Return of the Tribes - The resistance to globalization runs deep

[applegrove]

Return of the Tribes
The resistance to globalization runs deep.
by Ralph Peters
Weekly Standard
09/04/2006, Volume 011, Issue 47



"Globalization is real, but its power to improve the lot of humankind has been madly oversold. Globalization enthralls and binds together a new aristocracy--the golden crust on the human loaf--but the remaining billions, who lack the culture and confidence to benefit from "one world," have begun to erect barricades against the internationalization of their affairs. And, from Peshawar to Paris, those manning the barricades increasingly turn violent over perceived threats to their accustomed patterns of life. If globalization represents a liberal worldview, renewed localism is a manifestation of reactionary fears, resurgent faiths, and the iron grip of tradition. Except in the commercial sphere, bet on the localists to prevail.

When the topic of resistance to globalization arises, an educated American is apt to think of a French farmer-activist trashing a McDonald's, anarchist mummers shattering windows during World Bank powwows, or just the organic farmer with a stall at the local market. But the swelling resistance to globalization is far more powerful and considerably more complex than a few squads of drop-outs aiming rocks at the police in Seattle or Berlin. We are witnessing the return of the tribes--a global phenomenon, but the antithesis of globalization as described in pop bestsellers. The twin tribal identities, ethnic and religious brotherhood, are once again armed and dangerous.

A generation ago, it was unacceptable to use the word tribes. Yet, the tribes themselves won through, insisting on their own identity--whether Xhosa or Zulu, Tikriti or Barzani, or, writ large, French or German. In political terms, globalization peaked between the earnest efforts of the United Nations in the early 1960s and the electoral defeat of the European constitution in 2005 (the French and Dutch votes weren't a rebuff, but an assassination). In Europe, which was to have led the way in transcending nationalism, the European Union will stumble on indefinitely, even making progress in limited spheres, but its philosophical basis is gone. East European laborers and West European farmers alike will continue to exploit the E.U.'s easing of borders and transfers of wealth, but no one believes any longer in a European super-identity destined to supplant one's self-identification as a Dane or Basque.

Far from softening, national and other local identities are hardening again, reverting to ever-narrower blood-and-language relationships that Europe's dreamers assumed would fade away. Who now sees himself as fundamentally Belgian, rather than as a Fleming or Walloon? Catalans deny that they are Spaniards, and the Welsh imagine a national grandeur for themselves. In the last decade, the ineradicable local identities within the former Yugoslavia split apart in a bloodbath, while a mortified Europe looked away for as long as it could. The Yugoslav disaster was written off as an echo from the past--anyway, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and Kosovars were "not our kind"--but the Balkan wars instead signaled a much broader popular discontent with pseudo-identities concocted by political elites. The collapse of Yugoslavia hinted at the future of Europe: not necessarily the bloodshed, but the tenacity of historical identity.


................SNIP"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12616&R=ED9A394EF

[evlbstrd]

1. That's a very interesting article.

I am of Irish descent, and can easily identify with the tribal mentality of which the author speaks. It has asserted itself repeatedly throughout history. Can you name an empire that was not brought down by a tribalist?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Rome

that was imperal huberis.

[evlbstrd]

A very good model.

[evlbstrd]

5. A very good model.

[applegrove]

6. No - Rome exhausted the soil - the environmental degredation killed

the Romans. They had to keep expanding to find untired soil.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. to be accurate, there wasn't any single cause, or theory...

Did plagues reduce the population to the point it could not sustain itself?
Did civil wars lessen the strength of the empire and weaken the population?
Did the army lose its discipline and thus endanger the empire and cause it to be overrun?
Did the citizens of Rome become too satisfied and lazy, allowing the empire to crumble due to neglect?
Did the empire bureaucracy become too top heavy, eventually causing the empire to collapse upon itself?
Did God turn His favor away from Rome due to its sinful nature? (Decline in Morals and Values)
Did it fall as the result of barbarian invasions?
Did the empire spend too much of its resources on the poor, thus drawing away precious funds from the empire?
Was the Roman Empire just too big, making a collapse inevitable?
Public Health ?
Political Corruption ?
Unemployment?
Inflation?
Urban decay ?
Inferior Technology ?
Military Spending?

