Beyond tribalism and fundamentalism to a common humanity
From Gaza to the world as a whole
The isms that threaten the future
The war in Gaza reflects four isms that not only make the conflict seemingly irresolvable, but in their larger scope threaten the human future.
The first two are nationalism and militarism. Nationalism, the mythology of the nation-state whose borders are contiguous with a singular ethnic group. This is an idea largely originating in Europe in recent centuries, a virus that has spread around the world to cause much agony. Militarism, its close relative but with roots as old as civilization, the notion that political and social problems can be solved by military force, only to perpetuate endless cycles of violence. Both are on full display in the Gaza war. I have dealt with nationalism here, and with militarism here.
The last two are more deeply rooted, and are in many ways the sources of the first two. Tribalism, the notion of us and them, that we can stick with our own yet deny the other. And fundamentalism, the idea that we can fit our understanding of the universe into a narrow set of unchanging beliefs that all should follow. These represent evolutionary challenges that originate deep in the development of the human species and play out in the present.
Increased competition for resources in a world built on economic competition promotes tribalism. When it is perceived that resources are limited, such as the limited land and water of Palestine-Israel, the question is who gets kicked off the bus. People tend to cluster around their own, and against those they see as the other.
At the same time, an increasingly complex world challenges us. When knowledge is fluid and changing, and the world is full of uncertainties, one response is to retreat into rigid, unthinking certainties unresponsive to real developments and facts. Such as a claim to the whole of a land based on ancient writings despite the fact other people live there.
Back to the golden rule
In the larger sense, transcending these isms has become vital for human survival, indeed for the survival of life on this planet as a whole. Because the rapid growth of human powers provided by science and technology have given us the ability to destroy ourselves if we do not find ways to see beyond our narrow boundaries, to understand and pursue the common good. The threat of a larger Mideast war involving nuclear weapons puts a bold underscore under this proposition.
This requires a change that is nothing less than spiritual. Not spiritual in the sense of believing in an unseen world, but in the sense of the spirit in which we live. Literally, to go to the Latin root of the word, spiritus, meaning breath. What is the spirit in which we live and breathe?
This is not to decry having tribes or basic beliefs that inform our actions. Humans are tribal people. We lived in small groups most of our existence. And we tend to form social groupings on the scale of tribes. Sociologists note we tend to assemble in social groupings of several hundred people. But we must transcend the ancient tendency towards us versus them. Anthropologists note it is common in the human experience that tribes’ own names for themselves are “the people,” and for outsiders “the enemy.” In a world that demands we achieve higher and broader levels of cooperation, we must move beyond this to see a broader human commonality.
And to recognize that whatever our particular belief, one fundamental concept runs through the world’s spiritual traditions that affirms this commonality. That good old golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. I especially like the version from Judaism. “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; All the rest is commentary.”
Say that again. All the rest is commentary.
That idea carries through to the New Testament. “The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Galatians 5:14) But those words do not start with the New Testament. They can be found in the Old Testament. Leviticus 19:18 says, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Whether one believes in an unseen universe, or simply the world in front of our eyes, whether one believes these writings are divinely inspired or simply ancient literature, these words of wisdom are an enduring guide to how we should conduct ourselves as human beings. Seeing past our own selves and our own tribes to understand the commonality of us all.
The afflictions of tribalism and fundamentalism
Stack these words up against forms of biblical literalism that produce exactly the opposite results, and one can see the absurdity of fundamentalist approaches, especially when they have roots in tribalism. No better example can be seen than how a certain faction of far-right Israeli politics has taken words written around 2,500 years ago to give them a right to displace Palestinians from their homes, to commit what South Africa has now officially charged as genocide in the International Court of Justice. To not see the Palestinians as neighbors, unlike Jews who lived side by side with them for centuries, but instead to commit acts that parallel the most hateful visited upon the Jewish people.
Ironically, Arabs and Jews alike are semites. Being anti-Arab is by definition being antisemetic. Many Palestinians are in fact descendants of Jewish populations converted to Islam. A tribalism also divides Jews in Israel between Ashkenazi, who migrated from Europe, and the Mizrahi, who come from the Mideast and North Africa. The Ashkenazi have generally had the upper hand in Israeli politics, dominating the Supreme Court. The Netayahu government, which has a large Mizrahi element, wants to strip the court of power. The conflict over judicial reform that was consuming Israel before the war is substantially a tribal conflict.
The affliction of tribalism is rife throughout the world. In the U.S., a kind of political tribalism is dividing the country in ways that make it almost impossible to address common problems. The tendency to look on the political opposition as a threat is widespread. While Republicans and Democrats have typically had unfavorable views of the other party, the share who have very unfavorable views has skyrocketed. In 1994, 21% or Republicans and 17% of Democrats held this opinion. By 2022, those shares had risen to 62% of Republicans and 57% of Democrats.
