Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging

Tribalism is governed by a force so motivationally powerful that it predicts more of your behaviour than your race, class, nationality, or religion. The formal analysis of this incredible phenomenon has only just begun, but the emerging science reveals that these factors are mere subjugates to our primal instinct to be a member of a tribe. This “Tribe Drive” is an ancient adaptation that has been a prerequisite for survival for 99.9 percent of our species' evolutionary history. It is a critical piece of cognitive machinery—honed by millions of years of evolution—that gave us the ability to navigate, both cooperatively and competitively, increasingly complex social landscapes. But now that our species spans billions across the globe, does this adaptation continue to serve us, or is it mismatched to its environment? In other words, what happens when humans become either tribeless or destructively consumed by tribalism?

So next time you hear a raving demagogue counselling hatred for other, slightly different groups of humans, for a moment at least see if you can understand his problem: He is heeding an ancient call that—however dangerous, obsolete, and maladaptive it may be today—once benefited our species. — CARL SAGAN AND ANN DRUYAN, 1993


Tribe.

Sebastian Junger writes in the introduction that as a young man he lived a life of such sheer predictability that he wanted something to happen be that a hurricane or tornado, though not necessarily the destruction that came with it, just so that he could be involved in “.....something that would require us to all band together as a tribe” Based on an anecdote where a man gave him a sandwich he states that being part of a tribe is “a rare and precious thing in modern society.” That man saw him as part of the tribe. “Modern Society has perfected the art of making people not feel necessary. It's time for that to end”

I can hear many of my ageing baby boomer generation agreeing to these sentiments without giving it too much thought. I think that Junger is mixing up nostalgia for a past that most older people of any era mistake for the, as they see it, errors of the modern world. This can be subconscious thought in my opinion, not really recognised by an older/my generation as they become the parents they rejected. Junger is unusual in that he recalled himself as a youth that had no “tribalism” as he saw it but then recognised it in an incident where he got a free sandwich not long after. One would have to read this free sandwich incident to understand what he means.

In the first essay titles The Man and The Dogs we are told of the Indian Wars in 1763 when the tribes tried without success to violently repel the English and with that paid a heavy price. One demand by the colonists was the return of what seemed like many hundreds of Europeans, both male and female that had absconded and/or been captured and lead a life of their choosing with the tribes that they came into contact with. Junger writes that prior had been attempts to stem the flow of those willing to leave the colonies by imposing severe penalties on anyone that took up with the Indians. “The Puritan leaders of New England found it particularly galling that that anyone would turn their backs on Christian society” “Heathenish” behaviour was one descriptor used by one Puritan leader. The frontiersman actually began to mimic the tribes so as to survive the, shall we say, lack of services. At this point Junger states that it is easy to romanticize the Indian life but that it was a life of wars, torture and cruelty. “If there is any conceivable defence for such cruelty....” the Spanish Inquisition was no better. In my opinion this is the entire existence of human kind is one of mankinds inhumanity to each other be that as individuals or in the vast majority of cases tribe versus tribe. Any one that reads deeply into our history no matter what corner of the world will find we are hardly a peaceful species. The Holocaust anyone? The Crusades? Should I name 100's more? Junger admits as much by mentioning the Protestant Reformations “...capacity for cruelty...”

He thinks that the appeal of the Indians was such things as hunting that was more “...interesting than plowing fields.” Sex also as this was less of a moral issue than with the puritans who were, lets be brutal here, one of the more stupid religious subsets when it came to attempting to suppress what comes naturally. In fact let make that all the Abrahamic Religions. Junger suggests Indians were a touch more tolerant on religion in general, classless to a point, egalitarian and they dressed for comfort and personal property was also limited. He adds that women had fewer children as well, choice was the norm. Was the violence of Indian life was preferable to the alternative? The Indian tribes may have had it over the Puritan tribes for some colonialist. Do we see this in modern society, possibly in off the grid collectives?

Junger discusses why western life may be unappealing to some. On a material level we are more comfortable but “...as societies become more affluent they tend to require more, rather than less, time and commitment (as) individuals.” I actually relate to this point. As an example my drive to and from work each day are 2 hours of my life I resent, with halfwit drivers on a jammed freeway committing dangerous acts so as to get to their destination maybe a few minutes earlier. Cocooned individuals in their metal shells that oblivious to the mayhem they cause. I hate it. I have several times thought of selling up and moving to a slower lifestyle.

Junger actually makes the point that a study of the !Kung showed they needed as little as 12 hours a week in order to survive life in the Kalahari. Junger's discussion on the deep history and lifestyle of the !Kung seems not far removed from the Indian tribes he initially discusses. The !Kung pretty much stayed the same as they had ever been until the 1970s when modern life finally caught up with their isolation.

