Melançon Enterprises • a multidivision multinational since 1980

Hello Arielle: No, I don't think organizing by common race, sex, religion, nationality, common interest, or anything else is inherently bad at all. And I'd love for Becky to expand more but I think what she's onto one of the key differences for when such tribal arrangement is good: when there is respect for all other people that may not be in your specific equality or rights movement, but are part of the larger, overlapping movement for human rights and equality. Some of the better-known humanitarians have expanded the respect to other animals and all life.

I was more trying to suggest that identifying with more inclusive groups, with the infamous "all else equal" proviso, is better. Working for one's own self-interest is good, working for the good of one's family is better, working with others for the betterment of your community (neighborhood, dorm) is a greater thing still, working for the advancement of one's whole people (defined as female Muslims or Christian Scientist youth or all Blacks) can be more meaningful and powerful, working in a group-crossing cause like the labor movement can potentially be even greater, and truly working with people from all over for improving humanity's lot could be the most amazing thing ever.

However, as you say, there is a likely balance and trade-off with effective organizing. A group that is not able to organize is useless, no matter how inclusive or noble the cause.

So going back to Becky, I would argue that having R-E-S-P-E-C-T for others means seeing (some of) the tribes you belong with as part of overall movements for liberty and justice.

This would make it hard, for instance, for me to work toward the economic advancement of male Jewish U.S. citizens with respect for others because it is not a goal, as a group, that corresponds to a broader need. Working for the economic advancement of Massachusetts workers could be done with respect (but doing so is not a given).

An even better example is that nationalism instead of tribalism in the third world, where the sentiment has been used towards raising up an entire nation that has been held back in economic development is often a progressive force, whereas nationalism in a first-world country is often used to rationalize subjugation of others and can be a reactionary force.

The great drivers of, for instance, anti-slavery and civil rights and women's rights and the labor movement have tended to embrace a long-term, inclusive vision for better lives, liberty, and justice for all. Economic fairness and opportunity is often the key unifying thread. The more inclusive approach is also often more challenging to the organized elites and more fiercely opposed. (Many of us here on Triiibes may well be in quite an elite group in terms of income, wealth, political involvement, and even political influence, but I'd bet very few of us much want to organize primarily for our interests as rich or powerful people; that's not a tribe we want to put effort into.)

The point is that the potential for good is greater with more inclusive groups, and the question is whether the effective, natural, and fulfilling aspects of tribes can effectively apply to larger groups.