Meanwhile, that same year, an NBC News poll found, “Eighty-one percent of Democrats say they believe the Republican Party’s agenda poses a threat that, if it isn’t stopped, will destroy America as we know it. An almost identical share of Republicans — 79% — believe the same of the Democratic Party’s agenda.”
Seeing the other side as a deadly threat is the stuff of which civil wars are made. Strongly leaning to one side of this, as do most of my readers, I can understand the sense of threat. For instance, I am genuinely concerned that what limited climate progress we have made will be reversed if the Republicans triumph in 2024. But I also recognize that the same progress is far short of what is needed, and that somehow if a greater consensus is not achieved, beyond political tribalism, we will not take the steps that are needed. That is the conundrum.
Meanwhile, across the western world from North America to Europe, anti-immigrant sentiments are pushing politics to the right, as climate, ecological and social crises drive people from southern lands. That trend can only grow worse. The ultimate scale of global refugee movement due to climate disruption is unimaginable. Ironically, the relatively fertile and watered strip of land of Palestine-Israel over which competing tribes are fighting is itself projected to become much drier. Desert bands north and south of the equator are projected to move further north, affecting the Eastern Mediterranean among other areas. Much of what we now know as Palestine-Israel is projected to resemble the Negev desert. A high degree of cooperation based on common habitation of the place going to be needed to survive on these lands.
From either-or to both-and
To reiterate the basic points, tribalism and fundamentalism are closely related concepts, both dependent on a sense of exclusivity and an attempt to impose simplistic concepts on a complex world. Merriam-Webster defines ism as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory,” or “an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “taking side with." In other words, an either-or rather than a both-and. Ism makes a fact, such as a social affiliation or belief system, into an organizing principle that excludes a greater whole.
There is no problem with having tribes, clustering with people with whom we feel a special commonality. It’s a natural human trait out of our evolution. We are tribal people and will continue to be. What is demanded is that we transcend the either-or aspect of tribal-ism. To see our tribe as part of a greater whole encompassing all of humanity. The inability to see each other as human beings, and only take care of our own tribe, is something we must get past. Yes, we can have our tribes, but living in peace with each other, in a sense of commonality.
In terms of having a basic worldview, nature teaches us complexity and wholeness. It educates us about the inability of our minds to fit everything into a singular rigid framework, but instead to see life as a whole embodying dynamic complexity and interplay of opposites. A mind tuned to nature does not lend itself to narrow rigidity, but fluidity. Fundamentalism is an evasion of necessity to think at a time we need to embrace uncertainty and fluidity in light of the limitations of human knowledge and comprehension, to arrive at whatever common understandings we can.
Seeking an human commonality beyond tribalism and fundamentalism is not about a placeless globalism. Indeed, as a bioregionalist, I see our connecting point with the greater social and natural commonality as the places we live. So I can understand the deep attachments the two tribes of Palestine-Israel have for place. In that troubled land, where two tribes are in deadly conflict, finding a common affinity with the land, the place, sharing it together, seems the only path toward resolution. If this seems hopelessly idealistic, sometimes, necessity calls what seems unrealistic into reality.
Can we imagine an inhabitation of that land that has transcended the narrow ethnic boundaries of the nation-state, to a confederation of self-governing communities joining in cooperation with each other? How might these different tribes live together in peace? Here is a place where the idea of the nation-state has not worked, where some different and more diverse order is required.
A vision of the human universal
I would like to conclude with the words of a tribal man who clearly saw a human universal, and predicted its coming. That is the Seventh Generation Prophecy of Tȟašúŋke Witkó, who we know as Crazy Horse. The Oglala Lakota leader sat with Sitting Bull in the Paha Sapa, the Black Hills, in 1877. Four days before he was killed, Crazy Horse shared his vision.
“Upon suffering beyond suffering; the Red Nation shall rise again and it shall be a blessing for a sick world. A world filled with broken promises, selfishness and separations. A world longing for light again.
“I see a time of seven generations when all the colors of mankind will gather under the sacred Tree of Life and the whole Earth will become one circle again. In that day there will be those among the Lakota who will carry knowledge and understanding of unity among all living things, and the young white ones will come to those of my people and ask for this wisdom.
“I salute the light within your eyes where the whole universe dwells. For when you are at that center within you and I am in that place within me, we shall be as one.”
Whatever one thinks of prophecy, whether there is sight along the string of time, many have seen the revival of indigenous spirit in recent decades as a fulfillment of Crazy Horse’s words. Around the world, the indigenous are on the frontlines of Earth defense, and as people who have experienced genocide, in opposition to the Gaza war. It is striking that the first gathering of the tribal fires of the Oceti Sakowin, the Sioux of whom Crazy Horse was a part, were lit around 7 generations after his prophecy if one counts a generation as 20 years, in a prime example of indigenous-led Earth defense. That was in 2016-17 at the Standing Rock Reservation in the actions against the Dakota Access Pipeline, drawing many whites as well as people of many indigenous tribes to that place, and becoming an inspiration for people across the world.