So many theories, so little time... :shrug:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. my prediction...

The US will become more isolationist than it already is... and it will take decades before we start to really engage with the world again.

[Demeter]

9. Considering America's Beligerence, Isolation Might Be a Good Thing

Better for America to isolate itself and learn civilized behavior, than for it to be isolated by the world, or invaded, and taught by coercion.

[bemildred]

4. Tribalism is the natural human mode.

It is state power and globalization that are unnatural and that must be maintained by effort and external application of force. This system is breaking down, nobody know exactly what comes next.

[applegrove]

7. If you are socialized properly - tribalism ends at about the age of 4.

[Demeter]

10. Only If Democratic Principles of Equality of All Are Instilled & Practiced

Otherwise, tribalism is better than classism.

[applegrove]

12. Tribalism and classicism are the same thing. What the bible & all

monotheism tried to work against. It is the inclusion of people exactly like you and the exclusion of "all others" in your value system.


Except the writers of the bible didn't see slaves as people too. That took a while...2000 years to be exact.

[Demeter]

15. A tribe Encompasses All Ages, Sexual Orientations, and Economic Conditions

Classes don't. Unless you are the perfect clone family.

[applegrove]

34. No. It means that people like you are in, others are out. Religious

extremists in the USA are acting tribal. Would we call that tribalism or religious-ism? Tribalism I think.

For sure classicism implies certain specific things that tribalism doesn't and vice versa. But really the pattern is the same. Class ism will use tribalism to maintain class ism (look at Saudi arabia). To imply they are not the same shit and one should be treated different than the other..is not true. The repeated pattern should be identified by its character (group exclusion and security in community)...not by the income of the people who practice it.

[bemildred]

11. Who decides what "socialized properly" means? nt

[applegrove]

14. It means to be taught values. You could socialize your child into being

anything.

Quite frankly I am more concerned with how the * WH and neocons try and socialize adults into lacking empathy for anything except what works to extend their power-lust. And they are doing it to adults but it failed during Katrina..because people had been socialized by church and family and values after WWII.

I also worry about charter schools.

[bemildred]

18. So I can decide what "socialized properly" means?

I think proper socialization has more to do with how you are taught to treat your fellow humans than what sort of political arrangement you are taught allegiance to.

[applegrove]

29. You used the single word "socialized". Obviously vikings were socialized

on way a thousand years ago.. and are socialized differently today. Pretty good world citizens today: social programs and great spending development assistance. I think they both felt socialized properly at the time.

And if you think socialized to scapegoat is fine and dandy..I feel sorry for you. But I doubt that is what you mean.

Again... human babies unlike the eggs of a croc... are nurtured and socialized for 15 years. That is a universal thing. So obviously we cannot ignore the two other types of brains inside our brains. Altruism is something else that is in our brains. Why is it there? Because it saves lives and works. Doing something to help one of your kin was a great strategy. Took anthropologists a while to get why it would be extended universally to outside your kin (why would someone give up their life for someone not their child? Because the whole village or series of villages did better when they had altruism running through their veins). We were living in tribes at the time. So tribalism isn't just about the reptile brain. Likely empires, countries then democracy only came to be because of the capacity of empathy and likely its manifestation in monotheism.

Are the recent brain adjustments.. better or worse? I think they are more appropriate for the times. And for governments to get into power and model themselves on personalities with reptilian brains only.. is just dam creepy.

Perhaps we have finally come to the reason why neocons and GOP hacks call Liberal government "MOMMY GOVERNMENT"! They hate socialization because they must see altruism as taking something away from how they want to fly (birds too were reptiles once).

Direct Rule was how the British ruled empire. And Neocons are so in love with that 1890 thinking of Lugard and Disraeli. All the British did was rule through tribal chiefs in order to keep people from talking to each other and getting together to fight for democracy in their country. Worked for years for the Brits. Didn't go so well for the people in places like India/Pakistan or Rwanda. But it was great and easily implemented for the Brits. Making somebody's neighbours.. the enemy... is a really cheap way to be able to run the whole show with very little investment.

The people who sat on their hands during Katrina must be so upset with how empathy took over and ruled by day three of the flood. Not what they expected. They were projecting their own lack of empathy on their base and the country. "all those people were told to leave..they are bad..don't have sympathy for them...loosers". BIG MISTAKE.