The rest of the chapter discusses the coming of both the agriculture and industrial ages and with that the fundamental change in the human experience, personal property ownership and individual choice for example. As we moved into town and city living we also began to have less to do with the tribe and were meeting more and more strangers than once was the case. Being a tribal species this has led to evidence that this affluence and urbanisation has led to more psychological issues such as depression, suicide etc. Suicide was hitherto rarely known in tribal societies with a few exceptions.

There are other “alienating effects” on modern society such as the fact that tribal mothers gave birth and carried their babies skin to skin 90% of the time compared to US mothers in the 1970s when that was as low as 16%. Children never slept on their own but nowadays sleep alone soon after birth. Where once there was the tribe (mother/father/sister/brother) there is nowadays stuffed toys. Modern reasons that a baby should be “self soothing” go against evolution.

Modern society reduced the role of the tribe as a community and elevated authority. “...uneasy companions” says Junger. Foraging societies of the past had one common trait and that was an absence of wealth disparity. This was evolutionary as there need for “co-operative band-level sharing” In these groups we had to be highly mobile. Authority was almost impossible to impose on the unwilling as males that tried to control the group countered “coalitions of other males”. These behaviours kept the group together. To not do so meant they did not eat. It is suggested that shirkers and non-sharers got ridiculed and even killed off. Anthropologist Christopher Boehm claims that even modern foraging groups have no issue with execution of those that do not share. Bad behaviour punished, good behaviour rewarded via being part of the food cycle and being an integral part of the community.

Here Junger looks at modern society as a comparison. “Subsistence-level hunters aren't necessarily more moral than other people; they just can't get away with selfish behaviour because they live in small groups where almost everything is subject to scrutiny. Modern society on the other hand, is a sprawling and anonymous mess where people can get away with incredible levels of dishonesty without getting caught.” Here Junger gives examples of both ends of the US with it thought that 3% cheat on welfare benefits that in a tribal society would get punished. Fraud in Insurance costs 100's of billions and defence contract fraud is thought to be 100's of billions “.....and they are relatively well behaved compared to the finance industry. If compared to the cost of a hunter gather community this could be the loss of months of food and would be a serious threat to survival. “....retribution....” “.....would be immediate and probably very violent” As there are hardly any punishments Junger says that it is because the US is now very much ‘de-tribalizsed'. US law is very much in favour of the individual as opposed to the tribe and Junger feels that the public at large are excepting of this. Some major disasters may challenge this acceptance. He finds this ironic as the origins of the US were in “..confronting precisely this kind of resource seizure by people in power”

Essay 2 War Makes you an Animal. Junger uses his own family history makes the point that “....my family was deeply affected by war and probably wouldn't have existed without it”. His family history is interesting reading and I suspect that we can all trace back and discover similar history if we wish. I have done DNA and ancestry matches and can trace my family tree to some very famous and violent individuals in English history. I am also able to see many ancestors who served in the military. This has to have had an effect on who and where I am today even if I am not sure how. Junger tells of his antiwar fathers' reaction to his own reaction against the Vietnam War when he got drafted, a lecture as to fighting fascism and owing the country something. His father said he was right to protest an unjust war but he had to be part of the protection of the country none the less. Junger then discusses tribal initiation rites with a comparison to young felles driving fast cars, as one example, to impress their peers. Adding that young boys play war games Junger says that all this is culminated in “....how I came to understand my own curiosity about combat when I was young”.

And with that “....how I came to understand why I found myself, broke and directionless, on the tarmac of Sarajevo airport at age thirty one, listening to the tapping of machine gun fire in a nearby suburb named Dobrinja.” Junger spends the next few pages telling of his own and others exploits on Sarajevo during the civil war and as is usual there are things that should not be happening. He states that over the 3 year siege roughly 20% of the population is killed and wounded with UN estimating that half the children had seen someone killed and 1 in five had lost a family member. This was Junger's observation of the beginning of a societal collapse. He states that all are equal in that case. In 1915 an earthquake killed 30,000 in less than a minute. “The rich were killed with the poor....”. Disasters of this nature can make all equal, he even says that despite reports otherwise there was a drop in crime after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as so called looting reports were in fact communities mostly looking for food. He also adds the blitz on London where “Conduct was so good...” by the population that police were rarely summoned. In London “Psychiatrists watched in puzzlement as long standing patients saw their symptoms subside.......” Disaster, war specifically had positive effects on mental health. Researchers noted the same in other ward over time such as Spain, Algeria, Lebanon and Norther Ireland. H.A. Lyons a noted psychologist said that active engagement in a cause improved mental health. It seems that the allies learnt nothing from the blitz as when Dresden was smashed beyond anything that was comparable prior production went up and morale was higher than any other comparable German city that was spared. Charles Fritz, a member of the US Strategic Bombing Survey became a critic of bombing. He later made a general study and “....formulated a broad theory about social resilience”. Later in the 1960s he developed his theory further in that “.....modern society has gravely disrupted social bonds that have always characterised the human experience, and that disasters thrust people back into a more ancient, organic way of relating. Disasters he proposed, create a ‘community of sufferers' that allows individuals to experience an immensely reassuring connection to others” With that many differences are temporarily erased be that class or race. Fritz felt that this was therapeutic, especially to those with mental illness. Later anthropologist such as Anthiny Oliver-Smith came to the same conclusions after further study.

