re: #295 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Okay. Then this doesn’t really apply to much in US culture or politics, right? There’s very few groups of people that this would describe in the US, since we all tend to have disparate groups that we’re bound to.

Wait, how is tribalism being conservative congruent with the definition you gave above? A union would be ‘tribalist’ from the definition you gave above (though the Tea Party, for example, would not be). Where’s the preservation of the past coming from?

Another thing that annoys me about ‘tribalist’ is that it’s got that ol’ “Civilized man vs. the ignorant savage” thing going on.

No, a union wouldn’t be “tribalist” but a free association of people. You may have to pay dues to belong to a union, but it doesn’t require you to participate.

And just because we in the US have “disparate groups” that we’re bound to, is that true of most people? What are those “disparate groups” you speak of? Or are those simply modern equivalents of societal units held in any other era, like church, work, associations, etc? Where those are, who are in them, are also very important. Look at church going in the US, for instance: Churches, more than any other institution, are the most segregated in the country.

I’m not describing tribes as ignorant. Tribes can have very educated, very gifted people in them. That becomes meaningless when applied to the outside world. When I think of modern “tribalism”, for example, I think of Mormonism as a first example, along with certain segments of the rightwing, and even some on the left. Even though Mormons consider themselves “international”, it’s not a practice of balancing tribalism and globalism—it’s winning converts to their “tribe”.