Community is great. Church can be great. Cultural identity can be great. Political passion can be great. Running a business can be great 0 hey - it creates jobs you hope. And on and on.

Just so that there isn't a scapegoat in the mix. Others should not have to pay BIG TIME for your connection to the world. And whoever you are.. you should be giving back somehow: paying taxes, walking the walk with your church, social justice, charitable contributions, voting for a vision that best represents the best of humanity, responsibility to give back, World financial bodies allowing new democracies a period of time to nationalize industry so they can build an economic base & a middle class, etc.

Slicing and dicing people into small hateful little groups so you can control them is Indirect Rule. Not the best of anything.. including tribalism.

Why in the information age..why would we let someone cut out two thirds of our brain capacity?

[bemildred]

35. No, I was quoting your usage of the two words. nt

[applegrove]

37. My bad. Why do I skim so often? I don't know. Lazy I guess. Sorry.

[bemildred]

39. No problem.

Interesting dialog all the same. It's clearly a subject you care about.

[applegrove]

43. I cannot tell another lie. It is worse than that. I posted this last night

and meant to read it while holding my nose. I fell asleep, woke up, logged on and was responding to posts without having read by own OP.

I'm a fool. A big fool today.

:yoiks:

[bemildred]

44. But an honest one, at least.

That is always refreshing.
:hi:

[applegrove]

45. Boy - are you gracious! I almost wish I had more to divulge. But I don't.

That is as naughty as I get. DAM!

[bhikkhu]

47. manifestly false "blank slate" argument.

Sociology by tradition strictly limits its scope to those behavioral solutions which may be reached through socialization, and so is rather prone to "blank slate" arguments. Which is to say - individual identities and behaviors are created solely through the experience of the individual, and so may be freely modified through modification of experience.

A contrary, and very well established counter-argument would come from modern neuroscience, psychology, anthropology. etc, which tends to find innate physical causes and tendencies for even complex behaviors. Pinker's "Blank Slate" is a thorough and very readable text which discusses all sides of the argument, and explains the modern research-based model, which is much more reasonable and sensible than either pole.

I can think of two problems that occur when you believe you can socialize a child into "being anything". First on a small scale, a parent may crush and stifle the individual character and natural potentials of a child. Second, on a large scale, social engineering projects such as Mao and Pol Pot embarked upon crushed and stifled the lives of millions who were unaccountably resistant to their in attempts to create new and perfect societies. As a general rule, all such projects fail miserably. From what I have read, the current neocon notions of what society should be resembles a social engineering project doomed to fail.

[applegrove]

48. My point is just that. You can socialize a child into not scapegoating.

Some parents are stricter than others. Takes some people longer to grow out of clannishness and individuate. But the point is the tribalism we see today..in adults is a "growing down" of adults into little lambs who hate whomever is on the wedge agenda of the neocons. As someone rightly pointed out..this article is the typical "projection" of the neocons. They are the ones who tribalize and use scapegoats for group cohesion and to get people thinking about the smaller tribe they belong too..rather than the greater good or human rights.

Mystics typically grow adults down to their childlike slate... and you get they want..followers. They complain about the mommy state when in reality the GOP base is childlike. And they have worked hard to infantalize many in the USA with the base repeating mantras instead of thinking things through for themselves. And for sure we have seen baser instincts come out of freepers mouths (or fingers if we are on the blogs & discussion forums).

For sure there is clannish behaviour all through life. But seeing others as dangerous or outsiders that should be attacked ...just because they are not exactly like your family or group..is something parents work on at the age of 3 or 4. Scapegoating continues well into high-school for some. But then becomes rarer in adulthood and usually at the behest of someone with a "stopped childhood" resulting in a personality disorder. If an adult is being attacked solely for being themselves.. a personality disorder is in the attack pack and leading it.

In the case of this article.. the neocons have taken an argument on the left about their actions and road to power.. and projected it back on the Europeans and ..well.. pretty much everyone who will not do exactly as they say. Once again it is one set of rules for them (they get to scapegoat and wedge people into tribes when it works for them) and one set of rules for everybody else (apparently democracy mixed with Union in Europe is a very bad thing....while Union in North America is good, and democracy in the middle east must happen by next Wednesday).

