So ends "Have our tribes become more important than our country?" by Jonathan Rauch, in a WaPo review of the new book by Amy Chua "Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations".
Chua is the Yale lawprof who wrote the "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother," which got us talking about hardcore — and specifically ethnic — parenting styles 7 years ago. That book sure started a conversation, especially since many of us thought she was wrong and even abusive toward her own children. Rauch refers to conversation-starting in his review, in this masterpiece of namby-pamby cruelty:
Her short book relies on a handful of case studies and examples to draw broad conclusions, so scholars will want to be cautious with it; but her accessible and provocative treatment sets up just the right public conversation.... short book... handful of case studies and examples... broad conclusions... Scholars won't find anything but it's suitably "accessible and provocative" for the general public, so why don't you little people go off somewhere and talk amongst yourselves? Like you did with "Tiger Mother," mm-kay?
Rauch informs us of his "involvement" with something called "the Better Angels project, a grass-roots depolarization movement":
Last summer, at a Better Angels workshop in Virginia, I watched as eight Trump supporters and eight Hillary Clinton supporters participated in a day of structured interactions. Under rules that encouraged listening without challenging or proselytizing, they explained their values and examined their stereotypes. No one’s political opinions changed (or were expected to), but everyone left the room feeling less animus and believing that ordinary people can fight back against polarization.Fight back? It's still a fight. Hey hey ho ho/Polarization has got to go.
Rauch has a new book coming out: "The Happiness Curve: Why Life Gets Better After 50." I have no idea if that's any good. I can't remember what I've written about Jonathan Rauch over the years — I'll have to publish this post and click on the "Jonathan Rauch" tag to find out — but I will never forget his great essay "Caring for Your Introvert/The habits and needs of a little-understood group."
ADDED: "... everyone left the room feeling less animus and believing that ordinary people can fight back against polarization" — How can he possibly know that?!
Posts
109 comments:
How about not dismissing clear evidence of corruption and malfeasance as “conspiracy theories” out of hand? That would reduce polarization. Imagine a press that did its job with respect to both political parties? Imagine a world like that.
Equality of tribal results might be a problem, if you're into tribes.
Tribes is cultural appropriation.
I'm all for depolarizing, but it's hard get beyond Rauch using Trump's election as a disaster polarization has brought on us all. For one thing Trump might turn out to be a good President. Another thing is, I get the feeling if Hillary had won Rauch wouldn't be saying any of this, he'd be full steam ahead with the project of his tribe crushing the other tribe.
"Conservatives failed to imagine that rage-mongering and conspiracy-theorizing would not only take over conservative media but could help elect Trump to the presidency." Huh? I guess that's how our tribe looks to his tribe. Two problems: what rage and conspiracy exactly?, and other factors did more to "help" elect Trump (weak opponents, GOP and Dem, mostly). His display of tribal bias undermines his anti-tribal point.
Remember when Trump's egocentric anti-tribalism was the problem?
“Progressives failed to imagine that identity-mongering and victim-worshiping would not only take over the academy but could help elect Trump to the presidency.”
Tribalism and identity politics is the main political theory of today’s Left. The global warming scam is second.
We had to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Barack because he is black. Black Lives Matter. La Raza. Muslims have become a race. Diversity is our strength. Open borders. We will have to vote for Kamala Harris because she is a biracial woman.
Intersectionality.
As Justice Thomas said, “Where’s the unum?”
To show that Tribalism is deep in our psyche one only needs to look at porn sites.
The porn is broken -- divided, segregated -- into categories, so the MILF tribe can watch without contact with the Blonde tribe, the Black Booty tribe, the Blowjob tribe, the Fisting tribe, the Gangbang tribe, the DP tribe, the ATM tribe, the Foot-Worship Tribe -- I assume you get the idea.
The viewers of these tribes can now watch videos that show only their preferred tribal act.
No longer does a film need to show a variety of acts to draw in a varied audience: if the viewer wants Big Latina Ass with no Blowjobs, well, they can watch Big Latina Ass with no Blowjobs.
There is no need for the Gingers In Stockings tribe to interact -- or even acknowledge -- the Asian She-Male tribe.
Separate but equal.
The Germans have a word for this.
I've noticed, for some people, they are not interested in politics because of policy or ideology, but for a type of emotional gratification that involves causing others pain.
It's the people who are happy and feel pleasure when they are able to cause sadness or upset in others who they see as not in their "in group."
I am not speaking about the people who want to "win" for the sake of policy or ideology, but those that want to "win" to cause a painful emotional affect in others.
I may be over thinking this. Some people are sadists. could be that simple.
Maybe it's easier to get a job teaching law than it is to get a job teaching media studies.
"America First" is the Big Tribe strategy. It is what united the States in 1776 using Common Sense that the British Monarch's Navy that brought his Army was our common enemy.Something that Navy and the Army it brought saying to submit to that Empire's world order or die that rubbed the Presbyterians the wrong way.
And we are now watching a replay. The Presbyterian President will not visit the Germanic Queen, but is making friends with Macron in France. In one year, the idea of a North American NAFTA Provence under the UN/British Rule has gone from most likely to happen to never going to happen here.
Tribalism is human nature. As a Nebraskan I am supposed to hate Iowa. Minnesota and Wisconsin have something going on that I don’t understand. Oklahoma v. Texas.
