Pros and cons of tribalism

For the big majority of our history as species (I should probably refer better to the whole genus of the hominids, homo) we have lived in small groups of hunters and gatherers which were all linked by blood to a greater or lesser extent. The small size of the group meant, first of all, that it was easy to hold everyone accountable for their actions, punishing behaviors that damaged the group and celebrating the ones that helped. On the other hand, they physical proximity also meant that the life experiences did not vary much among the members of a tribe: the slept together, ate together and hunted together, so when anything happened to one of them everybody else was either eye witness or quickly informed.

Interactions outside the group were rare and limited to fights with other tribes or trades, which also frequently ended up in fights when one of the parties tried to take advantage on the other. In sum, tribes where very homogeneous in upbringing and culture, so it was rather easy for everyone to anticipate the opinions and reactions of everybody else, even accounting for the peculiarities of temperament of each individual because they were personally acquainted.

Photo: Melinda Young Stuart

But as the agricultural revolution came in, there were a number of simultaneous side effects. First of all, people became tied to the ground. While it was possible before to drive herds around for a regular supply of milk, meat and wool, once a group starts cultivating a field they have to tend to it and therefore nomadic life immediately disappears from the panoply of suitable lifestyles. Agriculture also meant that the food supply could be controlled much better: they were always at the mercy of plagues and droughts, but it was possible for a single person to produce significantly more than their own consumption and that with a reasonable reliability. And with no shortage of land to work on, having many children quickly became an advantage because it allowed them to work even bigger farms. Where the size of nomadic tribes was naturally limited by how many individuals could be moved, fed and managed as a group, not having to move also meant that a family (particularly an extended one, with grandparents, aunts and uncles) could raise several children without too much trouble.

The other consequence of settling is that objects, the so-called material culture, just exploded. Nomad had to carry all their worldly possessions with them, which meant, even with technologies such as carts and draft animals, that one had to be very selective with the things they owned. But now that they did not have to move around, it was possible to own all kinds of things, including in particular heavy equipment. This lead in turn to the establishment of artisans. While it was clear among nomadic peoples that some individuals had particular talents that could be put to the service of the community, nomadic life effectively limited the possible scale of their operations. With a stable workshop, the blacksmith could build an actual forge, the tanner could have big vats for processing hides, and the weavers could have several looms permanently set up to produce cloth. The economies of scale and food surplus produced by agriculture also meant that artisans did not have to take part in the production of food themselves: farmers produced enough food to feed themselves and some more to pay for the goods the artisans produced; there were also enough farmers that the artisans could feed themselves from the surpluses of their clients, so they could devote all their time to their trade.

However, this grown in population came at the cost of reduced homogeneity. To start with, the daily experiences of a farmer were radically different from those of a carpenter; they could inform one another, but it was not a shared experience anymore. Furthermore, it was unlikely that all professions were represented among the members of a single clan (indeed the trend was exactly the opposite, with children learning the trade from their parents), which required establishing relations with strangers, people who were not linked by blood. This kind of relationships were much more effortful than the ones within the clan: reaching an understanding of what is right and wrong and building up the mutual confidence take a lot of time. This is where the religions and the codes of laws helped a lot in unifying and enumerating explicitly the wanted and unwanted behaviors. But that is a story for another day.

Today I wanted to discuss a thought experiment that I heard in a recent episode of the podcast Freakonomics Radio. Imagine you are on a boat with a sibling of yours and with your best friend, someone who shares your tastes, your jokes, maybe even your life goals, and then in the middle of the storm both your friend and your brother are washed aboard. When you try to help them, you find that there is only one life preserver, which you would natural give to your sibling, even if you like your friend much better. It would be hard to tell your friend's parents that you could not save their child, but it would be much harder to tell your own parents that you could not save their child. As the guest Robert Cialdini puts it, "it’s the difference between me being able to say to my in-group members Stephen is like us, versus Stephen is one of us". It is, in the most strict sense, just another manifestation of tribalism.

It is out of the discussion that life among peers is much easier and, possibly, more efficient. When people are of one mind there are significantly less discussion even less need for coordination: everybody knows what to do and when to do it, so just get on with it. When the resources of a group are tight, this is one excellent way to increase its chance of surviving. However, it can also be terribly alienating for those with a broader view. When the resources of the society are not that tight anymore (as in the case in most Western societies), the inefficiencies that diversity bring about are generally offset by a much richer set of offerings. Having to choose between Mexican, Chinese, Korean or Italian food might be hard, but isn't it great that we have the choice?

I leave you with the idea that tribalism is still with us, even so many millennia later. Just think about the visceral reaction you experience when your favorite actor, singer, politician or writer gets trashed by the critics: you feel that they are attacking "one of yours" and you raise to the challenge almost without thinking. And while this is understandable, keep in mind that it is a great advantage of diversity that the actor, singer, politician or writer gets to have a voice at all: in the old days of the clan, they would have been told to stop daydreaming and continue searching for berries to feed the children. These days we do not have to do that, but we still can do it. One way or another, I hope you enjoy your weekend.