Difference between revisions of "Tribalism"
m (Text replacement - "http://" to "https://") |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
''Tribalism'' implies the [[possession]] of a strong cultural or [[ethnic]] [[identity]] that [[separates]] one member of a group from the members of another group. It is a precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong [[feeling]] of identity for a true tribal society to form. The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism is an important one because, while tribal society no longer strictly exists in the [[western world]], tribalism, by this second definition, is arguably undiminished. People have postulated that the human [[brain]] is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its [[evolutionary]] advantages. | ''Tribalism'' implies the [[possession]] of a strong cultural or [[ethnic]] [[identity]] that [[separates]] one member of a group from the members of another group. It is a precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong [[feeling]] of identity for a true tribal society to form. The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism is an important one because, while tribal society no longer strictly exists in the [[western world]], tribalism, by this second definition, is arguably undiminished. People have postulated that the human [[brain]] is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its [[evolutionary]] advantages. | ||
| − | Many [[tribes]] refer to themselves with their language's word for "people," while referring to other, [[neighboring]] tribes with various [[epithets]]. For example, the term "[ | + | Many [[tribes]] refer to themselves with their language's word for "people," while referring to other, [[neighboring]] tribes with various [[epithets]]. For example, the term "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit Inuit]" translates as "people," but they were known to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe Ojibwe] by a name 'Eskimo' translating roughly as "eaters of raw meat." |
The [[anthropological]] [[debate]] on warfare among tribes is unsettled. While typically and certainly found among horticultural tribes, an open question remains whether such [[warfare]] is a typical feature of [[hunter]]-gatherer life, or an anomaly found only in certain circumstances, such as scarce resources (as with the Inuit or Arabs), or among food producing societies. There is also [[ambiguous]] [[evidence]] whether the level of [[violence]] among tribal societies is greater or lesser than the levels of violence among civilized societies. | The [[anthropological]] [[debate]] on warfare among tribes is unsettled. While typically and certainly found among horticultural tribes, an open question remains whether such [[warfare]] is a typical feature of [[hunter]]-gatherer life, or an anomaly found only in certain circumstances, such as scarce resources (as with the Inuit or Arabs), or among food producing societies. There is also [[ambiguous]] [[evidence]] whether the level of [[violence]] among tribal societies is greater or lesser than the levels of violence among civilized societies. | ||
| − | If nothing else, [[conflict]] in tribal societies can never achieve the absolute scale of civilized warfare. Tribes use forms of subsistence such as horticulture and [[foraging]] which, though more efficient, cannot yield the same number of absolute calories as [[agriculture]]. This limits tribal populations significantly, especially when compared to agricultural populations. Lawrence Keeley notes in ''War Before Civilization'' that examples exist with low percentage rates of casualties in tribal [[battle]]. He also points out that some tribal battles were much more lethal as a percentage of [[population]] than, for example, the [ | + | If nothing else, [[conflict]] in tribal societies can never achieve the absolute scale of civilized warfare. Tribes use forms of subsistence such as horticulture and [[foraging]] which, though more efficient, cannot yield the same number of absolute calories as [[agriculture]]. This limits tribal populations significantly, especially when compared to agricultural populations. Lawrence Keeley notes in ''War Before Civilization'' that examples exist with low percentage rates of casualties in tribal [[battle]]. He also points out that some tribal battles were much more lethal as a percentage of [[population]] than, for example, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg Battle of Gettysburg]. He concludes from the data examined that no evidence consistently indicates that [[primitive]] battles are proportionately less lethal than civilized ones. |
| − | In the past 50 years, [[anthropologists]] have greatly revised the [[understanding]] of the tribe. [ | + | In the past 50 years, [[anthropologists]] have greatly revised the [[understanding]] of the tribe. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas Franz Boas] removed the idea of unilineal cultural [[evolution]] from the realm of serious anthropological research as too [[simplistic]], allowing tribes to be studied in their own right, rather than [[stepping stones]] to civilization or "living [[fossils]]". Anthropologists such as Richard Borshay Lee and Marshall Sahlins began publishing studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the title to his book, Sahlins referred to these tribal cultures as "the ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Affluent_Society Original Affluent Society]''," not for their material [[wealth]], but for their combination of [[leisure]] and lack of want. |