I’ve noticed, for some people, they are not interested in politics because of policy or ideology, but for a type of emotional gratification that involves causing others pain.
You mean like inflicting Hillary on us?
"I get the feeling if Hillary had won Rauch wouldn't be saying any of this, he'd be full steam ahead with the project of his tribe crushing the other tribe."
And maybe his "Better Angels" is just that project in its new skin. Gotta have a Plan B, people.
Not that I, too, do not wish for the day when "Vote for me: I'll really stick it to those bastards!" is no longer the preferred slogan for aspiring candidates.
but it’s hard get beyond Rauch using Trump's election as a disaster polarization has brought on us all.
Bingo! Rauch is purblind, completely lacking in any kind of mindfulness, apparently, utterly bereft of self-awareness. Not upset at tribalism, but upset that her tribe lost a big battle. This is nothing more than wound licking. Maybe it’s a manifestation of the “bargaining” stage of grief.
Tribalism is not entirely passive: it's actively promoted for political gain.
I voted for Trump because he campaigned on issues important to me and seemed to be willing to work to advance what I perceive to by my interests. Also, it was clear to me that Hillary is corrupt and that the DC establishment and the MSM (but I repeat myself) are eager to cover up for her. In addition, I don't trust the GOPe because they have a history of stabbing the base in the back in order to cater to the donor class who wants cheap labor and are all in for outsourcing and open borders.
Notice what I didn't put in there? Polarization. People who support Hillary and the Democrat party do not have my best interests in mind when they formulate policy. They have the interest groups that support them in mind. That's cool. That's what political parties are for. The GOPe decided that they could take their base for granted because who else were they going to vote for. Turns out it was Donald Trump.
This whole "polarization bad, M'kay" is just an attempt by the establishment to shame working and middle-class voter into supporting the status quo. It's utter bullshit and should be ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbIpgHVHLL4
You mean like inflicting Hillary on us?
naw, it's a specific psychological urge I've observed, and it is not limited to one partisan group. I'm talking about people who enjoy watching someone experience pain. People who enjoy causing physical and emotional pain.
There are people who appear to have no concrete political goal, other then to cause pain. Sadists exist and would be attracted to venues in which they could indulge their vice. They enjoy tears for the sake of tears. They feel pleasure when they are able to cause tears -- not for a greater goal. The goal are the tears themselves and the pleasure it brings to them.
A particular type of politics, especially tribally-oriented identity driven, non-ideological or non-policy oriented political realms may give sadists the cover they need to indulge their vice.
it’s actively promoted for political gain.
Divide and conquer goes way back. What really really really scared them was the idea that Bernie and Trump might successfully join forces to create real change. Therefore, it was necessary to emphasize tribal markers to isolate potential groups that might create rivals to power.
Those who hold with what Chua calls group-transcending values were caught flatfooted and are only beginning to gather their forces and find their voices. But they are assembling, and the tribalists have lost the advantage of surprise.
Those who hold what they define as group-transcending values are just another group.
One who feels a sense of superiority over other groups, because of their group-transcending values.
You mean like inflicting Hillary on us?
naw, i
That was a pretty quick dismissal. Almost knee jerk.
Those who hold what they define as group-transcending values are just another group.
Bingo! I'm going to go out on a ledge here and predict that the group with group-transcending values just happens to favor policies that will benefit them financially and socially, but that is purely coincidental. Really!
There's nothing wrong with tribalism, as long as everyone respects the ground rules.
The problem is, some people don't respect the ground rules, and that's what makes tribalism and polarization dangerous.
Some people believe that if they don't win, that means they should try to overthrow the election.
Some people believe that if they don't get their way, that means they can undermine the rules. They can, for instance, use judges to get around laws, or use political manipulation to get around due process. Or they can write new rules - the single biggest destroyer of civility IMO is "the personal is political", that is, the notion that if you want change & that change isn't happening fast enough, you can take your wish list outside of the boundaries of political discourse and use it to attack people in the private sphere, where civility used to keep things - well, civil.
It's the same people who wanted kids to pester their parents about Obamacare at the Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner tables who are whining now about how polarized things are.
I denounce my tribe, opting instead to just be an American. As soon as I can identify my tribe and it's members, I'll let them know.
"Have our tribes become more important than our country?" For progs, yes. For conservatives, no.
The conservative idea is that country matters more than tribe. Used to be acceptable to progs. The current prog idea is that country is just another tribe, oppressing other tribes within and without. The prog inference is that we should bring in other tribes to dissolve the country tribe. After all, America is racist, don't you know.
If this year has shown us anything its that the elites will do anything to remain in their rightful place over the rest of us.
Take the FBI for just one example. Any public-serving organization would have taken the massive failures it presided over and called for a similarly massive restructuring and rededication to its values.
Nope.
There is never going to be a moment of self-awareness, where they drop the pretense that they're superior and we should all let them lead us to the promised land.
Their sense of self is so wrapped up in the idea that they hold all the right ideas and none of the wrong, that no true conversation or dialogue can happen.
It would completely destroy the sense of self they've so carefully cultivated that it's simply not possible.
That was a pretty quick dismissal. Almost knee jerk.
Tone can be hard to read.
Coyne: "Pinker on the science “wars”, identity politics, and his new book"
The "science wars" article was inadvertently funny as Pinker indulges in what he decries.
