User:Jd2718/New Tribalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article concerns the social philosophy known as Neo-Tribalism and not the reemergence of ethnic identities that followed the end of the Cold War. For that subject, see New tribalism
Postmodernism
preceded by Modernism

Postmodernity
Postchristianity
Postmodern philosophy
Postmodern architecture
Postmodern art
Postmodernist film
Postmodern literature
Postmodern music
Postmodern theater
Critical theory
Globalization
Consumerism

Neo-Tribalism is the ideology that human beings have evolved to live in a tribal, as opposed to a modern, society, and thus cannot achieve genuine happiness until some semblance of tribal lifestyles has been re-created or re-embraced.

Contents

[edit] General ideology

Neo-tribalist ideology is rooted in the social philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and William Kingdon Clifford, who spoke of a "tribal self" thwarted by modern society. The Evolutionary Principle of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, which states that a species removed from the environment in which it evolved will become pathological, has been cited by Neo-tribalists as providing a scientific basis for their beliefs.

Certain aspects of industrial and post-industrial life, including the necessity of living in a society of strangers and interacting with organizations that have memberships far above Dunbar's number are cited as inherently detrimental to the human mind as it has evolved. In a 1985 paper, "Psychology, Ideology, Utopia, & the Commons," psychologist Dennis Fox proposed a number around 150 people. Recently some supporters of neo-Tribalism have put forth the argument that their ideas have been scientifically proven by the discipline of evolutionary psychology. This claim has been highly disputed, however.

Those that see Neo-Tribalism as a political or quasi-political movement distinguish themselves from the reactionary Tribalism present in many parts of the world by emphasizing the necessity of establishing a global, or at least national, network of connected co-operating tribes, as opposed to the isolated, quarrelling groups of traditional tribal society. This anticipates the criticism by advocates of contemporary culture that tribal societies were almost invariably more violent and oppressive than modern ones.

[edit] Sociological theory

Work by researchers such as Robert Putnam and a 2006 study published in the American Sociological Review [1] seem to support at least the more moderate neo-Tribalist arguments. Data has pointed to a general breakdown in the social structure of modern civilization due to more frequent moves for economic reasons, longer commutes and a lack of emphasis in the media narrative on the desirability of strong friendships and community bonds.

The French Sociologist Michel Maffesoli was perhaps the first to use the term neo-Tribalism in a scholarly context. Maffesoli predicted that as the culture and institutions of modernism declined, societies would look to the organizational principles of the distant past for guidance, and that therefore the post-modern era would be the era of Neo-Tribalism. However, Maffesoli's anti-scientism is at odds with those in the movement that look to evolutionary psychology and anthropology for support.

Commentators such as Ethan Watters have credited, or blamed, growing neo-Tribalist dynamics for contributing to the decline in marriage in the developed world, as 'modern tribes' form alternate means for satisfying social interaction.

Dr. Plinio Correa de Oliveira wrote in his book "Revolution & Counter-Revolution" that the Neo-Tribalist tendency would be the last stage of the Revolutionary process - although as a Catholic reactionary, Oliveira regarded this prospect with dread.

[edit] Moderate tendency

Moderate neo-Tribalists believe that a tribal social structure can co-exist with a modern technological infrastructure. This is sometimes referred to as Urban Tribalism. For example, under this scenario, people might reside in a large house or other building with a communal group of 12-20 individuals all abiding by a defined set of rules, cultural rituals and intimate relationships, but otherwise leading modern lives, going to a job, driving a car, etc. In that it attempts to harmonize two seemingly contradictory cultures, namely modern existence and tribalism, the moderate tendency can be considered syncretic in a cultural or even political sense.

The Moderate orientation is associated with commentators such as Ethan Watters and a generally optimistic view on the possibility of a peaceful and non-disruptive transition to neo-Tribalism. Moderates interpret the 'environment' mentioned in the Evolutionary Principle to be mainly social.

[edit] Radical tendency

Radical neo-Tribalists such as John Zerzan believe that healthy tribal life can only thrive after technological civilization has either been destroyed or severely reduced in scope. Daniel Quinn, associated with the New tribalists, formulated the concept of "walking away": abandoning the owner/conqueror worldview of civilization--though not necessarily its geographical space--and making a living with others in tribal businesses. Others, such as Derrick Jensen, tend to call for more violent action, as they believe that it is appropriate and necessary to actively accelerate or cause a collapse of civilization. Still others, such as The Tribe of Anthropik take a survivalist bent and believe that a collapse is inevitable no matter what is done or said and concentrate their efforts on surviving and forming tribal cultures in the aftermath.