A thought which has helped lift me above a despair all too easily spurred by the unprecedented survival crisis humanity now faces is that it will out of necessity call to the best in us. Because to survive we must draw to our cooperative side, the essential element of the tribal in us. And as Crazy Horse foresaw, see where our true commonality rises, not just among us as human beings, but with “all living things.” We are going through dark times that indeed try the soul, but if we can see our way through our isms to our commonality, to that light in our eyes where the whole universe dwells, we can restore the circle of life.
It is a leap of faith, one I believe we must make to survive on this planet.
An appeal for support
Please consider a paid subscription to The Raven, and if you are already a paid subscriber, please consider subscribing at a higher level. Please also consider giving a gift subscription to someone you know. Subscriptions are only $6 a month at the monthly rate, or $5 is you subscribe at the annual $60 rate. I have also added a “Buy me a coffee” feature that allows you to make a one-time donation of $5, $15 or $25. I really do need your support to continue this work. And please do share this piece widely.
I have found most of Nate Hagens' interviews helpful. In one, a psychology guy is asked about oxytocin, testosterone and dopamine. He says oxytocin DOES spur nurturing, caring feelings--but only toward those we see as "us." Testosterone does spur aggression, but only against those we see as "them." What this suggests to me is that tribalism, Us versus Them thinking, is hardwired. And I can see a Darwinian reason why: for most of our history as a species (if not all of it) human survival depended upon the group. Tribes could thrive, individuals alone would likely die.. But early groups lived cheek-to-jowl--there would inevitably be tensions, rivalries, grudges...yet rivals had to go on hunts together, raise each other's orphaned children. I can see where it would be a great relief for these frustrated feelings, to have an outside group to cast these hostilities upon--scapegoats.
Yet we can rise above this proclivity, and this is the essence of wisdom--having a longer view. We are in the place we are, I think for two reasons. One is that wisdom and power are at opposite poles--those attracted to power are the least wise. The least wise of all are sociopaths, and these are the people who rule the world today. In the deep past, in tribes, they could not take power because the whole tribe knew who and what they were--sociopaths learn how to mimic psych-normal empathy and compassion, but they don't get good at it until adulthood. In modern, complex societies, anonymity allows a sociopath bent on power and wealth to hide what s/he is from the people around who must be manipulated and climbed over.
The other reason is sociopathic CULTURES. Agriculture allowed sedentary life, which allowed population growth, and grain storage, which led to armies and guards and hierarchy and patriarchy. The nub of the human predicament is that when an aggressive, expansionary group wants to take land from a peaceable, egalitarian group, it makes war on the latter and nearly always wins. Eventually it needs yet more land, and makes war on another neighbor. To this day, humanity has not found a solution to the problem--a culture based on domination--of women by men, of children by adults, of dark-skinned people by palefaces, of everyone else by humans, above all--has taken over nearly the entire world. Thus the ridiculous idea that war is normal, that a reasonable way to solve a conflict between two groups is to have the young men of the two groups kills each other until one can't stand it anymore (modified in recent decades by having them mostly kill civilians instead).
It's interesting that when Europeans came to "the New World" and encountered tribal peoples, whose cultures embodied great wisdom,, they rarely saw that wisdom--typically for humans, they saw each way the Others differed from their own as weird, wrong, perverse, inferior.. But when whites were kidnapped by Natives, and spent some time with them, they often refused to go back to the white when they had the opportunity, whereas captured "Indians" went home at the first opportunity--something Benjamin Franklin remarked on. I figure it's because it takes time to overcome cultural conditioning. Time that allowed white to see the good side of Native culture, while the Natives had already seen the whites' technological mastery and were not impressed with their lifestyles or culture.
"We are going through dark times that indeed try the soul, but if we can see our way through our isms to our commonality, to that light in our eyes where the whole universe dwells, we can restore the circle of life."
I remember when I was in my early twenties I would sometimes see the light in the eyes of others, the light where the whole universe dwells, and I would find it very difficult to pretend that it wasn't happening, that it wasn't overwhelming and potent to the utmost. I felt I had to pretend in this way because no one around me ever spoke of the light in the eyes where the whole universe dwells. It was never mentioned, and I suspected most folks could not see and feel this "light". I didn't want to stand out as strange, weird, "other". So I kept the extraordinary potency of looking into another's eyes with this knowledge to myself.
It was easier to be bowled over by a butterfly or a honey bee. Because there was no risk of ostracism in having a fire in my heart with these.
Anyway, nothing can be more ordinary than to be blown away by the light in ANYONE's eyes. And nothing could be more extraordinary. That's the thing about seeing the light. It's both ordinary and extraordinary to the nth degree.
But it's not so easy for me to see plainly and directly anymore. My heart having been so badly broken by this world. It requires an almost absolute kind of tenderness to be dazzled so by the ordinary.