In loving, living memory, John Melançon 1928 – 2007
Status
Recent blog posts
- How to kill a popular government institution with us since the founding of the country before everyone's eyes
- Evil Neighbor Blues
- My grandfather is doing fantastic
- Update on Housing Demolotions in Bangalore, India
- In which the hospital attempts to fulfill my grandfather's death wish
- Update on Alfred Natkin from Cape Cod Hospital
- Doing What One Can Do
- Proposition 37 Million Dollars
- Andrew Judson Grice (1969-2012)
- Peasants and migrant workers rising up, organizing, and even winning in repressive China
Front-paged Notes
Journal
User login
Search
Syndicate
The Down Side of Tribes
Tue, 2008/08/19 - 3:09am — Benjamin Melançon
[posted first at the closed-off triiibes.com]
I am very much in favor of people's self-organization, especially to meet common needs and dreams, in fact it's the point of People Who Give a Damn. To the extent that this, and building communities, is part of what we mean by tribes, that is great. But there's also an aspect of human progress where tribes are bad.
Nationalism is better than tribalism; pan-Africanism or the Bolivarian movement in Latin America is better than nationalism; the woman's rights movement is better than vehicles for the interests of, say, wealthy white women; identifying as a person is better than identifying in opposition to people of other religions, sexes, races, or nationalities.
(If I ever have part two of this thought I'll post elsewhere... for now it will hide in my blog.)
I make a living doing web design and development with a great team
The Agaric Design Collective
I'm trying to make possible a worldwide nonviolent revolution for justice, liberty, and making more good things doable.
People Who Give a Damn
Created and maintained by
Favorite Quotations
"One should not pursue goals that are easily achieved. One must develop an instinct for what one can just barely achieve through one's greatest efforts."
--quote to Walter Daellenbach, May 31, 1915.
Comments
My reply to 2 comments (it's a private forum so imagine theirs)
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.