The "identity politics" article wasn't much better, about like Rauch's in that neither one addresses the very obvious sources of modern "identity group" zero-sum nonsense because they're reluctant to criticize their own group (of groups):
- racial groups like BLM
- affirmative action
- feminism
Whenever a Prog tries to pose as neutral and fair, out comes the false equivalence and the projection.
This tribalism Rauch talks about is a result of discord the Progs have deliberately sown.
He's like a kid who has been playing with matches and is now starting to panic as flames climb the drapes.
Reject first, ask rhetorical questions later.
I was offering you a possible direction to take your hypothesis. I have long maintained that one of the reasons that Democrats chose Hillary was to really fucking stick it to Republicans. But I guess you can’t see that as a possibility.
BTW, I think that was a factor in the choice of both major candidates.
Are we talking about Elizabeth Warren?
You know the day Democrats really started hating on Republicans? The day that New Gingrich took over the House. That was not supposed to happen! “America threw a temper tantrum” was, I believe, the way the unbiased press from the “group transcending” tribe put it.
As pointed out above, this “group transcending” thing is a hoot. Group theory, Venn diagrams, all of that stuff was taught to you guys to help you think. But I guess maybe you are so smart that you don’t have to think.
The issue with identity politics and tribalism is that you can inadvertently (through hubris and stupidity) create an even bigger tribe of those whom you hate.
Calling people racists, over and over for no reason may actually get people to go: "M'Kay...then I guess I am a racist and therefore need to act accordingly." The racist tribe just got new converts and has increased its numbers.
They think that the name calling is somehow going to convince people to love THEM (the leftists). All it does is confirm and increase the warring tribes.
Every tribe has a tribal chief. That’s why I don’t want to be in one.
I identify with, among other tribes, The Deplorable Tribe. I didn't know it until Hillary forced me into it. Hillary made me 'woke' in some sense.
We need to organize some distinctive dances and dress codes for the tribe. Secret handshakes and all.
"Americans’ atavistic impulses got the better of us because we grew complacent. Progressives failed to imagine that identity-mongering and victim-worshiping would not only take over the academy but could help elect Trump to the presidency. Now they know. Conservatives failed to imagine that rage-mongering and conspiracy-theorizing would not only take over conservative media but could help elect Trump to the presidency. Now they know."
Implying that there's another "tribe" out there, the tribe of "deplorables" (right and left) that managed to elect Trump because the right people, the real progressives and conservatives, lost control of the liberal academy and the conservative media. And now we just have to figure out how to reassert the control of the right people. (For the conservative side, he of course means the Washington Generals conservatives.)
Rauch is correct about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind re identity politics, but that's hardly an original insight - sharper observers have been noting that for a long, long, time. Unfortunately, those observers tended to be the wrong kind of conservatives, and their getting heard is just another example of the right kind's loss of control.
So aside from that Rauch appears to remain blinkered about what's going on here, for exactly the reason Bob Boyd states above:
...but it's hard get beyond Rauch using Trump's election as a disaster polarization has brought on us all. For one thing Trump might turn out to be a good President. Another thing is, I get the feeling if Hillary had won Rauch wouldn't be saying any of this, he'd be full steam ahead with the project of his tribe crushing the other tribe.
I'd bet those "Better Angels" programs are attended only by members of the "right" kind of progressives and conservatives, anyway. Kind of like those fading mainline churches where a bunch of old people get together to "dialogue" the world into peace and love.
Oh boy. I read the essay “Caring for Your Introvert” and immediately sent it to my introvert spouse. Excellent, especially the last few sentences. I mentioned I needed to find an essay for her: “Caring for Your Extrovert”. That’s MY issue.
This is actually a major component of my U.S. History course, and has been for about ten years. I use the term "otherizing" instead of tribalism but it means much the same thing. I talk about benign examples such as loyalty to our high school or local sports team (Dodgers rule...Giants suck etc) through malignant forms such as Crips versus Bloods, Hutus versus Tutsis, and racism.
So I wonder if he looked at Jonathon Haidt’s research that showed that Democrats were all but incapable of recapitulating an argument that they didn’t already believe in, whereas conservatives were pretty good at it. Conservatives could even put themselves in the place of liberals and predict their reactions, whereas liberals seemed incapable of any kind of empathy for conservatives.
Being a conservative, and able to mimic the thinking of liberals, I am going to say that Rauch never looked at this kind of academic research. Just a guess!
I was offering you a possible direction to take your hypothesis. I have long maintained that one of the reasons that Democrats chose Hillary was to really fucking stick it to Republicans. But I guess you can’t see that as a possibility.
I can't respond to something if I'm confused about the point being made. Wasn't sure if you were joking or what.
To respond: first I'd break down the question. I don't know if by choose you mean voting in the general or the primary voters.
The General Election: Way too many different interest groups and millions and millions of people to generalize. The 2-party political system forces multiple interest groups to "ally" and compromise. You get voters of all types -- from a political to people who vote for the most bizarre reasons possible.
Primary Voters: A smaller group, so easier to talk about why people chose Hillary over Bernie. There was much more passion behind Bernie. There were structural things in place that hurt his campaign. But, let's ignore the "rules" of the primary and talk psychology.
