The New Tribalism and the Decline of the Nation State

We are witnessing a reversion to tribalism around the world, away from nation states. The the same pattern can be seen even in America – especially in American politics.

Before the rise of the nation-state, between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, the world was mostly tribal. Tribes were united by language, religion, blood, and belief. They feared other tribes and often warred against them. Kings and emperors imposed temporary truces, at most.

But in the past three hundred years the idea of nationhood took root in most of the world. Members of tribes started to become citizens, viewing themselves as a single people with patriotic sentiments and duties toward their homeland. Although nationalism never fully supplanted tribalism in some former colonial territories, the transition from tribe to nation was mostly completed by the mid twentieth century.

Over the last several decades, though, technology has whittled away the underpinnings of the nation state. National economies have become so intertwined that economic security depends less on national armies than on financial transactions around the world. Global corporations play nations off against each other to get the best deals on taxes and regulations.

News and images move so easily across borders that attitudes and aspirations are no longer especially national. Cyber-weapons, no longer the exclusive province of national governments, can originate in a hacker’s garage.

Nations are becoming less relevant in a world where everyone and everything is interconnected. The connections that matter most are again becoming more personal. Religious beliefs and affiliations, the nuances of one’s own language and culture, the daily realities of class, and the extensions of one’s family and its values – all are providing people with ever greater senses of identity.

The nation state, meanwhile, is coming apart. A single Europe – which seemed within reach a few years ago – is now succumbing to the centrifugal forces of its different languages and cultures. The Soviet Union is gone, replaced by nations split along tribal lines. Vladimir Putin can’t easily annex the whole of Ukraine, only the Russian-speaking part. The Balkans have been Balkanized.

Separatist movements have broken out all over — Czechs separating from Slovaks; Kurds wanting to separate from Iraq, Syria, and Turkey; even the Scots seeking separation from England.

The turmoil now consuming much of the Middle East stems less from democratic movements trying to topple dictatorships than from ancient tribal conflicts between the two major denominations of Isam – Sunni and Shia.

And what about America? The world’s “melting pot” is changing color. Between the 2000 and 2010 census the share of the U.S. population calling itself white dropped from 69 to 64 percent, and more than half of the nation’s population growth came from Hispanics.

It’s also becoming more divided by economic class. Increasingly, the rich seem to inhabit a different country than the rest.

But America’s new tribalism can be seen most distinctly in its politics. Nowadays the members of one tribe (calling themselves liberals, progressives, and Democrats) hold sharply different views and values than the members of the other (conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans).

Each tribe has contrasting ideas about rights and freedoms (for liberals, reproductive rights and equal marriage rights; for conservatives, the right to own a gun and do what you want with your property).

Each has its own totems (social insurance versus smaller government) and taboos (cutting entitlements or raising taxes). Each, its own demons (the Tea Party and Ted Cruz; the Affordable Care Act and Barack Obama); its own version of truth (one believes in climate change and evolution; the other doesn’t); and its own media that confirm its beliefs.

The tribes even look different. One is becoming blacker, browner, and more feminine. The other, whiter and more male. (Only 2 percent of Mitt Romney’s voters were African-American, for example.)

Each tribe is headed by rival warlords whose fighting has almost brought the national government in Washington to a halt. Increasingly, the two tribes live separately in their own regions – blue or red state, coastal or mid-section, urban or rural – with state or local governments reflecting their contrasting values.

I’m not making a claim of moral equivalence. Personally, I think the Republican right has gone off the deep end, and if polls are to be believed a majority of Americans agree with me.

But the fact is, the two tribes are pulling America apart, often putting tribal goals over the national interest – which is not that different from what’s happening in the rest of the world.

This piece is cross-posted from RobertReich.org with permission.

4 Responses to "The New Tribalism and the Decline of the Nation State"

  1. margsview   March 25, 2014 at 5:30 am

    Nice to see how generalizing nation states and tribal entities smooths away how all of these divisions happen. Its as though the tribes are all powerful. Not so, Iraq didn't begin as a Sunni vs Shia civil war. Iraq was invaded by the US. For this decade, the newest reason for military invasion is, 'regime change'. But this new label has nothing to do with unity under a new regime. Its misleading, the label should be 'regime destruction', since the only thing Iraq and Libya have in common is chaos and now real tribal and gang civil warfare is tearing apart each country. There is no grand aim, it simply a label, a false one to destroy these countries means of functioning. Syria appears to be more difficult to dismantle but in the end it too will not be able to regain its former unity or independence. The Middle East was therefore a targeted attempt at geopolitics, with the most powerful benefiting.
    As for the US, no one believes that there is really any difference between red states or blue states, the parties they represent are now alleged to be run by corporations and banks. Elections matter little when the same policies are rendered whether under a Democratic or Republican Party. The real separation is between Washington/Wall Street vs Main Street. That's the only way the recession could have happened. There is indeed a division, and the question most ask is, will the rest of the States allow more of the same to cause further financial deterioration? The national interest–has become secondary to maximizing inequality. Schemes through derivatives and other similar financial tools have been given special status while voter/taxpayers are left or forced to pay. Globally the same practices interconnect and float above and beyond all taxpayers who now fight to survive at the others mercy. And what of the 'rule of law' it to is becoming a label, except when it appears to be applied to Main Street, then it bears real and felt teeth.

  2. margsview   March 25, 2014 at 5:34 am

    Nice to see how generalizing nation states and tribal entities smooths away how all of these divisions happen. Its as though the tribes are all powerful. Not so, Iraq didn't begin as a Sunni vs Shia civil war. Iraq was invaded by the US. For this decade, the newest reason for military invasion is, 'regime change'. But this new label has nothing to do with unity under a new regime. Its misleading, the label should be 'regime destruction', since the only thing Iraq and Libya have in common is chaos and now real tribal and gang civil warfare is tearing apart each country. There is no grand aim, it simply a label, a false one to destroy these countries means of functioning. Syria appears to be more difficult to dismantle but in the end it too will not be able to regain its former unity or independence. The Middle East was therefore a targeted attempt at geopolitics, with the most powerful benefiting.

  3. DenverBill1   March 25, 2014 at 10:36 am

    In his collection of Atlantic Monthly articles, ' The Coming Anarchy ', Robert Kaplan predicts most / all of this along with the root causes: arrogant nation – building by withdrawing imperialists, and the end of the cold – war which for decades held many of these long -standing ethnic conflicts at bay. Kaplan's one of the brightest and most experienced in International Relations and, if interested in the issues, I suggest also reading his ' Warrior Politics '. Very, very insightful.

  4. MarkBrrrr   March 25, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    Some say politics is the "new religion" for many. So tribes are now substitute denominations. i think that the conflict between "tribalism" in Reich's article and what previously had been an orientation to "civil society" (i would call it) as it existed in the nation is very important, also.
    People are shifting, and not civilly.