How much do our tribal 'instincts' affect modern-day society and what it does, politically, educationally, or even the kinds of things people focus on and talk about? For instance, how many of us view scientists and researchers (say, at CERN), as a kind of tribe, one they don't belong to? How true is the statement: Humans harbor an ancient instinctive reaction to strangers, which is to kill them or drive them away. (?) Is our tribal history and its heritage still very much in play, or has it been switched off because we've evolved socially? Tribal societies still exist in some non-industrialised parts of the world, the recent troubles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places nearby, can I think be based on a tribal conflict kind of theory. Which might look like: The US invaded a tribal region (as a tribe of "Americans") to see off or kill some outsiders, strangers who were a threat. This is the instinctive response. Albeit the instinct had to be evoked by presenting evidence of the threat, in this case the supposed leader of the free world just had to yell a few key words (it was tribal, by my perception of the meaning of that word). The next logical step, not necessarily part of the first response, is to take resources, land, slaves, etc. The US did not do this. Here, I'd like to avoid the emotional pitfalls and especially the perception I'm in favor of one tribe or another. Rather, the view should be historical and anthropological. Sorry about any perceived sarcasm--I can't help myself there.
The Theory of Evolution says that a species retains some adaptation if it's successful. So going with the theory that tribalism is a successful adaptation, then we still need ways to express it. And, we still do. The US elections are lining up along tribal boundaries--these are modern, the tribes are intermingled and can eat at the same McDonalds shall we say, or consume from a common pool thanks to social evolution and industrialisation, which began presumably soon after we started planting crops and herding animals.
TofE only addresses genetic traits. It's not at all clear that tribalism is a genetic trait. It could simply be cultural.
What is a genetic trait? What is instinctive behaviour? What do you think of this idea that humans had, and still have an instinctive behaviour towards other humans, when they're perceived as strangers? It's something we must have learned to cope with in order to live in cities, our cultures changed accordingly. If you have a job and you work in a city, are you "following" a work culture? Is that culture different depending on the job? Is working on a farm a different kind of work culture than working for a software company?
Good questions. Evolutionary psychology isn't very well supported by data. It's possible. Yes, yes, and yes.
I'll mention that this tribal strategy (of reacting to strangers with violence) being instinctive is something I recall reading somewhere. But it was made by some anthropologist whose provenance I didn't check, however the idea seems arguable. If we're descended from the same ancestor as chimps, and if there are two now distinct species of chimps, distinct also in their social strategies for keeping a group together (which we can presume is evolutionarily advantageous to the continuation of the genetic line), can we assume that the supposedly instinctive behaviour in humans is also seen in the surviving chimp species, which is to say their tribal patterns of behaviour are like ours, or as ours were before we got into civilisation? But then, it seems that civilisation has only meant that tribalism has had to evolve, by adapting to the historically new conditions. But of course, we can consider the rise of political parties in a democratic society to be such an adaptation. It can't be too hard to accept an argument like, early kingdoms were extensions of tribal strategies (for a society of humans). Early kings and leaders were physically strong and good fighters. Early politics might have had a lot to do with negotiations. Eventually kingdoms evolved into allied states, not just in Greece, and then democracy appeared. How is a democracy, a republic say, not a tribal system. Maybe you can ask: Does it worship ancestors or make images of them? Does it channel its ancestors with ritual warrior dances? Hmm.
That tribalism exists in humans and apes is not controversial. That it's an instinct is what I'm doubting, even if it seems likely. Testing this is difficult, since raising humans without their parents or any kind of social indoctrination isn't very ethical. Apes likewise have a culture. It takes a long time to become a functioning member of ape society. Plenty of time to learn how to react to other groups. Science is all about testing things to see if what seems likely is in fact that case.
Well, I can point to the existence of tribes with tribal leaders or chiefs. There are the American Native Indians, trying hard to keep what's left of their tribal orders intact; there are the NZ Maori, now allowed some resurgence and re-establishment of tribal order. So there are at least two extant examples we can look at. But that's social order via tribal structure. 'Tribalism' is I think more about human tendencies to align, in social terms, along essentially tribal boundaries, even when those boundaries aren't "traditional". What, for example, do children do when they play together, which schools (a modern context) enable? You may recall the "I'm on your side", "No you aren't", kinds of games more common among young male humans at such places. Does tribalism emerge in large companies (I think the answer there is yes)? Is it much more prevalent than we usually admit, and why don't we admit it if it is that obvious? What is it about our tendency to align this way that we don't want to talk about?
What then, is this tribal meme doing to a political system which is supposed to be a democratic republic, an alliance of states? Is democracy working like it should? Is it really true that conservative and liberal defines two classes of humans, you think one way or the other because your brains are different? The implications of this being false then leaves the question of what really is happening in the US, and for what reasons?
The most essential difference between the right and left is fear: Righties tend to put security over liberty. Lefties put liberty over security. And it seems that these traits are at least partially genetic. [IIRC, there was even a correlation between political preferences, and the preference for Coke or Pepsi! Independents tend to prefer Dr. Pepper. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...cs-beliefs-encoded-genes-video_n_4455391.html As for tribalism, I remember my father talking about having neighborhood wars as kids. There was a vacant lot where kids from one side of the block would have wars with kids from the other side of the block. When I asked why? He said because they were from the other side of the block.
An alternative explanation to instinctual tribalism is the fact that we can only know a limited number of people and say we know them. People are complex, and it takes brain power to model the personality of another. They say it's only about 200 or so.
My research, if that's what I can call it, into tribal structure and purpose begins with the Maori of New Zealand. When fighting the British over disagreements about land ownership, tribes joined one side or the other. This was because their chiefs thought they would gain land and allies if they fought in alliance with the side who would win. There was absolutely no ethnic "brotherhood" thing, it was tribe against tribe--the British tribe was viewed the same way, although there were more complex issues in play that the Maori at the time didn't really have on board, shall we say. One of the issues was the different way the British understood ownership of the land, the reason the war kicked off and was known as the Land Wars. Likewise (maybe) it's tribe against tribe in the US, and this tribal tension is most apparent during an election cycle. Is it about land? Not really, but it was about land at about the same time Maori were fighting for theirs. Quelle coincidence.
I think it might be illustrating to compare what Donald Trump has managed to do, to other historical kinds of takeover of political systems--coups, rebellions and the like. Although, the situation does look, to me, like a situation where a powerful persona has managed to hijack a political party. Dictators, like Julius Caesar, hijacked a republic. He parked his armies at the gates of Rome, then negotiated. Donald Trump wants power. He believes that courting the attention of the media, by being controversial, is a way to win power. He is negotiating a deal. This now appears to be connected to Russia's aspirations, he's negotiating something with Putin at the same time. Something about land and what ownership means, maybe.
There are strategic advantages to grouping, that seems to be a more parsimonious explanation than evolutionary psychology.
What is evolutionary psychology? I think the psychology of the US general elections has to be relevant there. I would say people are cynical, and not just in the US. They want things to change. That they are prepared to elect someone who could likely fuck things up beyond all recognition, says they must be really cynical. Trump is lying, repeatedly and systematically, it's a strategy. It's the same strategy a used car salesman employs. At the same time he sends public messages to other strongmen around the world, whom he admires. These messages are perhaps honest signals of his real intent and where he wants to take Amerika. Or they could be lies. Ha ha.
Evolutionary psychology is the idea that the psychology or cultural traits of modern people can be traced to an evolutionary purpose or selection pressure.