I believe she won because a bunch of baby boomer (and older) women voted for her. There were 2 factors. 1) They were convinced she could win because of how she did against Obama 8 years previously.
Also, certain white women primary voters supported for her because they identified with her.
I do not understand why. So maybe my analysis of these voters is bad, because I cannot and never will understand why they voted for her. I see the generation of baby boomers as kind of messed up in a couple of critical ways. It was an affluent generation, yet discontented and disoriented.
One way boomer women got messed up is living through the 50s, 60s and 70s with all of the mixed-messages of that time period. 50s and 60s Monogamy, the Playboy, 70s divorce, free love. The definitions of feminine changed too quickly, and expected contradictory things. It was psychologically confusing to some.
These women badly wanted a woman President. It meant something to them that it was not going to mean to others, especially younger women. Maybe voting for her was "sticking it" to the system that had produced such contradictions in their lives. I do not think they wanted to cause pain in others -- partly because they weren't thinking about other's pain. They were only thinking about what they wanted. They wanted the affirmation that they, too, could be President. It blinded them to the fact that nobody else wanted her to win and she was a horrid candidate.
I see this as different from the personal sadism where an individual person wants to visualize causing individual people pain. They wanted the person they saw as themselves gain the affirmation of the presidency.
Nobody's suggesting circular polariztion, which will work for every tribe.
Throw a quarter-wave plate over the news.
Jonathon Haidt’s research that showed that Democrats were all but incapable of recapitulating an argument that they didn’t already believe in, whereas conservatives were pretty good at it.
One of the most valuable and fun activities I participated in during College, was to be on a Debate Team.
During the class that eventually determined who would be ON the team, a topic was assigned to everyone. The teacher would try to determine who was pro or con on the topic. For example: Abortion or at that time Vietnam. And then would assign us to debate the opposite side. Most of the self identified liberals (although there was not that exact term used in those olden days) just could not do it. They would pout and argue how 'unfair' it was to them and blah blah blah.
The advantage of being forced to argue the opposition side is that is makes you really think. Not just about the opposition point of view, but also your own existing point of view. You had to anticipate what the opposition side would be arguing and be prepared to counter those arguments with facts, logic, and persuasive speech. I loved it!!
Flexibility in thinking and the ability to be able to essentially see, not necessarily agree with but see, both sides of an issue is seriously something that the modern Left is sadly lacking. This tunnel vision is not good for anyone.
Just for the record, I have four "sermons" that I repeat in my U.S. History class:
1) Otherizing is human nature, and can be fine, but it needs to be monitored and controlled by all of us.
2) We have all won the lottery...we were born in the U.S. at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. We have a standard of living far above humanity's normal, even the "poor" among us. Stop whining about how poor you are and appreciate what you have.
3) Poverty can be avoided if you follow four simple rules:
Finish High school
Don't have a baby before marriage
Don't become addicted to drugs (including alcohol)
Don't get involved in crime or gangs
4) You don't have to go to college to be successful, Plumbers and wielders make damn good money.
Tim,
What I wrote was long and kind of a mess.
To break it down: The older women Boomers who voted for Hillary Clinton weren't doing it to stick it to people.
They genuinely could not see how repulsive she is. They identify with her, so they couldn't see Just How Unlikeable She Is. After her popularity in the primary against Obama, they actually thought she was a Good Candidate.
They thought people liked her. They thought she was likeable. They had no idea how alienating she is.
I know this is BIZARRE. For most she is unlikeable and annoying. And, yet, that's what they thought. I don't understand it, myself. My only explanation is that the baby boomer generation is odd.
"Calling people racists, over and over for no reason..."
Cosseted academics seem to think they can publicly shame people into silent compliance. Maybe that works on students, but it doesn't work on most adults. An adult will want to punch you in the nose.
Progressivism is led by academics who see the world as one big college campus and believe it should be run like one, faculty and students, adults and children, one in charge of the other, one wanting only to please the other.
What a shock to discover that not everyone in the world wants to polish an apple for the teacher.
Divide and Halt; Divide and Proceed.
Two instructions on the IBM 7090.
DVH DVP
The difference is what happens when you divide by zero.
There was also Halt and Proceed (HTP) and Halt and Transfer (HTR), the difference being what happens when the operator hits the start button.
That was the origin of Halt and Catch Fire, in popular culture.
Ask me about the 7090 I/O channel instructions.
We won't be "better" until we elect Democrats. To that end, Democrat elites will organize "grass-roots" projects until we are properly obedient.
"Why life gets better after 50": lots of funerals.
Does anyone remember Nadler saying Trump was a traitor for not attacking Russia like FDR attacked the Japanese Empire after Pearl Harbor. That was an appeal to knee jerk national tribalism. But we have never been attacked by Russia.
The battle cry, "Remember 1.5 million spent on social media memes, mostly run after the election" is drawing no resolve to go to war. The Scots Irish tribe will let Nadler know when it is time to go to war. Nadler is as stupid as the Russian's efforts were.
That headline is a thing of beauty. It captures in eight words both the essence of the leftish project and why it must fail. Longer: “Yes, we see that X is human nature. But we think that if we wish hard enough and apply some effort, we can achieve Not-X. And we think that will make humans happy.
Rauch wrote Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (1995, expanded edition 2014), a very, very good book and well ahead of the curve.
