent, savage and often needless inter-tribal warfare. This mechanism of destruction has posed an evolutionary obstacle that has taken humanity many hundreds of thousands of years to overtake.
- Tribalism imposes strong limitations on individual freedom. It is a straitjacket within which the individual initiative, creativity and ambition cannot flourish, because the individual cannot act outside the channels allowed by the clan. In particular they are strongly dissuaded from cooperation with members of other clans through tribal “moral values” such as loyalty.
The inefficiency of tribalism leads most notably to a perpetuation of insecurity and its immediate consequence, poverty. Poverty, in turn leads people to resort to family or clan support networks for survival. Tribalism and poverty therefore constitute a vicious cycle, an evolutionary “catch 22″. I do not propose to elucidate the details of how human society has managed to escape this cycle, but I will discuss the main features which a non-tribal society must exhibit. I focus on two of these features: a strong authority in balance with a strong tradition of individualism.
Human society has fought long and hard against tribal tendencies and instincts. Indeed, the very notion of “civilization” is defined by reference to tribal instincts or behaviors. It is even possible to rank, in a certain sense, the different societies in terms of their civilization, i.e. of the degree to which they have extricated themselves from the trap of tribalism. The ranking obtained by this approach is in fact remarkably close to the one most of us already have in our minds, underlining how real and present these notions are in our internal judgments.
In this framework the least civilized societies are those exhibiting both violent tribal warfare and strong restrictions on individual freedom. Examples are the remaining present day hunter-gatherer societies as well as Afghanistan or some regions of Africa. Somewhat more civilized are regions where violent inter-tribal or -ethnic conflict is present, but the individual has a certain amount of freedom; this is seen for instance in some regions of the former Yugoslavia. A similar ranking may be given to those societies without violent conflict, but with strong limitations on individual freedom; an example is the present day Saudi Arabia.
Another step up in our ranking is obtained by observing that clannish behavior can take other, more moderate forms than that of violent inter-ethnic conflict. Examples are the gang “wars” and related low-level violence in regions of southern Italy and Sicily. Another, even more moderate example is that of the corruption in the form of cronyism, favoritism and nepotism which is widespread in certain East-European countries such as Romania or Bulgaria.
The limitations on individual freedom can also take less radical forms than those in Saudi Arabia, such as for instance the long-standing Jewish tradition opposed to marriage with goyim (non-Jewish persons). Though still a tribal manifestation, it is non-violent, and less intrusive than some more barbaric customs such as the female circumcision practiced in some parts of Africa.
And finally, we arrive at the highest ranking, which we apply to societies where the individual freedom is effectively protected by laws which are enforced, and where inter-group violence is rare. In such societies conflict is channeled through formal democratic processes in such a way as to appease any hostility before it manifests itself. A society totally free of clannish tendencies does not exist today, but the ones where they are least intrusive are North America and Western Europe.
Here are some examples of residual tribal behaviors even in these bastions of peace, freedom and individualism. The two-party system in the US has led to a dogmatic separation between the left and right, leading to a public discourse which puts much value on loyalty, a tribal feature. The Bush administration in particular has implemented a level of cronyism not seen in America for decades, not to mention a foreign policy of unprecedented aggressiveness. Moreover the high level of violence in the black and some immigrant communities (Latin Americans in particular) can be traced to tribe-like gang rivalries and conflicts.
In Western Europe as well, there are hot spots of inter-ethnic tension, such as in the Spanish Basque country, the North African minority in France, particularly around Paris, or the Turkish minority in Germany. Cronyism has also been a problem in the presidency of J. Chirac in France, while even more recently, Italian right wing demagogues have exploited tribal instincts for political gain by drawing attention and fomenting hostility to the Romanian minority. Incidentally, the widely publicized accusations of rape in the case of Nicolae Mailat have been refuted by the vastly less publicized autopsy.
If one accepts the definition of “civilization” described above, then one may identify it with anti-tribalism, which has two historical offspring: authoritarianism and individualism. These correspond to the two weaknesses or inefficiencies enumerated above, and are meant as respective antidotes. Authoritarianism is the unchallenged domination of a single powerful faction, leading to reduction in inter-faction conflict. Individualism is the increase of individual freedom through the removal of tribalist restrictions and an emphasis on individual choice and responsibility.
The history of civilization is therefore the history of the dual action of authoritarianism and individualism. The two act in tandem, the first as a local antidote, the second as a global antidote against tribalism in a given society.
A civilized society exhibits both strong authority and strong individualism. An example is France. Violence is low and individual freedom is strong. Tribalism is marginal.
A somewhat less civilized one may exhibit strong authority but somewhat weaker individualism. This type of society exhibits a weak global tribalism. Violence is low, but individual freedom is weak because individuals are controlled by the authority, and exposed to being manipulated by the authority through their global tribal feeling, a.k.a. national pride. An example is China today. Russia also seems to be going down this path.
Another possibility is for a society with strong individualism but somewhat weaker authority. This type of society exhibits a weak local tribalism. Individual freedom is strong, but there is a low brewing hostility between small (often family) groups, or clans. In mild cases, such as Romania, physical violence (in the form of murder or rape) remains low, but the hostility takes the form of frequent rude and callous or hostile behavior among individuals perceiving each other as strangers.
A far worse situation is one in which individualism is weak, but authority is even weaker. This society exhibits global tribalism but even stronger local tribalism. An example would be the Native American society of North America after the arrival of the Europeans.
Another possible situation is that where authority is very strong and individualism is very weak. In this case we have very strong global tribalism, such as in Hitler’s Germany. Individual choice was tightly controlled through the Gestapo and the media leading to an authoritarianism sufficiently strong to stifle individual freedom.
The most purely tribal society is one where both antidotes are weak. This was the case in pre-Columbian North America, and is the case in present day Waziristan.
Very interesting historical questions are raised by the evolution of civilization, particularly in view of the fragile equilibrium that it involves between authority and individualism. Perhaps one of the most interesting recent works on this subject is Larry Siedentop’s “Democracy in Europe.” He sees the European culture (in the broad sense in which it includes America) as the standard bearer of civilization in the sense described above, and uses his considerable mastery of historical argument to provide profound insights on the European political construction.
The main turning points in the evolution of civilization are Socrates, Jesus, the Enlightenment, the American Constitution. The next major step on this historical path would be the European Constitution. Siedentop has several suggestions meant to ensure an equilibrium between authority and individualism. The wrong doses, he argues, could jeopardize not only the European construction, but the whole grand historical project of what I call Civilization and what he calls Classical Liberalism.
