Use of the term “tribalism” seems to have gained currency over the past couple of years. Several books describing a descent into tribalism have been written, such as “Suicide of the West” by Jonah Goldberg and “Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations” by Amy Chua. (I have not read these books, and express no opinion here about their merit.) However, the first place I ever heard the term “tribalism” was in Ayn Rand’s 1973 article “The Missing Link”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/philosophy-who-needs-it.html)
I think what is largely fueling this interest in the phenomena of “tribalism” is the suggestion that it might explain the Donald Trump Presidency. (I will express no opinion on that, although I will show, in a later blog entry, that if we’re going to point fingers at Presidents, then the “tribalistic mindset” was encouraged and enabled *prior* to the Trump Presidency.)
What, exactly, is “tribalism”?
The definition of “tribe” is something like: “a local division of an aboriginal people.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tribe
A “define” search on Google returns the following definition: “a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader.”
I’d say it’s something like: a political-social group from a stone-age culture that operates as a group for purposes of survival.
When commentators like Jonah Goldberg use the term “tribalism”, I think it is meant in a “metaphorical sense”. I doubt that he literally means that a “tribalist” is someone associated with a stone-age political-social group known as a “tribe”. Instead commentators are saying the “mind-set” of a “tribalist” is *similar* to someone from this type of stone-age group.
The fact that the term “tribalism” is being used somewhat “metaphorically” rather than literally means that the term can be easily misused by people who don’t clearly understand the concept. For instance, a “Psychology Today” article cited to a “USA Today” article in which a valedictorian made the following quote and initially attributed it to Donald Trump: “Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.” Then he said “Just kidding, that was Barrack Obama”, and the crowd allegedly then stopped clapping. The “Psychology Today” author said this was a clear example of tribalism.
Assuming this story actually happened the way it is reported, which I question, this is not *necessarily* an example of tribalism. The quote about “fighting for your place at the table” is extremely metaphorical. There is no literal “table”, and you don’t literally “fight” for it. So, *who* says “fight for your seat at the table” actually *does* matter. If Ayn Rand said it, I know enough about her philosophy of egoism and individual rights that I would know she meant you should develop the virtues of rationality, independence and courage, and earn your wealth on a free market. If Barack Obama says it, I know that someone with socialistic and anti-individualist tendencies like Obama means something like: “Get together with other looters and use the force of government to expropriate the wealth of the producers for yourself.”
My point is, when making a metaphorical statement like this quote, *context* matters. So, the crowd in the story may have stopped cheering because they took into consideration what Barack Obama likely *meant* by that statement as: “We need more government force to take wealth from the producers,” while they didn’t think, rightly or wrongly, that Donald Trump would mean that. That’s not “tribalism”, that’s just taking into account context.
In order to avoid misusing the term “tribalism”, what is needed is a proper definition and understanding of the concept. Who has defined that concept? Ayn Rand did in her article: “The Missing Link”. What I intend to do here is provide my own explanation of the concept of “tribalism”, as Miss Rand used it, and possibly provide some additional explanation and insight into the phenomena.
So, what is the “mind set” of tribalism?
An example of “tribalism” can be seen in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”. The Montague’s and the Capulet’s are engaged in a sort of “tribalistic warfare” with each other.
Another probable example of “tribalism” from history would be the Hatfield-McCoy feud in Appalachian America. (https://www.history.com/shows/hatfields-and-mccoys/articles/the-hatfield-mccoy-feud)
In the case of “Romeo and Juliet”, if you’re a Montague, you associate with and fight alongside a fellow Montague. It doesn’t matter if your clansman was in the right or in the wrong -you’re on his side in a fight. Justice has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if your fellow Montague is interesting or boring -you spend your time with him over a Capulet.
Basically, a “tribalist” will prefer and choose *his* group, right or wrong.
Since right or wrong doesn’t matter, it means truth and falsity doesn’t matter, which ultimately means: reality doesn’t matter.
This raises an interesting question, then: How do you choose your group? It cannot be on the basis of which group has the best ideas, because that would require comparing their ideas and behavior in accordance with the facts and some standard of justice. The way you pick your group, therefore, is by *not* picking it.
You are born to a particular group, and you accept the traditions, customs, and behaviors of that group without question. Your people worship a particular god, and you never question it. Your people regard certain lands as sacred, and you never question it. Your people only eat certain foods, and you never question it. Your people say members of a particular “cast” can only associate with members of certain other “casts”, and that’s that. The leaders of your people say that another group of people are your ancient enemies that you must exterminate, and you blindly accept it.
