> a shared threat, or threat perception, helps. > > Modes of inclusion/exclusion (these are often the same thing in that a > mode of inclusion is usually also a mode of exclusion). The canonical > example is language - shared jargon, whether Klingon or Forth, is a > powerful bonding force as well as a means of keeping out the riffraff. > > Udhay (whose word of the day is 'swarf') > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > > How long can the shared threat perception last? At some point the source of the threat either dissipates or its magnitude will be revealed to have been overstated, which I think will eventually lead to a split in the tribe into those who continue to blindly abide by the original threat perception and those who revel in dismissing it. And once the threat perception dissipates and is not replaced by a fresh threat perception that unifies, then does this hasten individualistic thought? My point being that basing tribal identity on a common threat perception is fraught with inherent risks that can undermine the existence of that tribal entity much more than objective criteria like common language, region, religion etc. can.
Having said that, it is clear that a lot of consolidation of religious power, in particular, has been based on creating a common threat perception and then pointing to the religion as being the provider of all answers. Nikhil