In general radical neo-Tribalist groups tend to agree that the current population of humanity is unsustainable and thus a form of cultural change is fundamentally necessary, rather than simply desirable, and that the preferable, or perhaps inevitable form for society to take after this change is tribalism. The call for a revolution is intended to either accomplish or survive this change. Anarcho-Primitivism has been cited as an influence on or even a variant of radical neo-Tribalism.

Radicals interpret the 'environment' of the Evolutionary Principle to be mainly physical and economic.

[edit] Criticism

Critics have pointed out that membership in modern 'tribes' is voluntary and shallow, i.e. not based on deep cultural traditions and kinship ties. Therefore it is argued neo-Tribalism is likely to be nothing more than a fad - if it even really exists outside the minds of certain pundits and weekend hobbyists.

The movement has also been accused of being Eurocentric, insulting traditional indigenous cultures through insincere and inaccurate imitation, thereby reviving the 19th-century myth of the Noble savage. The writer Malcolm Bull argues that neo-Tribal or "autonomist" attacks on the capitalist system are in reality within the ideology of that system and serve ultimately to support it.

[edit] See also



[edit] External links



Category:Social philosophy Category:Subcultures Category:Intentional communities


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

New tribalists are adherents of Neo-Tribalism. They propose a New Tribal Revolution outlined in the Ishmael series by Daniel Quinn. New tribalists believe that the tribe fulfills an important role in human life, and that the dissolution of tribalism with the spread of civilization has come to threaten the very survival of the species. New tribalists seek to mimic indigenous peoples by organizing their own "tribes" based on underlying principles gleaned from ethnology and anthropological fieldwork.

Quinn argues that civilization is not working, and if we are to find a way of life that does work, we should draw our basic principles from human societies that are working. Quinn points to indigenous peoples and tribal societies as such examples, and advocates a social revolution--the New Tribal Revolution--to reform society using principles gleaned from the operation of such cultures.

[edit] "Takers" and "Leavers"

Quinn's work is specifically amoral, eschewing concepts of "right" or "wrong," and instead dealing only with whether or not a given culture is sustainable. Quinn divides cultures into one of two camps, based on a proposed challenge from our civilization to "take it or leave it." Thus, "Takers," members of the world-dominating culture of totalitarian agriculture, are those known as "civilized" peoples, while "Leavers" are seen as "uncivilized;" they are the ones who continue to live in a "primitive" tribal state. Quinn chose these terms specifically to speak of the differences without language loaded with moral judgment. "Taker" should not be used as a synonym for "bad," nor "Leaver" for "good." However, many naive new tribalists have done precisely this. More sophisticated new tribalists have also cautioned strongly against the self-appellation of the term, "Leaver," as acculturation makes any complete transition nearly impossible. Instead, they advocate the creation of a third category entirely. However, many naive new tribalists have ignored this, as well, and persist in referring to themselves as "Leavers."

[edit] "Mother Culture"

Quinn proposes an emergent, self-preserving mechanism of human cultures which he anthropomorphizes as "Mother Culture," in contrast to "Mother Nature." According to Quinn, every culture has a "Mother Culture," which can be thought of as the whole of internalized acculturation and "conscience," which pressures people to conform to the norms of their culture. As a consequence of the concerns raised in Quinn's work, the term is used almost exclusively to refer to the "Mother Culture" of "Taker" societies. This has led many naive new tribalists to conflate the term "Mother Culture" with "Taker" culture itself. In fact, Quinn supposes every culture to have a "Mother Culture," serving much the same evolutionary role as tribalism in the usual, pejorative sense.

[edit] Criticism

[edit] From indigenous groups

Critics of this movement, including some indigenous peoples, may regard new tribalists as interlopers or pirates of native culture, or seeking to dilute native sovereignty or threaten regard for native culture in general. Quinn condemned just such piracy in his online parable, "The Crystals of Rapanah," but the ambiguity of this relationship cannot be so easily dismissed. In one sense, the conscious syncretism of new tribalists is an outright piracy of native culture. In another sense, the new tribalist emphasis on learning not from specific cultures but from cross-cultural principles suggests that this is not the case.

[edit] Malthusianism and misanthropy

Many point to Quinn's critique of civilization as being essentially Malthusian. Critics also point to Quinn's criticism of civilization and advocacy of small populations as being misanthropic, particularly in that Quinn's solution may require a drastically smaller population than currently exists. While Quinn advocates a gradual decrease in human population rather than the massive die-off predicted by other primitivist writers, Quinn's willingness to accept wide-spread starvation to end the "Food Race" is seen as diametrically opposed to humanity's interests. Some of Quinn's supporters, however, state that large-scale starvation is already prevalent in civilization, and that Quinn's method attempts to have the best interests of humanity, as a sustainable species, in mind. According to Quinn, the way to achieve those interests is in stark opposition to the ideals and sentiments of the prevailing culture.

