Monday, January 5, 2009

We face a turmoil of tribalisms, not a clash of civilizations

[UPDATE: July 20, 2009 — Many thanks to Steven Pressfield and his blog on War & Reality in Afghanistan: “It’s the Tribes, Stupid” for showing an interest in my work in this area, not so much this particular post as the items cited at the end of it.]

This theme appears to be running its course. I haven’t seen anything for months suggesting that the clash-of-civilizations framework is still gaining ground among strategists and analysts who work on “the war of ideas.” They seem to be increasingly aware that tribalisms of all sorts are the real problem. Nonetheless, I’m putting these old remarks here to help urge further such awareness. Besides, they bear on understanding the T part of the TIMN framework.

* * * * *

Western strategists and policymakers should stop talking about a clash of civilizations and focus on the real problem: extreme tribalism. The West is not in a clash with Islam. Instead, Islam, which is a civilizing force, has fallen under the sway of Islamists who are a tribalizing force.

The tribalism theme has never been far out of reach; it just has difficulty gaining traction. After the end of the Cold War, many American strategists preferred the optimistic “end of history” idea that democracy would triumph around the world, advanced by Francis Fukuyama (1989). A contrary idea — regression to tribalism — made better sense to other strategists, particularly as ethnic warring unfolded in the Balkans. Thus Jacque Attali noted (in 1992) that, “Unless we take early action, I fear that Yugoslavia will be only a beginning. . . But the dominoes will fall this time not toward communism, not even toward nationalism, but rather toward tribalism.” This view foresaw that, where societies crumble, people revert to tribal and clan behaviors that repudiate liberal ideals. But, perhaps because “tribalism” sounds too anthropological, it did not take hold. Instead, American thinking shifted to revolve around a more high-minded concept that emerged at the same time: “the clash of civilizations” articulated by Samuel Huntington (1993).

But what troubles the world is far more a turmoil of tribalisms than a clash of civilizations. The major clashes are not between civilizations per se, but between antagonistic segments that are fighting across fringe border zones (like Christian Serbs vs. Muslim Kosovars), or feuding within the same civilization, such as Sunnis vs. Shiites in Iraq.

Most antagonists, no matter how high-mindedly and religiously they proclaim their ideals, are operating in terribly tribal and clannish ways. Some, such as al Qaeda terrorists, are extreme tribalists who dream of making the West start over at a razed, tribal level.

This tribulation is sure to persist, fueling terrorism, ethno-nationalism, religious strife, sectarian feuds, and clannish gang violence and crime. Thus, the cartoon protest riots of a few years ago posed an effort to mobilize an Islamic global tribe, not a civilization. Al Qaeda and its affiliates comprise an information age network, but they too operate like a global tribe: decentralized, segmental, lacking in central hierarchy, egalitarian toward kith and kin, ruthless toward others.

What are tribes like? The tribe was the first major form of social organization. The hierarchy, market, and network forms developed ages later. Classic tribes are ruled by kinship principles about blood and brotherhood that fix one’s sense of identity and belonging. Tribes are also egalitarian and segmental. Everyone is deemed equal and must share. Each part, such as a clan, is structured similarly, aiming for self-sufficiency. And there is no formal chief, though a ”big man” may arise. Democracy may appear in tribal councils, but it is not liberal, since it does not tolerate minority rights and dissident views once a consensus emerges.

What maintains order in a tribe is not hierarchy and law – it is too early a form for that – but kinship principles stressing mutual respect, dignity, pride and honor. Reciprocal gift giving is essential. Humiliating insults upset peace more than anything else, for an insult to one is seen as an insult to everyone of that lineage. And there are only two ways to restore honor: compensation or revenge. Finally, a tribe may view itself as a realm of virtue, but see outsiders as a different realm that may be treated differently, even brutally, especially if they are “different.”

Much of the world is still like this. Of particular concern to strategists, a dense arc of tribal and clan systems runs across North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, up into the “stans” of Central Asia. Even modern societies still have tribal cores and impulses. It shows in their cultures, nationalisms, identity politics, kindred glues like sports clubs and social fads, and in cronyism, nepotism, and gang life. Tribalism, for good and ill, is alive everywhere, all the time. We just don’t think about it much, and use other terms to do so.

So let’s shift away from the civilization paradigm. The tribalism paradigm is better for illuminating the crucial problem: the tribalization of religion. The more that extremists create divisions between “us” and “them,” vainly claim sacredness solely for their own ends, demonize others, revel in codes of revenge, crave territorial and spiritual conquests and suppress moderates who disagree – all the while claiming to act on behalf of a deity – the more their religious orientation becomes utterly tribal and prone to wreaking violence of the darkest kind. They can only pretend to represent a civilization.

The “war of ideas” should be rethought. Western leaders keep pressing Muslim leaders to denounce terrorism as uncivilized. But this approach, plus counter-pressures from sectarian Islamists, has put moderate Muslims on the defensive, stymieing them from speaking out. An approach that focuses on questioning extreme tribalism may be more effective at freeing up dialogue and inviting a search for common, ecumenical ground.

Shifting to a travail-of-tribalisms perspective would have to be carefully thought out. The point is not to condemn all tribal ways. Many people around the world appreciate (indeed, prefer) this communal way of life and will defend it from insult. It is not always uncivilized to be tribal. The point is to strike at the awful effects that extreme tribalization can have – to oppose not a terrorist’s or insurgent’s’ religion, but the reduction of that religion to raw tribalist tenets.

[Updated/revised from 2005 drafts and from 2006 op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor. Reflective also of a 2004 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. For a longer discussion, see my paper on Al Qaeda as a global tribe, especially the 2006 postscript, written for an interesting but little-noticed 2008 book on information strategy edited by John Arquilla and Douglas Borer. For an extended analysis, see this occassional paper about social evolution and the rise and roles of the tribal form.]

1 comment:

Spartacus O'Neal said...

Tribalism is, of course, not static. Tribes live in the modern world, have their own institutions, and communicate within a pan-tribal network of indigenous scholars, activists and leaders dealing with dominion projected by states, markets and transnational criminal networks. As conservation cultures, tribal societies' ancient wisdom on the environment and economics can even shed light on the unbalanced relationships that have led to the global collapse of both. One can be humanitarian, tribal and cosmopolitan simultaneously.