People are usually naturally (though to varying degrees in different people) instinctively tribal. In the context of a family tribalism can often be helpful, maybe even necessary but when tribalism is extended to larger portions of humanity it can become the cause of conflict and inappropriate partisan loyalties. So tribalism can become perniciously harmful.
The starting point of a sensible political philosophy is the statement that first (and foremost) ‘I am a human being’, as so well expressed by Joan Baez (a popular twentieth century American folk singer). I don’t always agree with Joan Baez in politics but she is an independent political thinker and very gifted in linguistic expression.
It is not just people who live in groups and are tribal. Animals that live in groups are tribal. Most significantly many of our closest animal relatives, notably chimpanzees form groups and live within the context of a group. This is a form of protection for group members who would as individuals find it difficult to physically survive and could also be more vulnerable as individuals to predators. Yet even with chimpanzees there are drawbacks to living as groups as they tend to fight other groups of chimpanzees. Those fights often result in injuries or even death for some of them.
Originally when people were nomadic they travelled around and lived in small groups, based largely on families. As with animals that afforded both social life and and also some protection in an often hostile environment. However several thousand years ago people began to change from being nomadic to living in settled communities. Although initially those settled communities were relatively small, they gave rise to larger ‘tribes’ and larger rivalries. In due course villages and towns often combined to become statelets or kingdoms and later countries or nations. So people came at one and the same time (in contrast to their ancestors and other animals) to belong to several tribes simultaneously, their family, their village or town, perhaps their region and certainly their country. It is mainly the membership of larger, particularly many larger tribes, that does most to transform tribalism from a predominantly beneficial into a predominantly malevolent force. In general the problem is the less primarily ‘protective’ a group or tribe becomes, the more primarily ‘divisive’, conflict engendering and destructive a tribe or group becomes, especially if its members become strong devotees (as happens with some fundamentalist religions) of that tribe.
Small groups or small tribes are mainly beneficial. Human beings like other mammals are born weak and in need of both food and also protection and ‘education’ in how to live and survive. So the family unit, or at least the protective caring it provides, is not merely an instinctive unit but an essential unit for human survival and welfare. Indeed ‘the extended family’, as originally human families mainly were, though more tribal was even more beneficial because infant caring duties could be shared or assisted with and it was able to provide food and care to help elderly or sick relatives if they needed it.
Furthermore tribalism can be beneficial for spreading and developing knowledge, especially technological knowledge. Scientists often research in teams and writing and printing (which is only viable with a market and within a society)and computers consolidate and spread technological knowledge.
The biggest underlying problem with tribalism is when it extends beyond being a system for mutual protection into a system for conflict based on whatever the tribal division may be, be it geography, race, class, religion or whatever. This does occur even among animals but the deadliness of such conflicts is much increased among humans due to the groups and therefore the fighting groups being much larger and more organized. Also developing technology has produced ever more dangerous and deadly weapons with which people can fight each other, including nuclear and biological weapons that might destroy the human race. This makes tribalism much more dangerous and makes the conflict inducing disadvantages exceed the positive benefits of tribalism, certainly when tribalism extends beyond individual families into larger groups of people and even worse into larger sections of humanity.
Nowadays nations are in general both the biggest and most dangerous human tribal units though even they can sometimes be challenged and disrupted by fervent tribal religious groups. Nationalism was most trenchantly criticized by Joan Baez. She wrote (in her autobiographical ‘A Voice To Sing With’) – ‘Politicians’ allegiance was to the nation state….they took the CHANCE location of their birthplace as the most serious event in the world….other people took it just as seriously’. Baez’ comment here is particularly incisive because she equates nationalism to ‘the CHANCE location of one’s birthplace’ which shows how inherently absurd nationalism is. This is especially so as many nations, particularly in the West, are run and organized economically and politically, particularly nowadays along very, very similar lines.
It is not nations but nationalism that is bad.
I also dislike nationalism for being a concept relying primarily on human collectivist instincts and behaviors whereas I favor primarily human individualism and human freedom.
Joan Baez was very inspired to proclaim ‘I am a human being first’. It has many implications. It clearly means that humanity as a whole is or should be everybody’s overriding tribe, to which above all others one is loyal. While most people would now say one’s nation is one’s overriding tribe, some might say it is one’s ethnicity or geographical area or religion. I (and Joan Baez) would say all those are mistaken. Whereas proclaiming and acting as though humanity as a whole is one’s tribe is unifying, cooperative and helpful, being tribal for primarily one part of humanity can become harmfully nepotistic, is divisive and generally leads to conflict, destructive and usually futile conflict. Yes, there are differences between people, physical, ethnic, geographic and religious differences, differences that are often keenly noticed by individual people and group partisans. Yet they are relatively small differences compared to the characteristics people share with all (or very nearly all) other people and separate people from even our closest animal relatives, say chimpanzees.
Another and very central political point about the precept ‘I am a human being first’ is that any sensible political system should recognize that people are not blank canvases upon which to devise and impose political systems, any kind of political system one may dream up. Rather people have distinct natures and proclivities that should be accommodated within any rational political system. For instance people usually are naturally acquisitive (though some more so than others) for themselves and their families. So for example it is no good devising a system based on enforced economic equality between people. Sensible governance must accommodate and accord with the realities of human nature, certainly where doing so is ultimately beneficial (such as in terms of overall wealth, creativity or development) to most people. That is absolutely fundamental to the kind of rational governance I advocate.
Geoffrey H L Berg M.A. (Cantab) – The Guru Of Rational Politics