Ron W: This whole "polarization bad, M'kay" is just an attempt by the establishment to shame working and middle-class voter into supporting the status quo. It's utter bullshit and should be ignored.
These two sentences sum up the current attitude of the finger-wagging PTBs and their lackeys re just about everything. Where it says "polarization", just slot in whatever topic they're banging on about on any given day. It works.
Democrats never miss an opportunity to rescind (immutable) human nature. The kindest interpretation of this war against common sense is that the dems are being quixotic.
No doubt so-called progressive Democrats have been "identity mongering" and "victim worshipping" and at least some partisan Republicans were "rage-mongering" and "conspiracy-theorizing" pre-Trump. Trump did none of this when he ran, instead concentrating on real issues like trade and immigration and what they are doing to our middle-class living standards. I wonder why the author doesn't bother to mention this last part.
Trump did none of this when he ran, instead concentrating on real issues like trade and immigration and what they are doing to our middle-class living standards.
People were willing to acquiesce to technocratic government when it was competent and took into account what the interests of the majority of the voters. Since the 1990s that has not been the case. Bureaucracies always end up doing what is best for the bureaucracy. And they always end up populated by people who got to leadership positions because they were willing to go along to get along, not because of their superior ability. The main purpose of the two political parties during this time was to filter out candidates that might upset the status quo. If they hadn't mocked and derided Trump perhaps he wouldn't have been motivated to expose the charade.
Roger Sweeney: "Rauch wrote Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (1995, expanded edition 2014), a very, very good book and well ahead of the curve."
I read that when it first came out (my copy is '93) and thought it very good. I should give it a re-read.
(I enjoy re-reading books after many years if only to puzzle over my original margin notes. "I wrote that?" "What the hell was I banging on about here?" "Wtf?" And, occasionally, "Damn good point! Wish my current self still knew that!")
The left the Dems, are just butt hurt that Trump has essentially figured out how to use the tribal thing against them, without going White Nationalist. They have been the party of tribes for much of their > 200 year history. They built their power with a succession of tribes: Irish, Italuan, Polish, Jewish, Black, Hispanic, Feminist, LBGTxyz, etc. as one tribal group would assimate, they would find another, then another. But with the White Privilege push, they have tried to take a bridge too far. The "White" majority is being required to step behind every other tribal group, regardless of merit, just because of the color of their skin, or their count of Y chromosomes. Preference is demanded for children, like Obama's two daughters, who have long had the best available, over the children of people who survived actual adversity, all because of skin color. It is Intersectionality, really, that is killing the left's ability to control tribalism. They pushed everyone they didn't want into one tribe, then tried to discriminate, on a tribal basis against that tribe, and are shocked that this pseudo tribe that they essentially created in order to incriminate against it, is now acting like a tribe. Boo hoo.
The main obstacle to forming the nation of Iraq was tribalism. And, while the 'nation' was officially formed [by British coercion], there has never been a strong Iraqi national sentiment nor is there national identity in most African or ME countries.
We are descending [I use the term purposely] into tribalism which will be our eventual demise. As a 'melting pot' of diverse cultures we must place our American identity above our tribal identities or we shall perish.
Rauch's approach, even assuming sincerity, is useless.
Polarization in politics is downstream of more fundamental polarizations - culture for one, but beyond that interests.
If your bread is buttered through some quirk of the system you will be "polarized" to defend or expand that, and will find some way to rationalize it, and drag your culture along with you. And those others harmed by it will react likewise.
This explains for instance the Tamil-Sinhalese civil war in Ceylon. The majority Sinhalese politicians locked out what were the "market dominant minority" Tamils (Amy Chua's term, but the idea is much older, Thomas Sowell did a lot on this).
The Sinhalese forced Tamils out of government service careers and education. The Tamils were radicalized. The Sinhalese reacted against Tamil radicals. And so it went.
The same thing happened in Malaysia, the Malays united in ethnic politics and locked out the Chinese. Luckily for the Malays the Chinese radicals had already been defeated by the British after they had tried a communist revolution - one of the most badly misconceived communist movements in history. The thing was defused when Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore in secession, and provided a politico-economic backstop for the Chinese.
And so on, and on. Chua's better book was "World on Fire", mainly about overseas Chinese in Asia.
The US is not immune to this stuff. Reality is at the core, not feelings. Cultural warfare and consequent polarization in the US serves underlying interests. And this is driven and managed by the institutions that have the ability to force "culture" on all, namely the liberal haut-bourgeoise and the top .001%.
Its not a matter of reconciling factions of the people with each other, but of stopping the deliberate, calculated campaign to impose the will of the elite on the masses.
An ethnic Han Chinese women breeding with an Ivy League Jewish law prof. Imagine the raw material that hybrid genome provides? Their offspring could out work, out study, out hustle, and out connive any other race on the planet. Like being born with a law degree and an MBA and motivated by an Ubermensch level will to power. Nazi race theorists or Margret Sanger couldn't have come up with a better combination than that.
The former US elite cultural line was integration, pushing a "US" identity on immigrants and cultural minorities. This explains the explicitly nationalistic things pushed in US K-12 into the 1970s, the 1980s in places. Thats where things like flag ceremonies, singing the anthem, pledge of allegiance, etc came from. The curriculum and readings conformed.
Mass media conformed too.
This is typical of many other countries, usually places that had no strong "national" identity and thus it had to be manufactured. But certainly not all.
