Monday, September 7, 2009

In my tribe...

While journeying in Tanzania this summer, Jessy (intrepid guide) asked K and I about tribalism in the United States. In Africa, tribalism is a hot topic in many countries and is seen as an impediment to development. Thinking tribally, the argument goes, damages the concept of nationhood and leads to favoritism and questionable decision-making in an effort to benefit a small, familiar group over a more anonymous, yet equally deserving crowd. In Tanzania, Jessy said, it doesn't matter what tribe you belong to. Almost anyone can point to an example of one group throwing its weight around to privilege their own. Understandably, this breeds resentment and apathy. Why bother, after all, if forces beyond your control have such power to shape your destiny?

So are there tribes in the USA? Jessy asked. And what he meant was: are there groups of people who are united by something fundamental or deeply rooted? And do these groups use their affiliation to promote their own interests to the exclusion, either natural or intentional, of others?

K and I hemmed and hawed a bit, searching for stateside equivalents to African tribes. We mentioned the American Indian tribes, of course, but the influence of these groups is not felt throughout society in the way Jessy meant. We considered class, religion and race next. But these categorizations seemed too unwieldy to fall under the heading of tribalim. Am I denying that people privilege their own class, ethnic group, religion or race? Of course not. But it's a reach (and potentially offensive) to refer to such behavior as tribalism rather than the specific "ism," like racism. We then pulled back to more light-hearted divisions by region. K spent 12 years living in Brooklyn. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Californian. Were these our tribes, each with its own linguistic pattern, cuisine and customs? Maybe. We spent some time making sweeping generalizations about East Coast and West Coast behaviors, trying to juxtapose a Wall Street banker with a surfer dude.

Then Jessy asked if it was unusual to marry a person from a different region in the USA? Did people avoid moving to a city not of their "tribe?" Could people change tribes if they changed locations? We realized that regionalism wasn't going to answer this question because it was so fluid. Tribal boundaries aren't fluid. People may choose to marry or live with another tribe in Tanzania, but such cases are rare and likely involve an acknowledged personal and cultural sacrifice. Moving from San Francisco to Baton Rouge, as startling as that might be, doesn't carry the same implications. People from the same tribe, Jessy explained, share a common understanding that is not easily put aside.

I was ready to give up, or attempt to explain poorly translatable distinctions like wine vs. beer drinkers or Yankees vs. Red Sox fans when K hit the nail on the head.

Political parties.

It wasn't always so, but we are all aware these days of how politics is no longer centered on opinions and policies. It's about how you view the world, how you live your life and how you think other people should live theirs. We call it the Culture Wars, but it is nothing less than the tribalization of the system.

Let's see how it measures up to the African version. Jessy is a member of the Chugga tribe of Tanzania. It is the tribe of his family and the foundation of his personal values. He is unlikely to marry outside of this tribe, not because he believes himself superior but because his own cultural perspective might be alienating to his spouse or vice versa. He would certainly not change his tribe willingly as he moved through life. To do so would mean denying lifelong beliefs. He is not in a position to make decisions that affect the lives of others. If he were, would he favor his own tribe? Probably. It is true that he would feel most comfortable with those who shared his outlook on the world and people he is closest too, people he spoke to us about during the journey, are those from his own tribe.

Does American political reality compare? Let's take me, RR, a member of the liberal Democrat tribe. This tribe didn't form my values, but my values are reflected (for the most part) in this tribe. It's true most of my friends are also liberal Democrats (though not all) and I can't imagine a relationship with a hard-core conservative. But what really clinched the issue , from the perspective of the road trip discussion in Tanzania, was this: to change my political party at this point in history really would represent a fundamental shift in my values. I wouldn't just have to change my views on taxation or the environment to become a Republican. I would have to change almost everything about how I see the world. I wouldn't do this lightly. In fact, I can't imagine doing it at all--and the same, I think, is true for most other Democrats, as well as Republicans. This, to me, indicates a more deeply rooted, tribalesque relationship to a political party, one that goes far beyond practicality and policy. In fact, as research has shown, people these days will often vote against policies in their own best interest because they are viewed as coming from the opposing tribe. We have been treated to several grueling months of healthcare debate obscured by the most truth-defying acts of blatant tribalism. Underinsured working people willingly believe that free healthcare is evil socialism rather than a enormous weight off their minds and pocketbooks. All because it's championed by the opposing tribe.

In Africa, countries with only two tribes are much more likely to fall apart dramatically (and often tragically) than countries with a melting pot/salad bowl mix. Rwanda, for example, is a country with two tribes. Cameroon, which is hardly ever in the news, is a country with many. I don't want to imply that the USA is heading for genocide and mass uprising. But I do think that there's more than one way to stop a country in its tracks, and we are nearing the point where inspired ideas, desperately needed leadership and, yes, even people's lives are being sacrificed in order to maintain the dominance (or regain the dominance) of one political tribe or the other.

Many countries in Africa are trying to confront tribalism, understanding that progress cannot be made while such divisions exist. We might want to take a lesson from their struggles before our own tribalism kills the country all of us--Democrats and Republicans--claim to love.

5 comments:

BrianB said...

Interesting analysis. I think you are right that there are a lot of tribes in the US but none that approaches the level of tribalism you see in other countries.

Sometimes we use terms like civil war casually when talking about sports games (Oregon/Oregon state football I believe) or political disputes or whatever. It takes a visit to a country that is TRULY divided by tribal strife (like your travels in Africa or mine in Bosnia) to put that in perspective. We may have racial/class/political tensions, but we don't have the inter-generational blood vendettas and hatreds.

As for your thought on political parties being the tribal scourge of our country, I see what you see, but I have to disagree that it's a big problem.

Yes, the Washington culture is tribal to the core. Yes, you have two sides that are out to win at almost any cost. Yes, representatives come to Washington with a sense of idealism and desire to do good and almost all seem to get caught up in the us vs. them mentality.

But I have remember the quote (can't remember who but maybe Chuchill) that "democracy is the worst system in the world except for all the others".

The framers of the constitution designed a system fully aware of the frailties of the human beings that would be participating in government. They designed us a republic that would flourish in spite of it. In fact, the system of checks and balances harnesses the natural animosities to achieve a better government.

And it is absolutely false that things today are any worse than in the near or distant past. Today with TV and media up the wazoo, boorish behavior or telling lies gets you busted pretty quickly. Go back 100 years to Lincoln's or Jefferson's presidential runs. Today's character assassins and truth benders are pikers compared to what they had to deal with (and dealt out themselves--Abe wasn't so honest). So I'm not in the least bit worried for the future of the republic or the quality of the ideas we get in government. Petty squabbles will get sorted out and politicians will eventually get down to business. overall, the rancor probably slows government down, but as a conservative, I take that as a good thing. I wouldn't be the least bit bothered if health care reform stalls for a year. Bills passed with a "this is an emergency" attitude (banks bailouts, patriot act, etc) always come out terribly flawed. Taking the winter to reflect on the costs and benefits and getting a feel for what the people actually WANT (is it reforming the abuses in the insurance system or is it something that moves us toward universal government coverage? We have yet to get an honest answer to that out of Obama who clearly supports universal coverage at heart but won't say so.

So things will work out. And in the end, the partisan rancor doesn't really spread out of the halls of government except for short bursts during election seasons or during focused issue campaigns as you have underway now. I don't know many neighbors that hate each other over political issues, and those that do are usually fighting over local issues (like whether Carpinteria should make money by allowing more oil drilling), not the great red/blue divide.

BrianB said...

Oh, and I forgot my central point I was going to make about the difference between our politics and one in a country where tribalism dominates.

Our political parties ARE rooted in ideas and ideologies. You're a democrat if you believe in the ability of government to take more of our money and do more good with it than we would do ourselves. You're a republican if you believe that government should be limited to as few functions as necessary. There is an element of identity politics in America, particularly in the democratic party, but it is at this point more an extension of class identity and which vision of government is going to supported by which class.

Contrast that to Bosnia--the political parties are purely ethnic. If you are Croat, you vote for the Croat party. Ditto for Serbs and Muslims. It's all about getting one up on your neighbor, and this extends from the highest levels of government down to neighborhood politics. If a Muslim runs the trash pickup, service in Croat and Serb neighborhoods suffers. If a Serb runs the police, Serbian gangs get a free pass to run the streets. Definitely an order of magnitude beyond what we have here.

Ray said...

I totally agree with you, B, about so many things here. Your point about the deep rifts in Bosnia and places in Africa is true--and I overstated the case in my comparison to the States. It's true that the only Republicans and Democrats getting overly hyped up about the tribal divisions mainly hang out in Washington. Ordinary folks (garbage collectors, police forces, etc.) don't care who belongs to which party as they are doing their jobs. We can talk about the consistently of public services across race or class lines, but political parties don't enter into the discussion.

However, I do think that it's something to watch, especially as politics become more rooted in other identities or polarized along demographic or even geographic lines (as they have begun to be in the whole red state vs. blue state thing). One commonality among countries devastated by tribal/ethnic conflict is that later accounts always include comments like this: "We had been living side by side for years and one day we just started killing each other." Of course, it's not "all of a sudden." But to ordinary people that's sometimes how it seems. No one ever expects dehumanizing violence. But it happens when people are persistently permitted to dehumanize each other--and it often starts among politicians in the public sphere.

I think of this summer's hysteria over "death panels." No intelligent person, liberal or conservative, would give that rhetoric a second thought. It is beyond ridiculous that universal healthcare would involve the kind of scenario propagated by opponents to healthcare reform. But it was allowed air time. Ordinary people were sobbing into microphones, having been sold this bill of goods. 'The liberals want to kill old people. The Democrats and Obama are going to put your granny to sleep.' This is dehumanizing rhetoric, unbelievably violent. In fact, it reminded me of the virulent anti-Semitism in the mainstream media that preceded the rise of fascism in Europe. Am I overreacting? Did "death panels" actually hurt anyone? No. Not yet. But it's not harmless. It's a violent lie, and it lived a long life in the press. It might not compare to the smear campaigns of old, but I'd like to think we've moved beyond that. We certainly should not be excusing today's lies by suggesting that things could be worse.

The only cure for this is pluralism as well as responsible, hard-hitting reporting. The only people pointing out inconsistencies, glaring hypocrisy and downright lies should NOT be comedian news broadcasters. 'Nuf said...

Unknown said...

Good thoughts, R -- it';s you "old tribe" of faux journalists who have been fueling this increasingly ridiculous debate, making up tribal disputes, Grand Canyon-like in the body politic.

Emily Van Ark said...

I have a hard time with this analogy because "tribe" is strongly tied to the concept of family in my mind, and my very large extended family has a very broad spectrum of political beliefs in it. None of which keeps us from getting together for family picnics and Christmas parties and events in between, singing and eating and playing games and enjoying each others' company.

But I don't have a better answer right now. *Shrug*