Sorry if this is a bit out of date, I couldn't let this one go.
At 09:44 PM 11/14/2000 -0600, Andy Driscoll wrote:
>Tribalism, Friends. It's called tribalism. We are tribes of various colors,
>economies, genders, political ideologies, religions, et al. We all belong to
>one or more of them and tend to get our backs up over perceptions that our
>tribe is under some sort of threat - real or imagined, usually the latter.
>
>No one tribe is above the racism, sexism, ageism, religious bigotry or
>political rigidity that characterizes the reactions each has to their
>opposite number(s). What places one artificially above another is power, and
>it is the quest for power that debases humanity.
>
>The idea behind the term, civilization, is that humankind should, through
>its extraordinary intellect and opportunity, rise above the base tribal
>instincts that otherwise govern our behavior and emotions. It is the
>arrogance of those who believe that only they and no one else is a member of
>the "correct" tribe that engenders the distrust and violent reactions so
>prevalent across the planet.
>
>We are no exception. Can we rise above it to create a more humane and decent
>culture of equals? Likely not. We bring too much of our personal and tribal
>history to our judgment which distorts and colors it to counterproductive
>ends. I'd rather be optimistic about this, but it's damned difficult in the
>face of all we're witnessing here (in the US) and everywhere else.
>
>Sad times.
Andy's basically arguing that we're in a static phase here: there is
essentially no progress in the human condition, specifically in things
like tribalism. I couldn't disagree more - though it's an understandable
perspective given how slow and erratic human achievement is.
Tribalism is a point on a continuum of attitudes that have to do with
defining humanity. There's the self-centered universe we all carry within
us: I matter, I better not die, I better have a nice place to sleep,
everyone else can go hang. Then there's the family-centered one: if
someone else is starving, I'm not going to share my kids' food with them.
Then there's the tribal one, which is the highest level commonly found
in indiginous cultures. Most such cultures have a word for themselves
that roughly translates as "the people" - meaning that all those other
humans you see running around outside your territory aren't really
people, and if you need some of their resources it's ok to take them.
(If you can.)
But wait, there's more! There's nationality. Nationality is a step up
from tribalism in abstraction: it defines "humanity", or "the people",
as a much larger group of people, most of whom you don't even know.
This is the deal with Serbians, for example, or Israelis or Palestinians,
or Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Again, it's "I'll defend my
group, but I don't particularly care about people outside it." This can
lead to considerable violence, and has in the examples I've given. But
consider the benefits over basic tribalism! Suddenly we care enough about
people we've never met to try to ensure they have some basic form of
welfare, health care, justice, economic opportunity and whatnot.
And there are steps beyond that. America is another layer of abstraction
in itself. Ok, we've got racial problems, and we usually have trouble
dealing with the latest influx of immigrants, but in general we support
"Americans" even though Americans count people of widely varying
nationalities. And beyond that is the notion of our common humanity,
crossing all boundaries. A huge number of people in the world today
care about the plight of all humanity. Then beyond that, people reach
toward the notions of the rights of all sentience, in science fiction,
or become active in animal rights groups or antiabortion groups to try
to extend "humanity" to new orders of life.
(As an aside, I'm not a prolifer, and while I'm vegetarian, I also like
to wear leather. I'm not saying that extending rights everywhere is
necessarily where we have to go. But consider what it means for the
progress of the human spirit that people are even addressing such issues!)
My point (aha, he's got one!) is this: overall, we are progressing.
There's a hierarchy of ways of viewing humanity, each of which transcends
(and includes) the one below it. Human culture, and yes, even American
culture has advanced slowly from one of these levels to the next. I
agree with Andy that various notions of us/not us continue to plague
our politics, and probably will forever. But our achievements still
stand. I believe in their hearts that most Americans consider all
Americans as "the people" in this sense, and that quite a few of us
treat all humans as "the people". I don't believe that was the case 200
years ago, or how would slavery have survived?
It's easy to lose sight of this sort of progress because, generally
speaking, it takes more than a lifetime to observe real change. And of
course there are so many ways we can screw it up. America's not leading
it any more, either; we're sliding backwards while the Europeans are
forging new ground in being able to work together. But overall, I
believe that this kind of progress is continuing, and it gives me cause
for hope.
"We're all lying in the gutter. But some of us are looking at the stars."
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Steven C. Anderson Longfellow area of Minneapolis