But the US elites decided to switch policies and push an ethnic-tribal line in education.
People who put people in boxes are surprised when people act like they're in that box?
I thought Balkanization/victimization was the goal?
"I thought Balkanization/victimization was the goal?"
It was, except that it was supposed to be everyone else against the white middle class, and that group has finally figured out that if all the other tribes are against them, then they need to be a tribe to survive.
I believe she won because a bunch of baby boomer (and older) women voted for her.
"I'm voting for Hillary's husband" pins worn during the 1992 election.
I know this is BIZARRE. For most she is unlikeable and annoying. And, yet, that's what they thought. I don't understand it, myself. My only explanation is that the baby boomer generation is odd.
Every generation is "odd."
But don't forget boomers were going to change the world and the former rapist in chief was was the first boomer pres. They got Clinton, Obama and it was her time.
To a certain extent, tribes are determined by perceived interest, and perceived interest can change.
The dominant narrative recently has been that the major cause of problems that any non-white person has is white people, either current discriminators or a "system of white privilege" that chugs along even as white's conscious attitudes change. So basically, non-whites are one big tribe.
Trump has tried to push a narrative where the two tribes are Americans and non-Americans. In particular, immigrants take away jobs that Americans would otherwise be doing and/or drive down wages in the jobs that natives have. So pro-Trump writers push stories like the Chicago bakery that lost a lot of illegal Mexican workers and hired blacks instead at a higher wage.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/trumps-ice-gets-hundreds-of-black-workers-jobs-and-raises-at-chicago-bakery/
A particular type of politics, especially tribally-oriented identity driven, non-ideological or non-policy oriented political realms may give sadists the cover they need to indulge their vice.
I agree and think of "Black Lives Matter" and "La Raza" as examples.
The first denies any black responsibility for self control and civilization.
The second resists assimilation as a means of keeping power, even at the cost of permanent underclass status.
Read the LA Times comments to any article that refers to immigration, crime or Trump.
Basically, the LA Times is Trump 24/7. Even the NY Times prints an occasional news item.
Cultural quirk -
I have been seeing Trump pinatas (with MAGA caps!) for sale along Mission street in SF. This is not new of course, these things first popped up in 2015. The other day I was walking down Mission and one store had a massive number, dozens, on display.
I asked the shopkeeper (a Salvadoran) about who buys these things. She said - "maricones".
Also, certain white women primary voters supported for her because they identified with her.
I first began to realize Hillary could lose when my 50 year old FBI agent daughter told me in September 2016 that she would NOT vote for her. My daughter is a logical Hillary voter.
The fact that she is an FBI agent suggested that the FBI agents outside DC might be rebelling.
There is some suggestion at CTH that this is the case.
I still went to bed election night assuming Trump would lose.
But what if the "de-tribalized" are in reality just another tribe?
What then, Mr. Smarty-Pants Rausch, what then?
An interesting complication of the narrative "all non-whites are one big tribe with common interests", from a recent economics paper:
"Focusing on Hollywood films, and exploiting a recent relaxation of China’s foreign film importation policy, ... we show that the Chinese society’s aesthetic preference for lighter skin can be linked to the more frequent casting of pale-skinned stars in films targeting the Chinese market."
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/02/influence-china-hollywood.html
So this entire post was an opportunity to bash Elizabeth Warren, right?
#Faucahontas
#Lieawatha
Tribalism is bad except when it gets you a professorship at Harvard.
I agree and think of "Black Lives Matter" and "La Raza" as examples.
The first denies any black responsibility for self control and civilization.
The second resists assimilation as a means of keeping power, even at the cost of permanent underclass status.
Great examples, Michael.
America became a great country because a group of intelligent, wise white men had the courage and the competence to form a government based on individual freedoms. Anyone coming to this country 'for a better life' needs to realize this and pay homage to that accomplishment. But the way 'history' is taught today you'd think women and minorities were our founders.
@Michael K, agree with mockturtle. Hey! Maybe we three can start our own tribe?
Objectification seems to be a universal trait of social behavior. We who live in cities are civilized; those who live outside the walls, by their hearths are heathens and barbarians.
Learning a language, social mores, and walking the walk will never get rid of the boundaries us versus them.
The very best we can achieve is a CIVIL (as in polite) society. In the Yeshiva, we learn to attack ideas rather than people.
Of course, I have seen some incredible blows when this goes too far. While it is easy to blame the one who reacts in violence, let us not hold innocent the one who turns the screw.
Democrats know well how to turn the screw; but, they have not internalized the importance of being Civil.
“I was offering you a possible direction to take your hypothesis. I have long maintained that one of the reasons that Democrats chose Hillary was to really fucking stick it to Republicans. But I guess you can’t see that as a possibility.”
Well, it’s arguable that any “choosing” was really done. By 2016 the Democrats were like one of those single-party dictatorships where the incumbent wins 98% of the imaginary vote. This meant that the overwrought freakout that followed HRC’s loss was absolutely inevitable. What do you do in life when the only option open to you proves untenable?
The Democratic Party is at this point in time a coalition of basically two groups, the hard-core left and the non-white ethnic groups. The ethnic vote is possibly the largest portion of the Democratic Party vote. And by that I mean knowing not what is the only reason but what is the main reason that a person is voting for the Democratic Party.
