The Anarchist Argument for Virulent Tribalism

Many people talk about their disposition against tribalism, their hatred for it and all its kin. The top articles on a quick google search show this: How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More Dangerous, Can Democracy Survive Tribalism, and The Retreat to Tribalism all talking about how tribalism is running society and portraying it as primitive and disastrous to modern glorious civilisation. Especially among the social justice crowd which I myself most would say am apart of. What is it about this word tribalism that brings so many people to arms against? I used to be against it quite a lot too, I identified it with other movements and ideologies I hated: Fascism, Nationalism and Racism. These were all the children of the dreaded Mother: Tribalism. It was a primitive thing, at the time, I believed that one should aspire to love and cherish all people. Today, I think such a thing ridiculous and dangerous, I think such a thing closer to nationalism and fascism than with tribalism.

How could this be? Is not tribalism the greatest degree at which in-groups and out-groups are created? Is it not tribalism that stops one man from loving another simply because of the ridiculous and irrational decision taken on by past ancestors? Is it not tribalism which destroys, irradicates and inseminates fear for those 'others'? Is it not tribalism that attempts to assault that which does not conform to its standards? To all of those, I say no. Tribalism has historically been the opposition to all of these things. At least virulent tribalism, it is the humanist project of nationalism, racism and humanity that have done those stated above.

Tribalism is entirely rational. Should you not love and cherish those you have a real connection to over others who you cannot even see or speak to? Is that a truly ridiculous notion? How can I feel the plight of Chinese sweatshop worker when I have never met and talked to him as I have with other beings. I simply do not have the empathic ability nor should I have such. I feel for those beings that have shown their comradery with me, who have shown their love and their enthusiasm with me. I feel for those beings who I have had many a conversation with over a meal, I feel for those beings who have cherished me and my abilities. I even feel for those beings who have hurt me, who have bashed me against the rocks of life, who have shamed me, who have lied to me. For those are often the same who have helped me. I can't help feel for these real people in my lives, not these fictions separated by an infinite barrier which I will never breach. There is nothing but indifference towards these people, these fictions.

Humanism and all its kin are irrational. It is the thing that creates the in-group and out-group distinctions. It creates within one a hatred for people one has never met or can meet or an irrational love that presides over those ones can see in front of them, those tribalists who take their own feelings above fictions to be the evildoers. A tribalist cannot feel love for those he does not know and neither can he feel hatred. But the racist does feel hatred for people he has never met or seen or talked, yet the racist also feels love for all those he has never met or talked to or seen. But the nationalist also does feel superiority and hatred for the land of that which he has never seen or walked or touched, yet also feels love for land which he has not seen or walked or touched! What nonsense! And these are all beliefs which must be educated into one, they are not for a person to teach themselves but that which must be indoctrinated into one. Socially engineered nonsense! I would not mind it if it at least made sense.

And Humanity! Oh, Humanity! What has it done for me? Nothing! It is nothing to me and has done nothing for me. There is no humanity that allowed me to accomplish what I have done today. If you dare say that if it was not for my ancestors where would I be, I would laugh, because my ancestors are dead and have never known me, never did what they did for my sake and would have done the same whether I would come to be or not. To thank humanity for an action is as stupid as thanking a stream or a rock. It just is. I owe no debt to this Humanity and I never will. I will not work for some future of humanity I will never see, meet or talk to. I will work for myself and who I cherish right now, as I live in this very moment. Humanism demands that all belongs to all and I must pay my debts to the grass that was sown by the dead bodies of my former ancestors. Nonsense, utter nonsense. Socially engineered nonsense! I would not mind it if it at least made sense.

If you look carefully at what fascists, racists, and nationalists say versus a tribalist, you will hear how the fascists, racists, and nationalists speak frequently of the be the best of all people. The fascists, racists, and nationalists speak about how the domination or elimination of other lowly human beings is justified for this progress. This godly thing called progress is what millions upon millions of lives must be offered up to in sacrifice for a better world. We must slay the baby for the water god to give us rain. And if you look carefully the person arguing for universal human love does the same. Humanism is a project dedicated to the sacrifice of others to the God of progress. What are we progressing to, and for who? Don't ask me.

A universal human love is ultimately exclusionary of those things that are not human which a person feels a connection to. A tribalist feels for what they feel, id est, that which they have a genuine connection with. If it is indeed a mountain or a stream or a scene that one falls in love with as a tribalist. If it is indeed some trees, some fields that you find you love. The humanist describes you as irrational, the humanist believes that such things pale in comparison to humanity and so there is no helping mining a mountain of coal. There is no helping damming a stream. There is no helping tearing up trees for wood. There is no helping ripping up fields for crops. Afterall progress.

A genuine love and caring for people around you is what I call for. If you ever read or heard of the book Against Empathy, this post is the argument for empathy. And only empathy. In the book, Paul Bloom argues that a sort of psychopathic love for the greater good is more efficient, better overall in helping people than actual feeling for other people. And you know what, I think he is right. I think he is right that in this society such a psychopathic love or abstracted morality is better for everyone. I think, however, that this is an indication that something is terribly wrong with our current society. Something that requires a radical change, something that allows society to work in favour of actual feeling, of empathy.

Don't make the mistake of me claiming human nature or anything of the sort. When I say that people are incapable of feeling love towards all of humanity, I say this for the same reason someone might claim they love their nation, they love their race, and they love their God. None of these things are possible. There is no nation, there is no race and there is no God. Not only do these things not exist for the person, but these things are not experienced in the same way someone has forged a connection with friends and family and even with enemies. Every other connection someone has with someone else requires communication with that person. God does not communicate with a person in the same way as friends do. The nation does not form the same relationship of viewing a particular scene or stream. And the race does not create the same protectiveness of a parent over a child.

I admit that one can feel empathy for a fictional character. But humanity isn't a fictional character but a fictional force. A fictional character can make you feel sympathetic and empathetic because you can imagine their struggles as your struggles, your desires as their desires, your pain as their pain. But a fictional force is different, a fictional force does not have struggles, only demands. A fictional force demands sacrifices for some greater good. A good that goes beyond the mere trivial feelings for the person in front of you.

Take the trolley problem. What is the right decision for a person viewing such a problem and what decision should they make? How can you explain why I would switch the tracks from the position that I talk about? This decision to sacrifice one can be explained empathically rather than for the 'greater good' of humanity. First of all, you see the men. That can't be said for humanity. You have not even seen them! Nor read their struggle, it is a mass that does not exist as a thing in your head! So why do I change the track? Simple, because I feel for those on the track. Why do I not push the man off the track? Simple, because I have a stronger empathic connection to the man. And this makes sense! When people acting according to a psychopathic love often times they do things for a greater good they are not even sure about!

I care only for those people I have seen, met and talked to and anyone who tells you that you should care for anything else is probably a conman and a scammer. But you won't know that until you actually talk to them.