I would not call it anything but democracy what this man is complaining of in the case of "old Europe". And as for the Balkans..yes there is tribalism there..but you know what else was there? A psychopath in the body of a man currently on trial for genocide.. Milosovitch. I think that was the biggest problem in the Balkans of late. One nefarious manipulative bully and differences are high-lighted and groups turned in on each other in attack mode with bloody mass murder results. That I would say would be the lesson today of the Balkans.

Let's get this straight. So - democracy good in ME. Union bad in Europe. Democracy = tribalism in old Europe which is bad. Belgians are a joke because they administer the Union. Union good for USA, Canada & Mexico (is Mexico allowed in? or would that be bad?). So I guess the place that would administer the Union between Canada and the USA (USA likely) is a joke too.

They've stolen the word tribalism. I bet you they will fight for that word. They are stealing that word from us. Just like they stole the word LIBERAL. ***holes!

[IrateCitizen]

13. I call bullshit on this

Basically, you're saying that 4 years of socialization can overcome millenia of accumulated conditioning, conditioning that it could be argued has become genetic?

Sorry, I don't buy this. No matter how much we try to "socialize" ourselves out of it, tribalism is something that is pretty much hard-wired into the human psyche.

[bemildred]

16. Doesn't sound like the teenagers I know. nt

[IrateCitizen]

17. It's not simply a racial or even cultural/religious identity

Sports fans provide a good example of tribalism in our society -- especially the way that they will often treat fans of a rival team.

The military provides another excellent example -- people are conditioned to think of each other as brothers and sisters, and that their ultimate loyalty is to those people.

I would bet that there are ways in which tribalism manifests itself even in these teenagers of whom you speak. It may not come up in destructive or hateful ways, but I'm certain it arises in ways that they differentiate themselves from "others" outside of their group -- whether they be other cliques, kids from a rival school, and so forth.

[bemildred]

20. Yeah, it's a natural human mode of socialization.

It is the large nation-state or imperial sort of arrangements that require lots of indoctrination. People naturally have local allegiances. Tribalism can be a good or bad thing, just like people themselves.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Yes, my point exactly. (nt)

[applegrove]

30. Absolutely. As long as the tribe is not scapegoating. Or being used

by others to attain and maintain power.

[applegrove]

24. Yes.. teenagers get filled with hormones and need to be socialized

again.. this time with all the hormones and feelings. Cause it isn't automatic that when big changes take place.. a teenager will not "grow down" and need to relearn the basics..in their much more sophisticated experiences and world.

Mystics will come along and regress adults. Or they will try. Fortunately the 95% of the population who are actually adults.. will tire of their childlike-reptilian leader after a few years and usually reject them in the end (Katrina reaction of Americans was a big rejection of the lack of empathy *WH felt they had successfully taught Americans by 2005). Just like with teens. And kids in public school. Universally - there is a rejection of reptiles or kids acting like reptiles after a bit. But there is not rejection of little children being reptilian. They just get things explained to them at three. And maybe a time out. There used to be spankings. But never rejection of a very young child. Cause they are too young to know any better.

Hitler was another case entirely.

I reject your idea that we cannot avoid our inner reptile. We can and that is why rejection of the reptile is so universal. We can and we do every day. And society does. Just not so common in GOP politics these days. Look at Ann Coulter? But they do seem to have lost some steam. The rest of the world is not buying it. Many americans are not buying it. We can hope.

[applegrove]

19. My point was that at 3 or four.. a child will point to a white person for

example and go "who is that? Why are they pale?" and an embarrassed mother will say "honey... people are different everywhere..especially outside of our family. This white person is likely a mommy with a child of her own".

That is universal for a child to see someone outside of their own specific experience as an "other". Like you say..there is probably a reptilian reason why the first reaction to the "outsider to the child's world" is so strong. But we live in democracies and that is one of those reptilian things that the human brain can overcome. And usually is .. by the age of 5.

We could draw up a list of things that are overcome from the reptile brain. Is this a new topic of discovery? Cause it is old news. We can laud the reptile brain.. sometimes you need fear and that fear will keep you safe. But you cannot live in a multi-faceted world and community or democracy and function if you are going to be all reptile... all the time.