This is why Hillary Clinton didn't really reach out to white Americans, because her strategists believed that they would lose more votes than they would gain. In other words, they thought some fraction of the anti-white vote would be offended if they saw her trying hard to appeal to traditional Americans.
Well Trump won, barely, but he's possibly the last American president. We are not looking at a good future here.
Tribalism rules. The so-called 'melting pot' is a historically anomaly. It's unusual in history. Far, far more common are ethnic conflicts that go on for many generations. And if you are a white American, you are on the losing end. Your children are already discriminated against in the schools, and it's just going to get worse.
I think one of the first things we are going to lose is free speech. Free speech is an unusual thing. It's unusual in human history. It's not even the norm around the world today. One part of what made it possible for us were the many Christian religions that made up America. We had a multi-polar society. They were almost all Christian belief systems but there are profound differences between these Christian religions.
What's more normal is to have one dominant belief system that intensely discriminates against those that don't profess belief and extracts wealth from everyone to support it. Such a system is emerging in America. It's our educational system which has ideology that would take a good deal of work to completely describe. It's well worth doing that, describing it, by the way. But without going in to details it's intolerant. And it resembles past state religions in many ways.
This is another one of those things that so energize the intelligentsia. Most of them I look at prompt me to think - Well, duh. Everybody knows that. I learned that at my mother's knee or at the back of the school bus. They are about as insightful and interesting as "The Mating Habits of the Brazilian Four Toed Tree Toad"
Buwaya: great perspective, thanks.
I see the tribalism concept as a spectrum, with concentric circles. A different mapping perhaps of Maslovian hierarchy of needs. You start with your own survival, and that of your family. Your physical needs and your economic hopes, then how you might invest in your church or your neighbor's business or your town's community center. Eventually the network of affiliations produces regional interests and political platforms.
The mistake of the Progs IMHO was to fly over vast tracts of poorly-understood territory and throw down some canned message or irrelevant offer. The effect, although unintended, was to tell the recipients that they were ignorant peons and lucky to be given a chance to surrender by voting for the Chosen One.
That doesn't often work.
Recent polling finds that a majority of white Americans — including about two-thirds of whites without college degrees and three-fourths of white Republicans — believe there is discrimination against white people in America today. Whites, Christians and other traditionally predominant groups are developing their own narratives of beleaguered solidarity and group victimhood, and Steve Bannon and President Trump are standing by to take their calls.
This is also off-putting. We know with 100% certainty there is discrimination against whites in America. The left revels in it while pressing for more, most obviously in University admissions but also now in hiring quotas as the left celebrated during the Google - Damore fiasco (and for which the DOL just last week announced their support). The question is how much and is often presented as a question of whether there is more than traditional anti-black discrimination. But the simple fact is that anyone arguing there is not anti white discrimination is engaging in the tribalist denial of reality Rauch decries just a few paragraphs before here:
Experimental subjects will spontaneously form in-group loyalties and out-group antipathies when assigned to teams randomly. Subjects will deny the evidence of their own eyes to agree with those around them, even if the discrepancy is blatant. ... Others, such as blind political partisanship, can be quite malignant.
Yet Rauch is presenting anti-white discrimination as an invalid narrative and later summarizes those holding these positions as supporting conspiracy theories. While Rauch may be the best of the left on this issue that says more about the dearth of self-examination on the left than anything else.
This sort of across-the-aisle "Think of America" appeal is pretty common. But it usually boils down to asking the left to be less obvious about their hatred and disdain while asking the right to abandon their values and systems. There isn't enough information to link Rauch to this with certainty but the clues are pretty strong.
The single most important intellectual trend of our time is the popular rediscovery of human tribalism. We thought we had it licked.
No conservatives or libertarians believed this. Left wingers completely controlled government and its supporting institutions (media and academia). Many left wingers mistook this as consensus, especially those more tightly trapped in left wing bubbles. Those bemoaning its loss and desire a return to the supposed consensus are still trying to enforce that marginalization only this time in the name of consensus.
Amy Chua also wrote a book called 'World on Fire" It is about the murder of her Chinese Grandmother by the chauffeur in the Philippines. The reason for the murder - was revenge. Her grandmother was a wealthy Chinese woman in exile in the Philippines. Phillapino's see the Chinese minority, who is powerful, as an interloping tribe. This is a topic she has visited in the past.
I prefer this discussion about Tribes.
"I believe that the human animal – the raw material of our physical bodies – is essentially interchangeable. By this I mean that I could take the children of Fallujah and turn them all into Astronauts, convert Jewish babies into fanatical, mass-murdering SS guards, and shake a generation of the poorest Voodoo-worshippers in Haiti into a cadre of top-flight nuclear physicists, chemical engineers and computer scientists.
Race has nothing to do with this – precisely nothing. The mobs of murdering Hutus and swarms of slaughtering Serbs are as different racially as it is possible to be, and they are cut from precisely the same cloth.
I know this is so because there have been murdering scumbags of every stripe and color in the long history of the human race – which is depressing – and that these animals, at any given time, represent only a small percentage of the majority of people, also of every stripe and color – which is not. There is no corner on virtue, and no outpost of depravity. Human hearts are indistinguishable and interchangeable. Anyone who claims otherwise is, without further argument or statements necessary, a complete God-damned idiot.
