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.