Humana are “strongly wired” to help each other. And will even risk their lives to assist complete strangers. Men perform the vast majority of rescues on children, the elderly and women. Reproductive women are a disproportionally high number and that makes sense from a evolutionally sense. This is considered to be due to upper body strength and a male personality trait known as “impulsive sensation seeking”. Women display more what is called moral courage. Women slightly outnumber men in the names on the Righteous Among Nations records for example. Gender division suits humans in risk taking be that male physical or female moral in that it keeps communities together males protect us from danger and females protect us morally. In the modern world this need to help each other is less profound than once was, We are protected by various departments such as police and fire brigades that have relieved us of most challenging events. Those living today can go through an entire life without seeing anything that can be considered dangerous and if we do others can deal with that. Junger calls this a blessing and a loss. The blessing is obvious but the loss is that danger in the past defined communities.

To show the reactions of each gender and also how men became leaders to deal with catastrophe in certain situation Junger compares the Spinghill Mine disaster in Nova Scoatia 1958, WW2 London Blitz and his time in Sarajevo. He said that the coming together of society to events such as these catastrophes tends to be temporary but in the case of the UK lasted probably until the 1970 with the fading out of those that had lived in the blitz. What seems to happen though is that when a new catastrophe occurs there is a turning back of the clock. Research has shown that as memory fades theses times are seen as good times by the older generation. As one survivor of Sarajevo said “I missed being close to people......” “We were the happiest then” “We laughed more”

Essay 3. In Bitter Safety I Awake.
Junger explains how he suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that he only recognised after a discussion with psychotherapist at a family event. He had come back from 2 months with the Northern Alliance and had seen was in all its gory detail and reported as such. For the next year suffered panic attacks in crowded and noisy situations that eventually dissipated but left him wondering what happened. It took this chance meeting to understand that these attacks were in fact “highly efficient single-event survival learning mechanism” Though the attacks eased Junger writes he became emotionally different.

“If war were purely bad in every single aspect and toxic in all its effects, it would probably never happen as often as it does” writes Junger who goes onto explain that it “....inspires ancient human virtues of courage, loyalty, and self-awareness that can be utterly intoxicating to people who experience them”. Junger makes this statement when discussing that war was an integral part of a developed and parallel system of government that the Iroquois “understood” as part of their survival as a tribe for both war and peace with modern warfare being now fought generally far away from civilian populations. This means that modern veterans come home to a modern world that they are alienated from they may be having a perfectly healthy response. His example of the Iroquois is that their wars may have been a collective experience as opposed to that of the individual. At this point I wonder if Junger is a bit to US eccentric as the US is one of the very few nations that has the ability to fight far from its own home and leave he population at large very much isolated from the trauma of war.
Rapid recovery by nations suffering psychological trauma is discussed with examples of toughest street kids in Burundi having low PTSD rates through to short term reactions to trauma once danger has passed. Long term PTSD is in fact rare according to the research. Rape is supposedly more initially psychologically damaging than combat research has found but even then that trauma dissipates quickly. This is a faster recovery rate than shown with some US combat deployees. Psychologist this is caused by a “best of times/worst of times” by the military, rape victims on the other hand know nothing but trauma.

Statistically 20% of those that suffer PTSD and don't recover are already “...burdened with psychological issues...”. Those that are at greatest risk according to study are the educational deficit, female, low IQ and even abused children. Suicide is the “extreme expression of PTSD. In recent times the military has been able to assess the mental health issues of sodiers and of there are precieved issues then they are not deployed in combat zones. There is also the statistic that modern military population being volunteer based has a high proportion of younger people who were abused and joined to escape that trauma. An easy way out of a bad situation.

PTSD is not just for the front line soldier. Those that launch a missile attack watch the devastation they bring in real time far behind the lines suffer. Both Yom Kippur and US Army VII Corp support troops who saw no combat suffered high PTSD. Frontline troops train together and tribalism brings strong bonding whereas the opposite occurs with the backline, theory has it.

The rest of the review is in the comments below.

Loved the ideas in here but they were underexplored - could have been longer (something I rarely say about nonfiction)! Lost Connections is a more thorough treatment of some of the same concepts.

This was a little shorter / more shallow than I was hoping, and doesn't really contain any actionable suggestions for those of us who want to cultivate a greater sense of community within our modern society. It also has some weird evopsych stuff about gender roles. Even so, there are some interesting ideas here. Now I need to revisit [b:A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster 6444492 A Paradise Built in Hell The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster Rebecca Solnit https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347471802s/6444492.jpg 6634525].