At a recent meeting of the friary “Open Space” discussion group, I led the discussion with some introductory comments on the mainly ethical implications of this contemporary phenomenon of a world divided by various ‘tribes’ or social groups, for example: Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, Russians, and Ukrainians, and closer to home, Nationalists and Unionists.
The use of the word ‘tribe’ in inverted commas means that I am stipulating a new definition of the term from the one most of us know from our growing up. Our usual understanding of the word conjures up so called “primitive,” indigenous people in “Darkest Africa” or the Amazon jungle.
But this new understanding refers to almost any long lasting, cohesive group with a strong identity, based on ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious similarities. It could be anything from the Gaelic footballers of Galway (sometimes called the “Tribesmen”) to the Catholic Church!
The negative aspects of what we call “Tribalism” (note how “ism” at the end of a word often has negative connotations) goes back to the beginnings of creation, as the Bible reveals in story after story.
The “Twelve Tribes” of Israel, deriving from the twelve sons of the patriarch Jacob, suggest that the phenomenon we are exploring may be an extension of family jealousy and envy, as the youngest son, Joseph, his father’s favourite, is sold into slavery in Egypt by his own brothers. This leads to the development of the Israelite nation in the land of Pharoah and their subjugation by the Egyptians.
God helps “his” tribe to escape, having punished the ‘evil’ tribe with various plagues, concluding with drowning of their army in the sea! The granting of the Promised Land to the escapees is typical of much of ancient history with the migration of peoples or tribes seeking new pastures.
One could argue from this brief summary of history, from a religious, ethical perspective, that tribalism is a key element in what we traditionally call “original sin,” which is the sin of disobedience to the Creator God who wants all his creatures to live in harmony in accordance with his commands of justice / respect and love / unity.
In more modern thinking, especially in the sciences of evolutionary biology and sociobiology, the development of social groups presents a more positive, but still limited, view of human interaction with each other and the rest of Creation. Over time, certain animals develop a drive to cooperate with members of their own species which turns out to be beneficial in the process of what Charles Darwin and others called “Natural Selection.” The co-operators pass on their genes to their descendants, while the non-cooperators die off.
Thus, we find the appearance of social animals who appear to act in a quasi-ethical way, displaying what is called in moral philosophy “Altruism” that is, caring for others even to the point of sacrificing self. Think of the many creatures who go out of their way to protect their young, or of the prairie dog who, on seeing a flying predator will warn others, even though it attracts dangerous attention to itself.
In intelligent, rational animals, such as humanity, what Richard Dawkins calls our “selfish genes” bring about a culture which begins to speak in moral terms. In the language of ethics, we find expressions such as, “we ‘ought’ to love and respect others more than ourselves,” instead of “we ‘must’ cooperate if we are going to pass on our genes to our children.”
Notice the element of cynicism creeping in here. It may look like people are naturally caring, while in fact if you dig deeply enough you will return to the biological fact, viz., cooperation pays! In other words, we are regularly deceived by our animal nature into thinking we are saints!
In much of this emphasis on the advantages of cooperation there is frequently the tension with our drive to compete both within our group and with outsiders. Consider the world of politics, where each political party can be seen as a type of tribe. Election candidates must first compete with others of their own party to be selected before they compete with candidates of another political grouping for election.
In many countries, including our own, no one party can get achieve a majority that will allow it to govern alone – coalitions are the regular outcome nowadays. This reveals once again the need for cooperation and compromise in order for the parties to work together for the period of the government. Efforts will be made for the groups to appear united and harmonious – until the coalition collapses!
It must still be the aim of each party to rule alone if possible. Those old selfish genes are working behind the scenes to maximise their “reproductive fitness.”
With all this talk of people cooperating in groups and making sacrifices for others, one may wonder whatever happened to the common complaint made over the years concerning the radical individualism taking over society? Has that now thankfully disappeared with the new emphasis on groups working together for the common good?
The emphasis in recent times on the process of globalisation also appears to herald the death of rugged individualism, of every person for his or her self! But a strong argument can be made, I believe, for claiming that the tribal mentality is simply a form of group egoism, where individuals so identify with their group that the good of the group becomes their good.
After all it can be hard to distinguish between the good of one’s family and one’s own welfare – they are so inextricably linked in many cases.
Globalisation, as the spread of a common culture through modern means of communication, often using the international language of English, seems like an antidote to the sickness of competitive tribalism. But we must be wary of one type of culture surreptitiously taking over the world, with the consequent death of so many smaller cultures, like the death of so many natural species!
Could it be that ‘tribes’ are the new individuals locked in deadly combat for control of the world?
The major fault of tribalism is its tendency for groups to identify themselves in opposition to others, where difference develops into a sense of superiority, leading in turn to various forms of discrimination and even violence. Genocide, apartheid, and colonialism are cases in point – and “they haven’t gone away, you know!”
Just as individuals can be guilty of what is now called “coercive control” so too, can groups, including “Big Brother,” who is always checking up on you to make sure you are safe (or is it to ensure you are fitting in with the group?).
There is no easy way of addressing the negative impact of tribalism, especially in its nationalistic garb. But for Christians, the onus is on us to avoid both individualism and tribalism, both the results of our fallen nature engrained even in our biology, our very DNA. Only the grace of God, helping us to follow the Gospel message of Jesus, can lift us out of this trap.
In the person of Jesus, we discover a person who sees the pitfalls of tribal individualism in his courageous challenge to both the status quo of his religion and the influence of family. He establishes a community which aims to be universal, one flock with one shepherd, ruled by love not by a desire to dominate others.
He is the single man who distances himself from his family and is not concerned with passing on his genes to the next generation. He warns his disciples to be servants, not lords, and gives the perfect example of washing their feet during his last supper with them. His teaching goes far beyond the limited altruism of this world, asking us to love even our enemies, to forgive endlessly, and to love others not just as much as ourselves, but more, as he does on the Cross.
None of this makes sense to a world without God, where people have made their tribes into little gods to promote their narrow, selfish interests pretending to be altruistic because they are “really” thinking of others!
Only a loving God can help us to raise above our fallen nature with its selfish genes, beckoning us beyond this life to His Kingdom, to eternal life where true altruism will, at last, be at home.
KIERAN CRONIN OFM