New tribalists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New tribalists are radical adherents of Neo-Tribalism. They propose a New Tribal Revolution outlined in the Ishmael series by Daniel Quinn. New tribalists believe that the tribe fulfills an important role in human life, and that the dissolution of tribalism with the spread of civilization has come to threaten the very survival of the species. New tribalists seek to mimic indigenous peoples by organizing their own "tribes" based on underlying principles gleaned from ethnology and anthropological fieldwork.
Quinn argues that civilization is not working, and if we are to find a way of life that does work, we should draw our basic principles from human societies that are working. Quinn points to indigenous peoples and tribal societies as such examples, and advocates a social revolution--the New Tribal Revolution--to reform society using principles gleaned from the operation of such cultures.
Contents |
[edit] "Takers" & "Leavers"
Quinn's work is specifically amoral, eschewing concepts of "right" or "wrong," and instead dealing only with whether or not a given culture is sustainable. Quinn divides cultures into one of two camps, based on a proposed challenge from our civilization to "take it or leave it." Thus, "Takers," members of the world-dominating culture of totalitarian agriculture, are those known as "civilized" peoples, while "Leavers" are seen as "uncivilized;" they are the ones who continue to live in a "primitive" tribal state. Quinn chose these terms specifically to speak of the differences without language loaded with moral judgment. "Taker" should not be used as a synonym for "bad," nor "Leaver" for "good." However, many naive new tribalists have done precisely this. More sophisticated new tribalists have also cautioned strongly against the self-appellation of the term, "Leaver," as acculturation makes any complete transition nearly impossible. Instead, they advocate the creation of a third category entirely. However, many naive new tribalists have ignored this, as well, and persist in referring to themselves as "Leavers."
[edit] "Mother Culture"
Quinn proposes an emergent, self-preserving mechanism of human cultures which he anthropomorphizes as "Mother Culture," in contrast to "Mother Nature." According to Quinn, every culture has a "Mother Culture," which can be thought of as the whole of internalized acculturation and "conscience," which pressures people to conform to the norms of their culture. As a consequence of the concerns raised in Quinn's work, the term is used almost exclusively to refer to the "Mother Culture" of "Taker" societies. This has led many naive new tribalists to conflate the term "Mother Culture" with "Taker" culture itself. In fact, Quinn supposes every culture to have a "Mother Culture," serving much the same evolutionary role as tribalism in the usual, pejorative sense.
[edit] Criticism
[edit] From indigenous groups
Critics of this movement, including some indigenous peoples, may regard new tribalists as interlopers or pirates of native culture, or seeking to dilute native sovereignty or threaten regard for native culture in general. Quinn condemned just such piracy in his online parable, "The Crystals of Rapanah," but the ambiguity of this relationship cannot be so easily dismissed. In one sense, the conscious syncretism of new tribalists is an outright piracy of native culture. In another sense, the new tribalist emphasis on learning not from specific cultures but from cross-cultural principles suggests that this is not the case.
[edit] Malthusianism & misanthropy
Many point to Quinn's critique of civilization as being essentially Malthusian. Critics also point to Quinn's criticism of civilization and advocacy of small populations as being misanthropic, particularly in that Quinn's solution may require a drastically smaller population than currently exists. While Quinn advocates a gradual decrease in human population rather than the massive die-off predicted by other primitivist writers, Quinn's willingness to accept wide-spread starvation to end the "Food Race" is seen as diametrically opposed to humanity's interests. Some of Quinn's supporters, however, state that large-scale starvation is already prevalent in civilization, and that Quinn's method attempts to have the best interests of humanity, as a sustainable species, in mind. According to Quinn, the way to achieve those interests is in stark opposition to the ideals and sentiments of the prevailing culture.
