It seems there is lots being written about tribes these days. Here are three interesting examples:
Tribes in Iraq and Afghanistan
Three years ago (though I just found it recently, shame) Stephen Pressfield wrote an article called, “It’s the Tribes, Stupid,” where he makes a convincing argument that what we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is not Islam, but rather “…tribalism articulated in terms of religion.” He argues that tribalism seeks security over freedom, hence strongmen, not democracies, have ruled their cultures for years.
Pressfield rejects the notion that an American-style democracy with widespread power-sharing cannot survive in Iraq or Afghanistan. I’ll be honest, there’s a large part of me that agrees and has for the past several years, but it’s very hard to stomach the loss of life, money and time it has taken to prove this point. I would like to hear/study more from the Iraqis and Afghanis themselves on freedom vs. security before concluding that Pressfield is spot on, but he definitely has my ear at this point.
Here are his words (emphasis mine):
“The tribe is the most ancient form of social organization. It arose from the hunter-gatherer clans of pre-history. A tribe is small. It consists of personal, face-to-face relationships, often of blood. A tribe is cohesive. Its structure is hierarchical. It has a leader and a rigid set of norms and customs that defines each individual’s role. Like a hunting band, the tribe knows who’s the top dog and knows how to follow orders. What makes Islam so powerful in the world today is that its all-embracing discipline and order overlay the tribal mind-set so perfectly. Islam delivers the certainty and security that the tribe used to. It permits the tribal way to survive and thrive in a post-tribal and super-tribal world.”
—
“The heart of every tribal male is that of a warrior. Even the most wretched youth in a Palestinian refugee camp sees himself as a knight of Islam. The Pathan code of nangwali prescribes three virtues – nang, pride; badal, revenge; melmastia, hospitality. These guys are Apaches. What the warrior craves before all else is respect. Respect from his own people, and, even more, from his enemy. When we of the West understand this, as Alexander did, we’ll have taken the first step toward solving the unsolvable.”
—
“To deal successfully with the tribe, a negotiator of the West must first grant it its pride and honor. The tribe’s males must be addressed as warriors; its women must be treated with respect. The tribe must be left to its own land, to govern as it deems best. If you want to get out of a tribal war, you must find a scenario by which the tribe can declare itself victorious.”
—
“Perhaps in the end, our leaders, like Alexander, will figure some way to bring the tribal foe around. More likely in my opinion, they’ll arrive at the same conclusion as did Lord Roberts, the legendary British general. Lord Roberts fought (and defeated militarily) tribesmen in two bloody wars in Afghanistan in the 19th century. His conclusion: get out. Lord Roberts’ axiom was that the farther away British forces remained from the tribesmen, the more likely the tribesmen were to feel warmly toward them; the closer he got, the more they hated him and the more stubbornly and implacably they fought against him.”
Building Tribes for Security in a Chaotic World
John Robb, author of “Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization,” wrote a blog post on how to build your own tribe. He views the tribe as an important structure for security and survival in a global depression. Though traditional tribes have been erased in the last few centuries (at least in the West) due to, as Robb explains, “…pressures from the nation-state that saw them as competitors and the marketplace that saw them as impediments,” they can pick up the slack where the nuclear family or social circle have failed.
With a tribe, Robb says, you have, “A group of people that you are loyal to you and you are loyal in return.” Sidenote: I’d be interested to ask Robb how a tribe differs from a typical street gang because the sound similar in many ways. Anyway, here’s how Robb says one should go about starting their own tribe:
A strong tribe, in this post-industrial environment*, isn’t built from the top down. Instead it is built organically from the bottom up. A simple tribe starts with cementing ties to your extended family, a connection of blood. The second step is to extend that network to include other families and worthy individuals. A key part of that is to build fictive kinship, a sense of connectedness that leads to the creation of loyalty to the group. That kinship is built through (see Ronfeldt’s paper for some background on this):
- Story telling. Shared histories and historical narratives.
- Rites of passage. Rituals of membership. Membership is earned not given due to the geographic location of birth or residence.
- Obligations. Rules of conduct and honor. The ultimate penalty being expulsion.
- Egalitarian and often leaderless organization. Sharing is prized.
- Multi-skilled. Segmental organization (lots of redundancy among parts).
