I agree with your overall message. But I think I just take exception to the demonization of the term, and social construct, of 'tribalism' which you characterize as 'primitive'.
I think I could make the case that in many cases, tribal societies have functioned better, and have more nuanced, highly evolved mechanisms for in-group and out-group interactions, than modern, nation states. Which is not to say that there's anything inherently virtuous in 'tribal' organization. Typically, tribal refers to a much smaller scale of societal organization, more closely attuned to the needs of the collective, of which the individual is part.
I think my reaction is mostly semantic, in any case. I'm not sure how else to characterize it in another way at the moment. I too have been speaking about the need for non-polarized relations, and more inclusive modes of communication across the insanely diverse array of 'groups' which make up modern society. I think I would just throw 'group-think' under the bus, as opposed to tribalism.
I've learned more about healthy relations with all of life from 'tribal' societies than the rest of humanity combined.
Anyway, I think in essence we agree, as I said it's just your language in this particular instance I'm not so sure about.
I love your comment. Thank you.
When I first started looking for an image for this post, I struggled quite a bit. All visual representations of "tribalism" I could find touched on the very good things you mentioned, and I did not want to villify them. I agree, there's a lot to celebrate about pre-agricultural societies which were much more anarchistic and in harmony with their surroundings. There is also some evidence to show some of the stories we tell ourselves there are a but romanticised (the book Origins of Virtue is a great read).
Language is difficult becuase it's just symbols loosely connected to independent representations of ideas. Group-think is certainly a core part of the problem, but I also think we shouldn't deny the evolutionary role tribalism has played on the development of our brains. As one who leans toward anarchism, I will readily admit almost any social structure is more advantageous for increasingly wellbeing than the nation state. When we get past 150 or so relational connections, things get complicated. Tribes certainly have value, but they also bring a real cost and risk due to our authoritarian nature and primitive desire for a tribal leader/warrior. That said, I do agree with much of what you said and do greatly value your comment. I would love to spend more time with tribal people for more personal perspective.
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, it's a difficult subject to talk about, partly due to the problem of language itself. The english language for one is very mechanistic and reductionist in its worldview. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I know this is just a comment not to be picked apart. We agree on the whole, totally. I'm going to change just one word in a sentence from your reply. Emphasis mine.
Look, I'm just as guilty of this as you are. I see you're here in North America, as am I, and we've sort of isolated ourselves from this reality since we live in a pretty homogenous bubble. i.e. The most 'diverse' people you know still live predominately in cities and take the bus, watch the television, go to school, etc. I just want to point out that we're not talking about some anthropological relics. Though admittedly, with the rampant spread of 'civilization' as we know it, they are perhaps only 5% of the world population, at present, yet they account for a massive share of linguistic wealth. i.e. differing worldviews.
Thanks for the book recommendation, 'Origins of Virtue', It looks pretty compelling. I'll for sure give that a read.
To further stoke your taste for connecting with the remaining tribal peoples of the world, and the wealth they possess, I will leave you with this wonderful talk by Wade Davis, in case you haven't seen it before.
I might pass through Nashville in the springtime. If so, I'd love to catch up!
Peace,
@lovejoy
Sweet! I'll check it out. Yeah, if you do pass through Nashville, definitely connect.
Yeah, it's difficult to count 5% as being more than 5%, but as you said, they do have more than 5% of linguistic wealth and alternative perspectives. I was specifically referring to the shift from 100% to 5%. I often make generalizations about "humanity" which obviously don't fit for 100% of humanity.
That's a really good point. It's easy for me to think that way since, as you said, most people don't fit that category at all and there very clear is an "anthropological relic" that used to be the norm for all humans.
I look forward to watching this. Thanks!
Yes, and thanks for being so gracious with my critiques. I really appreciate it! I decided to post that talk on my blog as well, to share with the community at large.