The critique of new tribalists as being essentially Malthusian is not entirely inaccurate, but requires a significant amendment to Malthus' theories. Malthus, like most demographers, held human population growth as an independent variable. Quinn proposes that humans, like all other animals, are in fact bound by their food supply; that is, that human population is a function of human food supply. Thus, new tribalists do not expect a Malthusian catastrophe in the usual sense, since in their model it is impossible for a population to grow larger than its food supply. Instead, new tribalists foresee the ever-increasing dynamic of food supply and population--Quinn's "Food Race"--leading eventually to an ecological catastrophe which may result in civilizational collapse and even human extinction. Because of this, the charge of misanthropy can only be upheld outside of the new tribalists' own mindset. If Quinn's arguments are accepted, then such wide-spread starvation is, in fact, the most humanitarian alternative. Quinn compared sending food to a starving population to throwing gas on a fire. However, Quinn's understanding of the relationship between food supply and human population is not accepted by all biologists or demographers.
[edit] Reviving the "Noble Savage"
Other critics charge new tribalists with reviving the myth of the "Noble Savage," a concept explored by Romantics such as Rousseau and modern writers such as Aldous Huxley. Critics say that new tribalists' views of tribalism are essentially naive, and that the version of it imagined or even practiced by modern "tribalists" has much more in common with adherents' beliefs and fantasies on the subject than anything resembling "real" tribalism. A "savage," untouched by civilization, would be akin to an animal, and neither noble nor a good role model for a society. By viewing civilization as something that corrupts or taints a person's pure or natural state, new tribalists are succumbing, like Rousseau, to the romantic idea that the natural state of a human being, without the moderating effect of civilization, is somehow better. To the critics this notion is easily refutable, either by comparing human quality of life before civilization, or as humorist P.J. O'Rourke pointed out, by considering the natural state of children.
New tribalists do not deny the strong influence of Romantic thought in the movement. However, unlike the philosophy of the Noble Savage, they do not argue that civilization is inherently corrupting, but simply that many modern forms of civilization do not offer some of the most important benefits enjoyed by more tribal forms of society. They also point out some of the harms, to the individual, society, and the planet, that non-tribal civilizations seem to cause. New tribalists respond to the Noble Savage criticism by pointing out that their philosophy is, on the most practical level, driven by a cost-benefit analysis between forms of civilization grounded in anthropology and ethnography, not by romantic notions of purity, or the naive belief that all civilization is bad.
[edit] Luddism
Some criticize the degree to which new tribalists exploit modern technologies. Most new tribalists live in the First World, use modern technology to organize and communicate the movement, and benefit greatly from modern technology and civilization. This is seen as hypocritical by many critics, since without the vast, modern civilization despised by new tribalists, none of this technology would exist, and thus neither would the movement. However, that is a circle without an end, as without the modern civilization, there would be no need for a movement to get rid of it.
New tribalists often point out that their essential problem is with an unsustainable vision of constant growth that underlies our civilization, rather than technology per se, the primary target of Luddism. They have never taken a position against technology and see no hypocrisy in using technology, since the goal is a sustainable civilization, not a non-technical civilization one or one without any kind of continuing progress in science or technology.
[edit] Among historians and anthropologists
Historians and anthropologists who study Nearctic and Neotropic peoples are divided. Almost all are very sympathetic to the situation of indigenous peoples, and admire their cultures to varying degrees. Many of these scholars, in the Rousseauian tradition of the "Noble Savage", prefer these societies to European societies of the same period. Some speculate this may be due to the idiosyncratic convictions of these same historians, which may have a basis in personal cultural doubts. New tribalists contend that this is because of a deep need for social support beyond the family, and that experts' respect for native cultures reinforces these convictions. However, Quinn is not a purveyor of the "Noble Savage" ideology; according to him tribal societies are notable for their biological viability, and any ethical or aesthetic angles taken are secondary or even irrelevant within his main theory.
[edit] Activity
An important expression of this movement is the trend towards modern eco-villages. Ecoregional Democracy and peace movement advocates are also often new tribalists as well, as the groups share common ideals.
[edit] See also
- Neo-Tribalism
- Deep ecology
- Ecosophy
- Anarcho-primitivism
- Eco-anarchism
- Green anarchism
- Evolution of societies
- Cultural diversity