Now, with that said – have we all heard that loud and clear? – there are light-years of difference in how various Tribes will behave..."
Read the whole thing.
Tina848: Amy Chua also wrote a book called 'World on Fire" It is about the murder of her Chinese Grandmother by the chauffeur in the Philippines.
Her aunt, not her grandmother, iirc, and it's "about" rather more than that. Chua opens the book with the the murder, and (as I remember) is remarkably honest in the telling - despite her affection for her, the aunt did not come across as the most sympathetic of victims. Chua doesn't soft-pedal the parts of the story that illustrate how members of "market dominant minorities" can obliviously provoke resentment in the majority populations they dominate.
The reason for the murder - was revenge. Her grandmother was a wealthy Chinese woman in exile in the Philippines. Phillapino's see the Chinese minority, who is powerful, as an interloping tribe. This is a topic she has visited in the past.
"Exile" is not the correct word. At any rate, the book is well worth reading.
"... everyone left the room feeling less animus and believing that ordinary people can fight back against polarization" — How can he possibly know that?!"
He can't and doesn't. The capacity of people to look at a focus group and see what isn't there while overlooking what really is there is sometimes mind-boggling. This article by Molly Ball shows it very clearly.
Is there a dime's worth of difference between tribalism and identity politics? From where I sit the Democrats look a lot like the Iroquois federation -- a collection of tribes that have agreed (temporarily) not to make war on one another while they fight everyone else.
A book from long ago, the name of which escapes me, make a good case for a common enemy as the necessary element for cultural or national cohesion. Which is why immediately post-9/11 we seemed to pull the pluribus into unum. Briefly.
Rauch's introvert article changed my life, can't believe it was fifteen years ago. I am introvert who did not understand himself until I read that article.
So I started to read the Molly Ball article that Big Mike linked to, and right away I noticed something interesting. They don't interview black people. They don't interview Hispanic people. They don't interview immigrants. They are only focused on white American natives or people that are part of that culture. (It isn't literally about ethnicity, it's about culture. It's just you can see someone's ethnicity and guess their culture and be right most of the time and be quite wrong the rest.)
Now why do they do that? Well, they want to see themselves as the good guys. Well this is a human constant. It's a common thing. If they applied the same analytic tools to everyone, there is a risk, although they are I'm quite sure they are good at ignoring what they don't want to see, that they would notice that these groups have a strong anti-white narrative going. It's not everyone, but it's actually most people in these groups.
And then it might dawn in them, that their side, we will ignore their own motivations, is only winning elections because of these people, and their rather open, in your face, racism.
The problem with trying to debate leftists is that they all know, without a doubt, that they are unequivocally right.
I've noticed, for some people, they are not interested in politics because of policy or ideology, but for a type of emotional gratification that involves causing others pain.
I can be guilty of that. Didn't use to be. Actually worked in politics for years and it was about policy first, and ideology second.
But eight years of being called a Nazi because I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry. And then eight more years of being called a racist because I didn't vote for Obama. And now being called a Nazi AND a sexist because I didn't vote for Hillary?
You're damn straight I want my opponents to feel pain. They're lucky it's not physical pain. Yet.
But they keep pushing it to the point that might be the only outcome.
Scream at me long enough and I'm not going to take kindly to it. I'm funny that way.
It's the same people who wanted kids to pester their parents about Obamacare at the Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner tables who are whining now about how polarized things are.
Exactly.
You know the day Democrats really started hating on Republicans? The day that New Gingrich took over the House.
That's pretty accurate. 1994 election. Even at the state level.
Overnight, my boss went from Minority Leader to Speaker of the House.
Once their shock wore off, people who I considered - if not friends - at least agreeable co-workers? Well, I was the enemy now. From work, to social events to the softball field.
I didn't change. I was simply on the wrong side of an election they lost.
Jim at said...
You know the day Democrats really started hating on Republicans? The day that New Gingrich took over the House.
That's pretty accurate. 1994 election. Even at the state level.
Overnight, my boss went from Minority Leader to Speaker of the House."
I lived in DC then and remember how stunned virtually everyone I talked to the day after the election was. Since by that point my own political views had shifted from left to right, I spent the day stifling a grin.
If Rauch thinks that only strong conservatives and strong liberals have tribes, but those in between don't, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell him.
"'Have our tribes become more important than our country?' For progs, yes. For conservatives, no."
Our country is just a big tribe.
Our country is just a big tribe.
That was the goal: E Pluribus Unum.
However the Left has spent the last 50+ years explicitly rejecting that goal, and actively working against it.
You know that they have succeeded when saying "all lives matter" is condemned as racist.
Diversity is a progressive -- one step forward, two steps back -- measure that normalizes identification by color, sex, orientation.
Diversity is destructive. It cause more problems than benefits that it provides.
Everyone belongs to a tribe. We have not progressed from the Stone Age. We can gloss it over but the primal facts remain as true as they ever were.
Tribes, including family, are an obstacle to social progress, and monopolists seeking to consolidate capital and control.
Every time I see Amy Chua's name I hear the fictionalized Joan Crawford yelling "No wire hangers ever!"
Diversity is destructive. It cause more problems than benefits that it provides.
IMO, it depends on what the diversity involves. We can be racially and socioeconomically diverse and succeed so long as we are unified in our ideals.
Post a Comment