{"id":42849,"date":"2020-08-06T12:59:58","date_gmt":"2020-08-06T19:59:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/?p=42849"},"modified":"2020-08-06T18:18:34","modified_gmt":"2020-08-07T01:18:34","slug":"our-tribal-future-a-ramble","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/2020\/08\/06\/our-tribal-future-a-ramble\/","title":{"rendered":"Our tribal future (a ramble)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The “left” wants somehow to unite us all behind ideas that are inherently divisive. (“My life matters more than your life,” “I belong to more victim classes than you do,” and “If you don’t think exactly what I happen to think today, you’re evil and should die.”)<\/p>\n

A growing faction on the “right” (including, apparently, former quasi-pseudo libertarian Peter Thiel), wants to unite us all behind big-government nationalism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here’s my bet: neither plan will fly, at least not outside of academia, think tanks, and their devotees.<\/p>\n

The only thing that will ever unite millions in the foreseeable future is a Lathe of Heaven<\/em> solution<\/a>, which will have legions of problems of its own and be short-lived.<\/p>\n

And that’s okay. Disunity has plenty of virtues. We just aren’t feeling them right now because our particular disunity is so new and so chaotic.<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

In fact, while shared cultural touchstones, coupled with respect for difference, are wholesome, creative, and very much needed, it’s safe to say that too much political<\/em> unity is a very bad thing. <\/p>\n

Political unity is — despite the high-flying and noble rhetoric often attached to it — always the unity by and for the powerful and wealthy. It’s been that way since forever. The U.S. may have been the first country ever consciously created “by and for the people,” but it took only a decade or so for the Hamiltonian elite to begin asserting its true intent. And after recent decades of prosperous passivity we’re witnessing the culmination of Hamiltonian thinking right now. And Marxian thinking, too. Whotta combo. (Hint: In political practice, the two aren’t as different as they sound in theory.)<\/p>\n

Our current situation looks like disunity on steroids, but the plain fact is that whichever political faction comes out on top (if any), and whichever illusion of unity emerges from the present chaos, the chief beneficiaries will be the Usual Suspects of power. The beneficiaries are unlikely to be thee and me. Not individual rights. Not reason. And certainly not liberty. <\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

Except those pockets of liberty we create. Around the edges and in the shadows.<\/p>\n

The tribalism we’ve talked about before. <\/p>\n

I’ve been thinking. And thinking. And thinking. About how future tribalism might work. Or not. <\/p>\n

I’ve especially been thinking about the “not” part lately. How many of us thought we’d built pretty solid potential “tribes” we could rely on and contribute to in hard times, only to learn that some of our most presumably solid friends were ready to act as kapos for the state<\/a>* the moment said state pushed the (time for you to) panic button?<\/p>\n

Poof. There went our tribes. Or at least there went our confidence that our tribes would be there when tribe members needed each other. And there went our confidence in our own ability to distinguish real allies from fair-weather friends.<\/p>\n

That got me thinking about how tribes actually function.<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

Somewhat of a digression, but really not: I’m seeing three potential models for our tribal future.<\/p>\n

1. Actual tribes.<\/strong><\/strong> Small groups of people born and raised together, bound and bonded by traditions that go back hundreds or thousands of years, and usually also bonded by shared blood, experiences, beliefs, threats, and survival needs. Frequently highly hierarchical and rule (or taboo)-driven. <\/p>\n

2. Monastic establishments.<\/strong><\/strong> Small groups of people who’ve chosen to live together, bound and bonded by service to a higher-than-human ideal. Nearly always hierarchical. Definitely rule-driven.<\/p>\n

3. Communities.<\/strong><\/strong> Small-to-medium groups of people who only happen to live in proximity to each other, pursuing their own individual and familial good in their own ways, but bound by certain shared interests (e.g. neighborhood protection or a need to keep waterlines open and roads passable). Generally far less hierarchical, and (regardless of whatever laws-on-paper exist) more driven by the Golden Rule and common courtesy than by dictated procedures or tribal taboos.<\/p>\n

Any one of these models could serve us, and serve the preservation of liberty, reason, and knowledge in an age that ceases to value them. They’re all similar — and different. For purposes of this ramble, I’m lumping them all under the rubric of “tribes,” though the monastic and community models are more realistic for those not born into real tribal circumstances.<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

So. Thinking about this, I’m confronted with some maybe-not-so-randomish thoughts about what makes tribes work — and why there are so many obstacles to making our (often far-flung) tribes truly functional.<\/p>\n

In no particular order:<\/p>\n