| − | This work is for the [[progression]] of [[humanity]] and the [[enlightenment]] of ourselves, such as that advocated by John Zerzan or Daniel Quinn. These philosophers have led to new tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New Tribal Revolution". The [ | + | This work is for the [[progression]] of [[humanity]] and the [[enlightenment]] of ourselves, such as that advocated by John Zerzan or Daniel Quinn. These philosophers have led to new tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New Tribal Revolution". The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotribalism new tribalists] use the term "tribalism" not in its widely thought of derogatory sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, [[egalitarian]], classless and [[cooperative]] [[community]]. New tribalists insist that this is, in fact, the natural state of [[humanity]], and proven by two million years of human evolution.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism] |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*'''''[[Tribe]]''''' | *'''''[[Tribe]]''''' | ||
*'''''[[Sectarianism]]''''' | *'''''[[Sectarianism]]''''' | ||
[[Category: Anthropology]] | [[Category: Anthropology]] | ||
Latest revision as of 02:44, 13 December 2020
Definitions
- 1: the state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes.
- 2: chiefly derogatory the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group: a society motivated by cultural tribalism.
Description
Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or advocating for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.
The social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to case, but, due to the small size of tribes, it is always a relatively simple role structure, with few (if any) significant social distinctions between individuals.
Tribalism implies the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group. It is a precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong feeling of identity for a true tribal society to form. The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism is an important one because, while tribal society no longer strictly exists in the western world, tribalism, by this second definition, is arguably undiminished. People have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages.
Many tribes refer to themselves with their language's word for "people," while referring to other, neighboring tribes with various epithets. For example, the term "Inuit" translates as "people," but they were known to the Ojibwe by a name 'Eskimo' translating roughly as "eaters of raw meat."
The anthropological debate on warfare among tribes is unsettled. While typically and certainly found among horticultural tribes, an open question remains whether such warfare is a typical feature of hunter-gatherer life, or an anomaly found only in certain circumstances, such as scarce resources (as with the Inuit or Arabs), or among food producing societies. There is also ambiguous evidence whether the level of violence among tribal societies is greater or lesser than the levels of violence among civilized societies.
If nothing else, conflict in tribal societies can never achieve the absolute scale of civilized warfare. Tribes use forms of subsistence such as horticulture and foraging which, though more efficient, cannot yield the same number of absolute calories as agriculture. This limits tribal populations significantly, especially when compared to agricultural populations. Lawrence Keeley notes in War Before Civilization that examples exist with low percentage rates of casualties in tribal battle. He also points out that some tribal battles were much more lethal as a percentage of population than, for example, the Battle of Gettysburg. He concludes from the data examined that no evidence consistently indicates that primitive battles are proportionately less lethal than civilized ones.
In the past 50 years, anthropologists have greatly revised the understanding of the tribe. Franz Boas removed the idea of unilineal cultural evolution from the realm of serious anthropological research as too simplistic, allowing tribes to be studied in their own right, rather than stepping stones to civilization or "living fossils". Anthropologists such as Richard Borshay Lee and Marshall Sahlins began publishing studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the title to his book, Sahlins referred to these tribal cultures as "the Original Affluent Society," not for their material wealth, but for their combination of leisure and lack of want.
This work is for the progression of humanity and the enlightenment of ourselves, such as that advocated by John Zerzan or Daniel Quinn. These philosophers have led to new tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New Tribal Revolution". The new tribalists use the term "tribalism" not in its widely thought of derogatory sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community. New tribalists insist that this is, in fact, the natural state of humanity, and proven by two million years of human evolution.[1]