The critique of new tribalists as being essentially Malthusian is not entirely inaccurate, but requires a significant amendment to Malthus' theories. Malthus, like most demographers, held human population growth as an independent variable. Quinn proposes that humans, like all other animals, are in fact bound by their food supply; that is, that human population is a function of human food supply. Thus, new tribalists do not expect a Malthusian catastrophe in the usual sense, since in their model it is impossible for a population to grow larger than its food supply. Instead, new tribalists foresee the ever-increasing dynamic of food supply and population--Quinn's "Food Race"--leading eventually to an ecological catastrophe which may result in civilizational collapse and even human extinction. Because of this, the charge of misanthropy can only be upheld outside of the new tribalists' own mindset. If Quinn's arguments are accepted, then such wide-spread starvation is, in fact, the most humanitarian alternative. Quinn compared sending food to a starving population to throwing gas on a fire. Quinn's understanding of the relationship between food supply and human population is not accepted by all biologists or demographers. However, there still fails to be a counter Tribalism movement; as those that encounter the school of thought either become Neo-Tribalists themselves, or reject it and forget about it.

[edit] Reviving the "Noble Savage"

Other critics charge new tribalists with reviving the myth of the "Noble Savage," a concept explored by Romantics such as Rousseau and modern writers such as Aldous Huxley. Critics say that new tribalists' views of tribalism are essentially naive, and that the version of it imagined or even practiced by modern "tribalists" has much more in common with adherents' beliefs and fantasies on the subject than anything resembling "real" tribalism. A "savage," untouched by civilization, would be akin to an animal, and neither noble nor a good role model for a society. By viewing civilization as something that corrupts or taints a person's pure or natural state, new tribalists are succumbing, like Rousseau, to the romantic idea that the natural state of a human being, without the moderating effect of civilization, is somehow better. To the critics this notion is easily refutable, either by comparing human quality of life before civilization, or as humorist P.J. O'Rourke pointed out, by considering the natural state of children.

New tribalists do not deny the strong influence of Romantic thought in the movement. However, unlike the philosophy of the Noble Savage, they do not argue that civilization is inherently corrupting, but simply that many modern forms of civilization do not offer some of the most important benefits enjoyed by more tribal forms of society. They also point out some of the harms, to the individual, society, and the planet, that non-tribal civilizations seem to cause. New tribalists respond to the Noble Savage criticism by pointing out that their philosophy is, on the most practical level, driven by a cost-benefit analysis between forms of civilization grounded in anthropology and ethnography, not by romantic notions of purity, or the naive belief that all civilization is bad.

[edit] Luddism

Some criticize the degree to which new tribalists exploit modern technologies. Most new tribalists live in the First World, use modern technology to organize and communicate the movement, and benefit greatly from modern technology and civilization. This is seen as hypocritical by many critics, since without the vast, modern civilization despised by new tribalists, none of this technology would exist, and thus neither would the movement. However, that is a circle without an end, as without the modern civilization, there would be no need for a movement to get rid of it.

New tribalists often point out that their essential problem is with an unsustainable vision of constant growth that underlies our civilization, rather than technology per se, the primary target of Luddism. They have never taken a position against technology and see no hypocrisy in using technology, since the goal is a sustainable civilization, not a non-technical civilization one or one without any kind of continuing progress in science or technology.

[edit] Among historians and anthropologists

Historians and anthropologists who study Nearctic and Neotropic peoples are divided. Almost all are very sympathetic to the situation of indigenous peoples, and admire their cultures to varying degrees. Many of these scholars, in the Rousseauian tradition of the "Noble Savage", prefer these societies to European societies of the same period. Some speculate this may be due to the idiosyncratic convictions of these same historians, which may have a basis in personal cultural doubts. New tribalists contend that this is because of a deep need for social support beyond the family, and that experts' respect for native cultures reinforces these convictions. However, Quinn is not a purveyor of the "Noble Savage" ideology; according to him tribal societies are notable for their biological viability, and any ethical or aesthetic angles taken are secondary or even irrelevant within his main theory.

[edit] Activity

An important expression of this movement is the trend towards modern eco-villages. Ecoregional Democracy and peace movement advocates are also often new tribalists as well, as the groups share common ideals.

Languages