> About the tribe. When you say there is nothing akin to the high school
> girl fretting about whether or not to go to the dance in tribal
> society I think you may be mistaken. Firstly, even with a clear role -
> a Maori warrior, for instance - there is still a need for judgement
> about the right course of action in each particular situation. It may
> often be obvious what a person ought to do, but not always. Secondly
> might it not be diffficult to take the decision to act because of a
> conflict between crystal clear tribal obligations and other values. It
> is a custom, for instance, that sickly children are thrown from a
> cliff, but is it easy to decide to give up one's own child?
That is the point --- the mother has no decision to make; she does what
the tribe'a folkways prescribe. That doesn't mean she may not regret
having to do it.
> Thirdly,
> might there not be a conflict of otherwise very clear ethical
> imperatives? Think of Antigone. As a good sister she must bury her
> dead brother but as a good citizen she must obey Creon and leave her
> brother unburied. What is she to do? And in situations like this a
> person might have to pay with their life if they make the wrong
> decision. Doubtless tribal value systems keep these conflicts to a
> minimum (and pre-Socratic Greece might not be sufficiently tribal for
> you) but surely it does not eliminate them completely.
Pre-socratic Greece was an urban society --- indeed, a rather
cosmopolitan one. Individuation had occured several millennia prior to
Antigone's era.
> About the joy of the tribe: Was tribal life really so blissful? It
> kept at bay for a long time any doubt about the most fundamental
> values and didn't leave individuals feeling that they were caught in
> the crossfire in a clash of civilisations, but was the tribe really a
> recipe for happiness (assuming that happiness is relevant to the
> matter at hand)? The institution of an arranged marriage, for
> instance, cuts out completely the angst of indecision but it is not
> necessarily a recipe for a happy marriage. Similarly, being born at
> the wrong end of a caste system makes for a simple life, but not
> necessarily a happy one.
The notion of happiness, itself, embodies an assumption of
individuation. Individuals are happy when their personal goals and
interests are satisfied; members of insular tribes are content as long
as Nature does not present unexpected or insumountable obstacles and
intruders do not upset their equilibrium. "Joy" and "happiness" are
probably inapplicable terms; "contentment" and "satisfaction" would be
more apt. Tribal people experience pleasure and pain, of course.
Modern, individuated humans invariably interpret tribal life in terms of
the conceptual categories they've acquired as members of a civilized
society, resulting in a romanticized parody of that lifestyle.
> About politics: In your first post you made the very strong claim that
> all of politics is totalitarian in that it tries to impose a tribal
> unity when tribal life has already disintegrated. Now, without wishing
> to defend liberalism it seems a bit tricky to me to fit liberalism
> into this definition of politics. On your reading, it seems that
> liberal societies are simply political spaces in which pseudo tribes
> compete for power.
First, we have to distinguish the two distinct (and incompatible) common
meanings of "liberalism." "Classical" liberalism, which emphasized the
autonomy and equal moral status of all individuals, advanced the concept
of individual rights and defended the liberty of each individual to
pursue happiness as he himself defined it, was the first *civilized*
political theory --- a theory which assumed, implicitly, that people in
modern societies were to be regarded as distinct individuals, and not as
members of a tribe bound to pursuit of common interests and goals.
("Liberalism" and "liberate" derive from the same Latin root, meaning
"to free").
The more contemporary meaning of "liberalism," however, denotes a
version of communitarianism, and thus re-adopts the premise that society
has an underlying tribal structure. It envisions society as a
brotherhood, a unity, an organism, to which all of its constituent
individuals have duties and from which they are entitled to nurture and
sustenance. Politics then becomes a contest among factions to define
those duties and acquire the power to impose them --- by education
(conversion) if possible, or by force if necessary.
"Classical" liberalism remains in play and exerts some influence, of
course, but it is viewed, even by many of its adherents, as just another
contending viewpoint, rather than as a rejection of the framework in
which that contention take place. Which, indeed, it is. The tribal ideal
(the romanticized one most people entertain) remains enticing, if not
compelling. They are not going to abandon it any time soon.
> On merely empirical grounds, though, is this the
> case? Don't lots of people (the majority perhaps) sincerely believe
> the liberal discourse of human rights and the priority of the
> individual that that discourse promotes?
Some do, particularly in America and other English-speaking countries
where classical liberalism evolved and became familiar; most don't. Many
are "sunshine liberals," i.e., they are willing to abide individuality
as long as it doesn't hamper some "collective goal" important to them,
or derail the prospect of tribal unity.
> If your diagnosis (that what
> society lacks is real tribalism) were correct, then psuedo tribalism
> ought to be breaking out everywhere and the human rights discourse
> ought to have few, if any, adherents and the ailing liberal order
> ought to collapse overnight.
The concept of human rights has as much support as it does only because
it has been redefined to reflect communitarian ideals.
> You imply that the material advantages of
> a market society keep people's minds off their homesickness but your
> analysis implies a universal and very deep homesickness and it is
> difficult to see how hire purchase hatchbacks and an endless stream of
> gadgets could take people's minds off such a well of psychic pain.
It doesn't. That is why they embrace politics --- to restore the tribal
environment they long for (and as each of them envisions it --- which,
of course, they all envision differently).
> I am a bit worried that the following might be an accurate summary of
> your argument:
>
> 1 The individual in modern liberal societies is beset by a confusion
> about the kind of values that could give a clear orientation to his or
> her life.
> 2 There was no such confusion in tribal communities.
> 3 Therefore, ideally we ought to live in a tribe (irrespective of the
> fact that we cannot partly because the psychological preconditions no
> longer hold).
The first premise is a bit misleading. The individual is not confused
regarding his own values (he may be, but that is a different issue); he
is uncomfortable being surrounded by persons whose values differ from
his, and thus whose behaviors he cannot anticipate, whom he cannot count
on for support or encouragement in pursuit of his own values, and which
indeed may interfere with his own. The Spanish Inquisition was launched
to root out Jews and Muslims who had converted to Catholicism, or
pretended to it, in order to avoid expulsion from the Iberian
penninsula. It was widely supported, because for the average person (not
to mention the religious and political power mongers), the presence of
heretics and infidels in their midst was intolerable. Who knows what
blasphemies and deviltries such persons may be up to? Who knows what
punishment God might inflict upon them for failing to purify themselves?
> I agree with the premises, but I don't see that the conclusion
> follows. Tribal life for us would be psychological suicide.
Fortunately, that is something we cannot accomplish, as long as we
remain in an urban setting. We can attempt it, however, and have done so
many times, resulting in the Spanish dungeons, burnings at the stake,
the extermination of the kulaks, the gulag, Auschwitz, etc.
> So what we
> need is a form of community life which goes beyond the liberal
> insistence on an ultra-minimal public life without trying to impose a
> tribal world view (which would immediately have the feminists, for
> instance, out on the streets erecting barricades).
Any ideas?