Reptiles notoriously leave their young to fend for themselves. We don't. Cause our brains have evolved a little more. Thus the lack of shell. And the child rearing for 15 years. And most of this is socialization.

[bemildred]

21. Yes, xenophobia is very natural too, and seems built in.

And it's a big problem. It doesn't seem to me that it's inevitable though, and I don't see it as being the same thing a tribalism, although they are related.

[applegrove]

25. All about socialization. Japan is a good example of xenaphobia.

There just has not been the pressure to acknowledge the issue till lately..cause they were not invaded and never faced massive immigration till lately.

[bemildred]

28. Yes. They have been very successful in keeping things homogenous too.

Relatively speaking of course. Like a few other places. Being an island seems to help for some reason.

I think governments would do well to encourage people to live in mixed environments to discourage that sort of thinking, it's one of the things I like about cities, and potentially one of the great strengths of the USA, if we chose to exploit it instead of fighting it. Mongrelization could be could, hybrid vigor is just what we could use.

[applegrove]

31. In Canada we had some forms of segregation in cities... french/english

or scotch/Irish social isolation. Oh - yeah...and the aboriginal people. Was awful.

But we didn't build lots of social housing and the solution to sick cities is mixed housing. That is the policy these days. To mix up all the neighbourhoods. To mix social housing and private apartments. And it really works. Good schools can be the norm in these areas. Bad neighborhoods need to be re-engineered (there is one in toronto with so many dead end streets that the police cannot chase drug dealers in cars needless to say..that place is being redone).

Not like what they did in Halifax where they totally picked up a neighborhood and expelled everybody. That was awful. That was the thinking of the 1950s. And so wrong.

[IrateCitizen]

22. Tribalism is hardly a reptillian concept

Tribalism developed over time was as a survival mechanism. Humans do not do well in isolation from one another -- they are social animals, and are best suited to operate in small groups where people can have face-to-face contact with each other. Tribalism was the by-product of the development of myth and ceremony among small groups of people. It helped them identify with each other, look out for each other, and therefore help their chances of mutual survival.

Does this have a negative side? Certainly. Tribalism can help foster fear, hatred and even outright murder. But it is still something that is hard-wired into us, and it often manifests itself as a need to belong to a group of some sort. Since our modern, post-industrial society does not offer the same "outlets" for tribalism, this need manifests itself in a number of ways. It is one of the forces behind fanatical following of professional sports teams (a relatively harmless phenomenon). It can also result in people joining organizations like the skinheads (harmful).

Reducing all of this to a reptile brain / higher brain debate is reducto ad absurdum, IMHO.

[applegrove]

26. But there is good socialization and bad. Wanting to be part of a group

is natural. But not when that groups main cohesiveness is finding a scapegoat. That isn't a group. That is a cabal of sorts.

Like anything. Some community is great. Some is hurtful. Jihadists I would say are bad. Oil money from Iran or Saudi Arabia going to feed poor kids in messed up countries like many in the middle east..for the purposes of procuring suicide bomobers and more jihadists is scanky. Walking the walk pastors who teach social justice in their church is an example of good community.

Good and bad leaders.

Just like democracy cannot work unless there is some cross class covenant and shared vision (you can't always get what you want..but you can get what you need), so too leadership can be good or bad. Again.. you look to the groups who need a scapegoat to find out which is reptilian and which is true community.

I don't think * is scapegoating jihadists..they are a bunch of assholes. But he sure does think of civilians in Iraq or Lebannon as fodder or chaffe. Why a "slow war" is so acceptable to him. Same with Hezbollah. Really - to be handing out money when they baited Israel.. and destabilized Lebannon..just because Lebannon was trying to get out of the "we live other people's agenda and have not had peace in 30" way of life... well Hezbollah obviously see those civlian towns they build their bunkers under as "others". And now they run around going "we are really sorry - we didn't know if we stock-piled missiles it would hurt you".

[IrateCitizen]

27. So you're agreeing with me that tribalism is natural?

Wanting to be part of a group is natural.

That "wanting to be part of a group" is where tribalism comes from.

But not when that groups main cohesiveness is finding a scapegoat. That isn't a group. That is a cabal of sorts.