A “tribalist” accepts the contents of his mind, the ideas he happens to hold, as the given, and never questions them. In other words, mentally, a tribalist holds certain *concepts* in his mind, and those concepts have no correspondence to reality, but he holds them, regardless. (It may be that some of the ideas a tribalist holds could be mentally “connected” to the facts, logic, and reality, but he doesn’t bother to “test” any of his ideas in that manner.)
Since we’re talking about the ideas in somebody’s head, what exactly is an idea? (For my purposes here, “idea” and “concept” are synonymous.)
A “concept” is a mental blending of observed concretes that are similar to one another, in contrast to other things from which they are different, when some common characteristic is considered. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concepts.html) For instance, two rocks have similar hardness, texture, natural origin, and size when compared to sand, a tree, or a television. On this basis, one can mentally blend together in one’s mind the similarities of the two perceived rocks and create a mental “file folder” designated by the word “rock” and defined as something like: “relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone.” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/rock)
Furthermore, concepts can consist of other, mentally combined concepts that include new observations about additional characteristics of those earlier formed concepts and/or other concepts. So, for instance, with additional observations about different types of rocks, one can discover that some rocks originate from the cooling and solidification of magma or lava, which requires knowledge about volcanoes and the Earth’s core. (“Igneous rocks”) Other types of rocks are formed by the deposition and subsequent cementation of mineral or organic particles. (Sedimentary rocks) While other types of rocks are formed from the transformation of the other two rock types through heat or pressure. (Metamorphic rocks) These new sub-categories of the concept “rock” are called “higher-level concepts” or “abstractions from abstractions”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hierarchy_of_knowledge.html)
The above example of forming the concept “rock” is an example of a concept that corresponds to reality. Unfortunately, we can also hold ideas that *do not* correspond to reality. One can believe that “ghosts” are real, that there is a “rain god” that makes it rain, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. The ideas that we hold can be true or false, and it is the role of logic and science to distinguish true ideas from false ideas.
Going back to the “tribalist”, now, he is a person who simply accepts certain ideas in his mind without question. He accepts that the way his group dresses is the way to dress. He accepts that the way his group worships a deity is the way to worship. He accepts that certain lands are sacred because his group believes that. He accepts the traditions and customs of his group *because* they are the traditions and customs of his group.
So, a person who chooses to blindly accept the word of the group he is born into, and the ideas it holds, over and above corresponding his ideas to reality, to see if they are right or wrong, is, fundamentally, “anti-conceptual”. A “tribal mindset” is therefore an “anti-conceptual mindset”.
This “tribal mindset” will often show up in issues of justice. By “justice”, I mean judging the character and actions of other people in accordance with a standard and then treating them accordingly.
“Justice” is a concept that depends on a chain of prior concepts to understand. Some of these prior concepts include the fact that one must take certain actions in order to live, which means one has chosen to live. One must also have some concept of rights, in terms of the things that human beings are entitled to and that others may not rightly use force to deprive you of.
A “tribal mindset” doesn’t hold to any standard of justice because that would require him to judge members of his *own* group in accordance with a standard of right and wrong and treat them accordingly. A tribal mentality cannot do that because he has to come to the aid of his fellow “tribesmen”, regardless of whether they are in the right. If a Capulet sees a fellow Capulet being attacked by a Montague, he must come to the Capulet’s aid and fight alongside him. (I will note, as an aside, that this is not the same as seeing a friend or family member being attacked, and assuming they are the victim. You may base that on your *knowledge* that the friend or family member would not initiate physical force. That is acting in accordance with justice. Like I said, context matters.)
As we have seen, the “tribalistic mindset” is, more fundamentally, the “anti-conceptual mindset”. There is one other aspect of the tribalistic mindset that is related to its anti-conceptualism.
If we go back to the “define tribe” search on Google, then we see that a tribe is described as being “…a traditional society…” So, if one is described as “tribal” it means that they tend to follow tradition.
What “tradition” are we talking about in this context? We mean the customs, habits, ideas, and morals of the “tribe”. In other words, the man-made institutions of whatever group one is born into. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html)
This means if there is a better, but non-traditional, way to do something, the “tribal mentality” will tend to choose the less efficient, but traditional way. If his great-grand-parents hunted with a bow and arrow, he’s going to hunt with a bow and arrow, even though a gun would be superior. (Or, the tribal mentality will choose hunting over farming or an industrial culture because it is “traditional”.)