- Two-way loyalty. The tribe protects the members and the members protect the tribe. If this isn’t implemented, you don’t have a tribe, you have a Kiwanis club.
Building Tribes to Spread Ideas
Seth Godin, author of “Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us,” is interested in building tribes of a different kind, the ones that spread ideas and change the world. Here’s Seth Godin’s recent TED presentation where he explains why the world needs YOU to lead a tribe.
Popularity: 1% [?]
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
From the context of understanding what we’re dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan, I agree that we must know and care deeply about their tribal structure, respect it, and work with it. From a high-level, future perspective, I completely disagree with the construct of tribes. How are they dissimilar from cliques? Or, like you said, gangs!?
Cementing ties through blood, developing rites of passage, engendering loyalty and respect for the community also breeds distrust of other tribes does it not? What about tribal warfare? Or culture becoming an exclusive religion?
We are at a war of ideologies and this is just the kind of stuff we’re fighting against, quite possibly from the mentality of being a superior tribe. Maybe that’s why we connect with this framework? Maybe this allows us to respect other tribes because we’re recognizing our status as a tribe itself?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m only playing devil’s advocate. It’s hard to understand just exactly what is going on unless you have a group of liaisons at work who can be at least a little impartial. I’ve seen this work in the kibbutzim in northern Israel. Each kibbutz represents its own philosophies, yet the premise is one of harmony. So I’m not against tribes wholeheartedly as they do provide a communal sense of belonging and avoid a lot of the socio-cultural problems an individualistic culture like America faces. I don’t want these tribes to lose their sense of outward communication and connectivity.
Seth Godin’s version of ideological tribes is exciting and mixed with Kevin Kelly’s 1,000 true fans, it builds an enormous community of individual hubs that can communicate. While still cliquey, I think (hope) the goal is to create bridges across the hubs to share information and ideas while at the same time recognizing perspective bias.
@ Akshay,
You bring up great points. First, let me say that I agree that going back to the tribe seems like a social regression in many ways. I posted the above examples not because I’m advocating tribalism, but more because I find it interesting that in the 21st century we’re looking back at tribes with so much interest. What does this say about us?
The tribes that Seth Godin is describing are much more open it seems than the tribes of Robb, however they are the products of vastly different environments.
Robb is looking to tribes as more of a security measure in the event of a global depression where traditional security forces are no longer effective or relevant. Take a place like Mexico where some cities have become overrun by drug lords and police are either gone or paid off. A tribe, though close-minded in many ways, may be a good idea in this case simply for survival.
Godin’s tribes assume a decent security situation and are more like interest-groups than actual tribes like you’d find in Afghanistan, willing to kill for each other. He talks more about rallying people around a cause for the sake of making the world better or more informed, not necessarily for day-to-day survival.
If I had to summarize I’d put the three views this way:
- Pressfield’s tribes are the traditional eastern tribe that have existed and continue to exist in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe not ideal, but the way things are there. A necessity in an unstable, chaotic world?
- Robb’s are of the sort that would likely spring up in areas where security had deteriorated to a point where traditional defenders (police, military) could not be counted on.
- Godin’s tribes are more like the Livestrong campaign or an environmental group – good for spreading an idea, but not necessarily for keeping the kiddies safe.
Not that you don’t know this, but I think it’s important to look at each tribe in their own context. The thing that most interests me is not so much the merits of tribal living, but its connection to the security. Only under societies where the rule of law is upheld and people feel safe can there be openness to “…create bridges across the hubs to share information and ideas…” as you say.
I’d be interested to talk more about the sliding scale of security vs. freedom…it’s an interesting question that I haven’t thought much about, but it seems they counter each other like a teeter-totter. More freedom equals less security and visa versa.
Cameron,
I see where you’re coming from, especially with how you broke down the philosophies around tribes. I knew you meant that, but had to take the opportunity to go on my diatribe (pun intended).
I love the way you put it in the last paragraph: “the sliding scale of security vs. freedom.” It immediately sparked a post idea in my mind about how that sliding scale exists in our personal lives as well as at a high-level as we’re discussing it. Do we as individuals risk our security to attain more freedom and also, do we have less freedom in exchange for greater security; job, income, stability, so on.