So, if a group is the result of "proper socialization," it's an actual group; but if it's main cohesiveness is scapegoating, it falls to the status of cabal? :wtf:

[applegrove]

32. It falls into the category of bad tribalism. The worst of it. So too if

the cohesive group that scapegoats is put in place solely to give power to elites (which is the same pattern of scapegoating and hurting those outside your narrow group of elites and the pattern of exploitation repeats and repeats). The natural world is like that. The way social groups work it repeating patterns too. Patterns that repeat. Kaos theory. That is what nature is. Solar explosions follow a turtle pattern with little round blob and bigger round blob attached. the bigger blob is the smaller blob vis a vis the sun. Humans are animals & socially their patterns are repeated: think of the blogosphere and it's power of millions repeating ideas and how they work there way out & up. We work against nature when we have civilizations and police forces and all. It takes a lot of work to supress the scapegoaters, the criminals, the exploitation, the bias and predjudice. We work against some forms of tribalism..the bad stuff and promote some of the good forms of tribalism (in Canada you are connected if you use the same health care system as the middle class & poor if you are rich..and it feels really good..and is good health care.. and you own that good feeling cause you pay taxes everytime you send your teenager to the mall with money).

The government you elect chooses what the nature of the patterns will be. *WH seems to be working overtime to get the bad tribalism out there. And letting infrastruture, fair play in business, democracy, a boost up for the struggling poor, rebuilding after Katrina, health care for Americans, etc... fall completely apart.

Their choice.

You too get to choose what the repeated patterns that form American culture will be (cause it will be repeated ..either the scapegoating or the altruism). Your choice. It matters a great deal how you vote. I'd vote against the idea of scapegoating if I were you. Forget the 1890s. Seems the *WH wants to take America back to a time before monotheism (which taught scapegoating was bad - Jesus said "blame me instead of your neighbour").

[applegrove]

33. It is natural to shit your pants too. Then you grow up.

[yurbud]

36. it would be more accurate to call it neoliberalism or corporatization

globalization sounds too nice and inevitable.

We will be more inter-related over time, the question is whether that benefits or screws average people.

[applegrove]

38. Globalization is good for some people. Like India for example. Not

bad to trade necessarily. And when the boomers retire in a few years en masse, jobs will be plenty. Just not right now. Canada it doing really well re: employment these days.

Globalization has issues. Neoconism is the problem. Not that the world is connecting to each other in various ways.

[yurbud]

40. if people knew what neoliberal economic policy was, they would oppose it

it would be better to call it neoconservative, but I'm not the one who gets to make up the names.

[applegrove]

41. Yep. It is the weekly standard. And neo always try and hide in the words.

Globalization encompasses more than just their sorry little policies.

My point is that tribalism can be bad. Democracy good. Democracy means to cross boundaries of tribes more often than not.

But the type of tribalism the USA has seen - where an "other" is created to hate (say gays or fancy pants liberal academics) and that is the basis of the tribe..then it is indirect rule (why else would someone from outside come along and stir the pot constantly and fund the movement). And there is no point in indirect rule other than elites running away with the whole pie.

Community is good. Scapegoating is bad. Nationalization or tough investment laws are good at times. Look at airbus! For sure there should be competition in the world. But I am tired of their tribalism and neocons having one set of rules for themselves (what have they done but tribalized certain portions of the electorate with class warfare) and one set of rules for everybody else. There is nothing free market in Haliburton getting so many contracts in Iraq. There is no free competition when WALMART skirts the rules & accepted norms to run all competition into the ground. Monopoly power is bad - anti free trade actually. Anything that keeps the competition going amongst these big monster international corporations.. anything that keeps competition going.. is a good thing. Then the people win..as opposed to the GOP or the Oil companies.

Funny Weekly standard taking what they have been accused of (tribalism) and projecting it on to nations and states and people who want economies that are diversified and wealth that stays at home on occassion.

Seems to me it is always them saying..when we do it (no bid contracts, no UN procurement laws) - that is fine. When you get in the way of free markets ... it is a crime or some sort of stupidity or provincialism.

[applegrove]

42. But this article is from a neocon source. They never "out" themselves.

They simply insist on not existing.

[oblivious]

46. Yes, 'Corporatization' is much, much, much more accurate.