In other words the “tribal mentality” prefers his particular man-made institutions over reality, or his own life. He tends to make no distinction between what Ayn Rand called “the metaphysical” (reality) and “the man made”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html)
What is “the metaphysical”? It is that which exists apart from human choice. The orbit of the planets around the sun is “the metaphysical”. They occupy their current orbits through a process of the laws of physics. The fact that water consists of two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom is “the metaphysical” – it is that way through the operation of the laws of nature and chemistry, not because of human desires or wishes to the contrary. The institution of marriage, on the other hand, was created by human beings. It would not exist apart from mankind. The rule of law is created by human beings. All technology is created by human beings to serve human ends. All institutions are created by human beings and can be altered or abolished by human beings. Concepts like “rock”, themselves, are human creations. Concepts serve human ends and needs. To serve human ends and needs, they must be consistent with the nature of the human mind, and, more generally, the nature of reality. (Their purpose is to promote human life.)
The “anti-conceptual mentality”, is someone who takes the contents of his mind as the given, and does not care to discover if those contents are true or false, i.e., if those concepts conform to the nature of reality and serve the purpose of promoting human life. To him, there is no distinction between the fact that the sun rises and sets every day (a metaphysical fact) and the fact that his particular ethnic group speaks a particular language or engages in certain customs. (A man-made fact). The anti-conceptual mentality says: “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.” But, only one of these is *actually* a certainty. Taxes are a man-made institution and can be changed or abolished, if enough people choose to do so.
Since this mentality has no distinction between the “metaphysical” and the “man-made”, the fact that his particular group happens to live in a certain area, wear certain clothing, or engage in certain rituals is the same as the fact that the sun rises and sets every day due to the Earth’s orbit around the sun and it’s rotation -although he probably doesn’t even consider why the sun rises and sets every day. (That would require too much abstract thinking.)
This type of mentality has no ability to examine the origins of the concepts he happens to hold or to determine if they are true or false, so anyone who questions the ideas he holds will tend to feel like a threat to him. He cannot justify what he believes. As Ayn Rand put it:
“This kind of psycho-epistemology works so long as no part of it is challenged. But all hell breaks loose when it is -because what is threatened then is not a particular idea, but that mind’s whole structure. The hell ranges from fear to resentment to stubborn evasion to hostility to panic to malice to hatred.”(“The Missing Link”, Ayn Rand, _Philosophy: Who Needs It_)(https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand-ebook/dp/B002JPGQ2A/)
As a consequence of his inability to use reason or abstract concepts, the anti-conceptual, “tribal” mentality will be tempted to resort to force when he encounters those who do not ascribe to his particular tribal world view, because he has jettisoned the use of reason in dealing with other men. (See “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World”, Ayn Rand, _Philosophy: Who Needs It_ https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand-ebook/dp/B002JPGQ2A/)
Another result of this anti-conceptual mentality, is the tendency to favor members of one’s “tribe”, whether right or wrong, in any given situation. Additionally, since the “tribal mentality” cannot handle abstract ideas, he tends to view his “tribe” as people who look like him, have the same accent as him, or who speak the same language as him. Usually, he will favor members of his own race over others.
An actual example of this mindset occurred back in 2014. A white man in Detroit accidentally hit a black child with his car after the child randomly stepped out in the street. (Police determined the driver was not at fault.) (https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/04/04/white-man-beaten-by-mob-in-detroit-after-hitting-boy-with-truck-was-it-a-hate-crime/)
The white driver did the right thing and immediately stopped to render aid to the child. A mob of angry blacks attacked the white driver and brutally beat him and robbed him.
This is the tribal mentality. A mob automatically assumed that the driver of the vehicle was “in the wrong” because he was a different skin color. Abstract concepts like “justice”, or even the traffic laws, were beyond their range of thinking. To them it was just: “white people bad” and “black people good”. (However, I’d also note that the beating was stopped after a black woman, a nurse, intervened, and convinced them to stop beating the white driver. Her actions were extremely admirable, and showed an incredible courage. The group beating the man were an example of the “anti-conceptual mentality”, while the nurse, who convinced them to stop, was an example of a reasoning individualist, committed to justice and the rule of law.)
Fundamentally, the mob that attacked the man in Detroit was a group of people incapable of much abstract thought. They had never learned to think conceptually, and had therefore chosen to cling to their group like a stone-age group of savages. They reacted violently the first chance they got. But, their fundamental problem wasn’t tribalism, which was an effect, not a cause. The cause was the anti-conceptual mentality.
Anti-conceptualism causes tribalism, because all tribalism is the anti-conceptual mentality. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-conceptual_mentality.html)
