FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Our Future: Tribal or Cosmopolitan?

Whenever he found found himself at a loss of words, Marx once wrote to Engels, he would say of the topic at hand, “vell, y’see, it’sh dialectical”. It was if this contribution would be enough to elicit enough thoughtful nods that no one would notice as he shambled back up to the bar, and away from the arduous task of drunken philosophizing. (And it is, I’ve tried.)

It’s worth being honest: the issue of contemporary cosmopolitanism and tribalism is tricky, with pitfalls and contradiction peppering the path to insight. And yeah, it is dialectical. There is a trend that Marxists, Whigs, neoconservatives and reactionaries have all recognised: the passage of time brings with it a gradual liberalising of society and a disintegration of its borders.

The diameter of Peter Singer’s moral circle began life a titchy thing but each successive epoch has made it fatter (much like the Westerner’s waist line). As material realities advanced, producing new technologies and broader outlooks, ethical considerations were dragged from the local to universal. So it goes: the biological “rule of thumb” that ensures we care for our kin, was extended to one’s province through the cementing influence of markets and fetes, to one’s nation by the printing press and through a postal service, and to – we hope – one’s species with the advent of rapid global communication.

And so, dialectically, our institutions came to reflect this moral progression. National inclusiveness gave us the welfare state, continental inclusiveness the European Union, species awareness the United Nations, and, less gloriously, racial inclusiveness produced projects like the “Anglosphere”, the African Union and Arab League.

But, even with all this, there has been a reaction which looks, well, primal. Those who rather do without Them of a different god, flag or melanin count, thank you very much. We see this in the anti-establishment movements currently consuming North American and European politics – fuelled by, and fuelling the racialist and religious. Those people for whom every inclusive and internationalist evolution has been an historical misstep. Nothing inevitable about it.

And, if you’ve been paying attention, you’d be forgiven for agreeing. Our future – all of ours – looks to be rather more in their control.

Beset by the Innate

To understand why, two definitions. First: tribalism, according to Potulski, is,

tendency to sustain divisions and identities of a pre-national, tribal and ethnic groups that are based on the phenomenon of the ‘genetic’ loyalty, which facilitates ‘tribal survival’

And “out-groups”,

a group that is distinct from one’s own and so usually an object of hostility or dislike

In many ways we’re constrained by our tribal prehistory. Our social instincts were honed during an age when hunter-gathering filled in for humanity’s true calling: spreadsheets and pig pens. I’m cautious of employing evolutionary psychology as evidence – it being a field that relies heavily on what Kipling termed “just so” stories. But its practitioners have done a good job explaining why humanity’s tendency to create cosy networks of interdependence – what in other species we call a shrewdness – rests alongside a nasty habit to find or invent out-groups. This space isn’t reserved for pop science, so I’ll limit myself to a gross simplification and signpost to further reading.

In brief: the smallest similarity can be enough to spark association (vital for forming tribes), while the slightest difference can form the foundation of antagonism (maintaining and forwarding the interests of that tribe). Those who have read Freud or enjoyed The Life of Brian will appreciate the potency of this second, the so-called “narcissism of small differences”.

(There has been some striking research that suggests that “out-groups” can actually elicit disgust in people, in much the same way an invasive pathogen might. This is how ingrained the impulse to exclude can be, and it’s often language that will show it. Nazi propagandists knew the implicit biases to exploit, going to great lengths to connect Jews, Slavs and the mentally infirm with rats in the shared imagination. For contemporary examples, try listening to how some in your circle will refer to those without homes.)

If we’re bound to perceive the world in these polarising terms of Us and Them, then the Left really is at a loss (which is probably exactly what some leading evolutionary psychologists would like us to believe). But, with that said, historical and moral advances are real: the obscenities of racism, religious insanity and slavery still persist, but time has tempered all three. We are, after-all, also endowed with reason and it allows – and, in its way politely demands – something better. But is that enough?

Future?

It’s trite, but rational action in a internationalist framework is our species’ only hope. An effectual United Nations the only prevention to species suicide. (If you know a way in which a single nation can solve the issues of global warming and looming nuclear catastrophe: please tell us!)

Shrewdness however, for reasons separate from reason, has attached itself to the nation-state in the 21st century. Perhaps George Bernard Shaw’s observations made in the 20th can help:

A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation’s nationality, it will think of nothing else but having it set [again]. A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man is of his bones.

He was speaking in particular of Éire, where the threat to national unit was clear and present: it had a flag, a uniform, armed men in the streets. The reaction to British rule was easily understood: home and away literally had their own team colours. International capital can be just as destructive and ubiquitous – imposing a division of labour that turns man into beast and debtor into slave – but there, like so much economic hocus pocus, the guiding hand remains hidden. Fraud and cheap tricks are given a sense of levity by the Veil, and a newspeak distracts the mind. Too big to fail, misselling, economic recovery, balancing the books, reducing the deficit… It’s almost enough to make you forget that we’re living through an era of unprecedented class war.

But, as far-right figureheads know, race and nation are easier to discern than market forces. And, as Hume noted, reason is all too often subject to the passions. (Tellingly, this Tory genius decided that this ought to be the case.)

Remember that fleeting sub-vocalisation you had upon seeing Mr Patel in his brand new BMW? Do you recall how, for decency’s sake, you stowed it away? Well, so say Trump, Le Pen and Farage, there’s no need for that. Trust your instincts: that initial, niggly little feeling was right all along. The shiftless immigrant is to blame, the public sector worker who thinks they’re entitled to a pension and maternity pay ain’t much better, and worst of all is Johnny-Bloody-Foreigner with his funny foreign ways.

The nation becomes a safe haven from those chaotic global forces which rather carry on acting upon untroubled and undiscovered. From Nairn,

Nationalism can in [a] sense be pictured as like the old Roman god, Janus, who stood above gateways with one face looking forward and one backwards. Thus does nationalism stand over the passage to modernity, for human society. As human kind is forced through its strait doorway, it must look desperately back into the past, to gather strength wherever it can be found for the ordeal of ‘development’

And it is no coincidence that, as well as honouring the flag (be it Southern Cross or Union), Trump’s supporters also harbour authoritarian fantasies. Dictators, for all their faults, offer consistency; and willing subjects, for all their charms, refuse to see what the sacrifice of the self means for self-preservation.

European history teaches us that subjugation campaigns against minorities are seldom a contained affair. They’re often dress rehearsals for something far bolder: Spanish crusaders banished the Jews after they had cleared out the Moors, and then the Inquisition was born; Russian tsars would have their generals “pacify” the Asian steppe before bringing them home to quell urban dissenters; and as the last Reich folded, Hitler damned his “undeserving” German brothers and sisters. Time after time, once the machinery of state had been adapted to cannibalization, and all of Them had been spent, the mob found that all they had called for came calling on them.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail