Tribalism in the new millennium

I suggest that ad hoc tribalism is a distinctive feature of Millennialism. I would like to make a few observations and some explanation of what I mean.

Tribes are family groups in the largest sense. By 1968, the musical Hair had confirmed the idea of a tribe as an ideological family rather than a large biological one. The Tribe in Hair, a very post-modern group, unites against the Vietnam War and uses the live theatrical event in an attempt to motivate others to join. Joining then required groups to be formed in a variety of geographical locations.

Today tribal formations are also formed around a single idea, but they are comprised of widely scattered individuals, and proximity is not at all essential. Further, there appears to be no requirement for loyalty to the group outside the primary focus that brought the group together. Players in on-line games, for example, require no conformity to a single political viewpoint, only a loyalty to the game. Interest in author Stephenie Meyer’s website neither requires nor precludes an interest in Anne Rice, Brigham Young University, or vampires outside Meyer‘s own books, but a community has formed that may rapidly become a tribe. Orson Scott Card’s website allows users to collaborate in his writing.

Both in and outside the internet, groups form powerful ties around such things as trivial as an emerging musical group or things as profound as the upheaval over marriage.

In large issues, such as the question of whether or not to legalize same-gender marriage, groups coalesce from among widely divergent backgrounds. While these sorts of coalitions have been a part of the political landscape since the beginning of politics, they currently form in bonds that allow for the coalition to focus itself exclusively on the single issue without unnecessary distractions made by peripheral issues. Proponents of traditional marriage, for example, may rapidly create a coalition formed of Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and even some atheists, without ever having the varied groups confront each other in any self-identifying way. All intra-coalition communication may be done electronically, allowing the varied groups to bypass issues that may have broken such coalitions in the past. Diplomacy is unnecessary.

There is both convenience and danger in our current ability to form rapid connections. There are a number of issues, for example, around which a variety of coalitions have formed, that are so powerful that there can be no compromise on, and around which is formed a coalition so large that majority rule cannot gain sway. For the United States, abortion, homosexuality, and the forced secularization of society come to mind immediately. All three issues have engaged large constituencies, and coalitions of like-minded individuals and groups have joined together to the point of polarization in American elections.

I should note that there have always been factions in American politics. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton anticipated that and hoped for checks and balances to keep them from destroying the country. The difference now is that the factions and coalitions can form and reform so rapidly that there are no real checks and balances to stop them except other powerful coalitions which must form as quickly.

The changing face of the political scene can rapidly cause a reassembly on other lines, thus fracturing things further. Groups that band together against same-gender marriage may disintegrate on US/Israel policy, creationism in the schools, or whether or not Joseph Lieberman or Mitt Romney might have been viable candidates for president.

What is the best solution to a potentially explosive problem? The post-modern approach was to preach tolerance, but the tolerance of post-modernism was intolerance of tradition, and that has caused a retrenchment by a variety of traditionalists , many of whom are happy to have seen the demise of legislated racism and sexism, but oppose the encroachment of promiscuity and genderless culture. To believe that all human beings can be friends is not to believe that we should all be “friends with privileges.”

No solution can be found by using the post-modern tactics of winning debates by shouting down opponents or protesting them into submission. There must be a return to carefully reasoned discourse, which strongly implies that our current trend toward a post-literate society must be reversed. Carefully reasoned discourse has the capacity to reveal truth, and truth has the unique ability to save us from ourselves.

The Millennialist

It is becoming increasingly evident that post-modernism is dead.

It is not surprising; post-modernism reached its apex in the 1980s and has been slowly breaking off into shards of its former self since then. Besides, the average shelf-life of a period’s definitive qualities is usually only about a half century at most.

Because I spent so many good years of my adolescence and young adulthood enjoying self-referent art, anachronism, eclecticism, and the incessant questioning and disruption of tradition and authority, I watch the death of post-modernism with some wistfulness.

And I watch what’s coming with both trepidation and wonder.

I call it Millennialism--not because it reflects the expected Christian Millennium (it doesn’t), but because it occurs at the turn of the millennium, and it thinks of itself as the beginning of a new order of things.

I wish to define it in language easy to be understood, and I wish to comment on it in a variety of ways, including observations both judgmental and non-. I wish to mark its advent with an eye both celebratory and critical. I wish to approach it as a poet as well as a chronicler, a healer as well as an amputator, a participant as well as a by-stander. I wish to argue for its wonders and against its excesses.

I wish to engage in a pre-Millennialist dialog on the meaning of what’s happening, encouraging the good, quelling the bad, and debating which is which.

Here is what I see emerging, and what I believe will be some of the major hallmarks of the next half-century:

Ad hoc tribalism: Communities are no longer formed largely by geography, but electronically. Geographically formed groups still exist, but many times they are divided by a more precise division of interests than was ever possible before.

Neo-Rococo art: Whereas, formerly, Rococo art was intricate and ornate in appearance, now art is intricate and ornate in layers of accessible information.

Accepted lack of privacy and/or casual exhibitionism: There is little concern for lack of privacy, and there is an effort to display oneself globally. This includes the wide acceptance of intimate sexuality publicly displayed.

There are also some trends that I think may likely manifest themselves more thoroughly in the near future:

Disregard for innovation, and a tendency to accept innovation as an expected thing. This is in contrast to the wonder and fear of technology throughout much of the Twentieth Century.

Continued move toward post-literacy. Written communication will become increasingly irrelevant or unnecessary; filmed communication will become more important.

Democratization of the arts. More and more people will be able to create their own visual and performing art at increasingly high professional levels, using technology to replace skill.

Widespread acceptance of the overturning of traditional norms and values. During Modernism and Post-modernism, there were concerted efforts by the avant-garde to change accepted behaviors and aesthetics. There are no more taboos, except a return to established norms.

Science will have largely replaced religion as the arbiter of societal mores.

Increased polarization of large coalitions, joining against each other on issues such as religion, abortion, climate change, and sexuality. Previous issues, such as gender and race equity, will have been settled.

I am both optimistic and concerned. I see so much positive in many trends, while I decry what I see as avoidable decay.

But I also confess, I want to the be first to document it.

We are in a new age. I hope we do something good with it.