A cursory glance at the world around me reminds me that tribal tendencies are as vibrant as ever. From many angles, the world appears more at odds with itself than ever before. But perhaps this perspective is just a variation on an age old theme?
I woke this morning to learn that Nicola Sturgeon intends to present a revised case for Scottish independence. Although not surprising given the name of the political party which she leads, it is surprising in many other ways. Having wiped the Labour party off the map North of the border in last year's general election, she has been ideally placed ever since to mount another challenge for Scottish independence. But why?
At the same time, the UK is presented with an opportunity to have a say on membership of the European Union; the first since our grandparents in 1975. Already, the "In" group and the "Out" group are hurling insults at one another and tribal lines have been drawn not by individuals but rather by other tribes who continue to boast widespread influence principally through the omnipotent media. That is no less depressing when we consider that we have another three months of this Neanderthal posturing to look forward to - and even then the animosity between the two factions will remain unresolved.
So while Nicola Sturgeon embarks on another campaign to achieve Scottish independence, at the same time she is also campaigning to stay in the European Union. Given the extent to which Scotland (and their Gaelic cousins) have benefited from European membership, few would express surprise that she advocates the status quo. But others might not be quite so sympathetic. The counter argument is that if Scotland intends to seek autonomy, they ought to do so completely. So irrespective of their annoyance at being tagged to Westminster, they should at least be seeking to make their own way regardless of presumed handouts from Brussels. At the recent campaign for independence, Scotland pointed to their rich reserves of North sea oil. In such a short space of time, those fortunes have dwindled considerably. Indeed, it may be argued that Scotland needs Europe and Westminster far more than the latter need them. But such logic will do little to dampen the appetite for another shot at independence. The irony in all of this lies in the two words "United" and "Kingdom". Evidently, Sturgeon feels no such unity and has possibly never related to the ancient concept of kingdom - or never wanted to.
Like Scotland, Wales also craves autonomy from Westminster while still being happy to receive the not inconsiderable sums from Brussels. And as with the Scots, the Welsh are laid bare to accusations of taking more than they give. While such a stance might on the face of it appear a little unfair, the maths are clear enough. Wales though, is arguably more complicated than Scotland not least for the more obvious North/South divide in the Principality. In Scotland, they have the dual power base of Glasgow and Edinburgh in the South but also have the oil wealth of Aberdeen in the North. Wales sees power largely confined to the Southern triumvirate of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport. Also, while Scotland at least has the potential wealth of oil, Wales is somewhat less endowed with respect to natural resources. It is therefore arguable that the Welsh have the most to gain by staying in Europe but the least to gain by cutting free from Westminster. Yet as I write, the nationalist debate which continues to dominate matters in Scotland has also assumed a louder voice in Wales with partisan lines being adopted by the various tribal structures within the Principality. The power base of Labour in the South of Wales has it's roots in a bygone era in which the Valleys were the industrial powerhouse of the Welsh economy. Those days are long gone with coal mining now a thing of the past and steel making soon to join it. Seldom has the economic future in Wales looked less certain notwithstanding a vibrant tourist industry. Even the farming with which the Welsh are so synonymous has been cap in hand to Brussels for as long as I can remember existing as it does on a system of subsidies and quotas.
Yesterday saw the annual six nations rugby match between Wales and England and support was polarised absolutely along ancient tribal lines. The result almost becomes secondary in importance to the pre-match masquerading of nationalistic support. Only last week, another example of tribalism took place when the red of Liverpool took on the red and white of Manchester United in a European cup competition whose importance is tertiary at best. But because two recognised tribes are pitted against one another, a cauldron of emotion and anger is quickly created. On the night of that match, the tribalism lost sight of the football match preferring instead to become embroiled in distasteful chanting aimed to cause the maximum offence to the opposing fans.
That is the problem with tribalism. It too often fails to show us the credentials of the tribe in question preferring instead to try and vilify the other tribe. In other words, it is very often ineffective and counter-productive. Since the dawn of time, man has chosen to pick his side and stick to it through thick and then - for better or for worse. Such behaviour inevitably begins to look truly stupid when it becomes so intransigent as to dismiss out of hand any virtue in the other tribe. I recall with great fondness the recollections of Geoffrey Boycott the great Yorkshire batsman whose capacity to polarise the county of his birth had few equals. During the power struggle at his county in the 1980s, one of the Yorkshire committee criticised Boycott because he felt that the great batsman was only interested in making them look stupid. Boycott replied with characteristic wit, "They don't need my help".
That is the other defining feature of tribes; they are all too often to be found at opposite poles of a given debate. For proof of this, we can see the right wing policies of David Cameron's Conservative party being pitted against the Socialism being espoused by the new Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. It wasn't like this in the 1990s when more moderate men like John Major and Tony Blair were leading their tribes. Twenty years ago, everyone was engaged in a bloody battle for the political middle ground but those days have now seemingly long gone. The battle now seems to be more concerned with achieving the greatest possible polarity in any given argument.
But this isn't just happening in the (for now) United Kingdom. It is also prominently on display across the pond as the extreme right wing policies of Donald Trump seem to have captured the Republican mood while the Corbynesque Bernie Sanders has made significant progress against the establishment figure, Hilary Clinton, for the Democrats. So the age old tribal dynamics are still alive and kicking but there seems to be a palpable shift in dynamics. The Scots and the Welsh are both angling for a divorce from their longstanding unions preferring instead to pursue the seemingly more financially attractive arrangement with Brussels. But for a cursory warning from history, they would both do well to cast their eyes West over the Irish sea to see what become of their Gaelic cousin when they adopted the Euro. The legacy of that decision is still being felt in Ireland today with a prohibitive cost of living, high unemployment and record numbers emigrating to try and earn an honest wage. It is hardly the stuff of fairy tales. The mantra "careful what you wish for" seems more apt than ever.
Putting aside domestic matters and the current spectacle in the United States, the most worrying aspect of tribalism is surely to be found in Africa and the Middle East were the after effects of tribalism have spawned a new tribe which has thus far proved to be infinitely more worrying than any of it's recent predecessors. If people find the politics of Trump, Corbyn et al extreme, they are as nothing when compared to the new tribes of Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab and of course, the Islamic State of the Levant. The latter would probably not even exist had it not been for the ill advised policies of Blair and Bush. The legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are there for all to see and it is not pretty. No, tribalism of this sort is what we get when we choose the wrong tribe ourselves. But a tribe is like trying for a baby. It can be a very frustrating process to finally get what you were after but thereafter, you are stuck with it.
Yesterday marked the 76th anniversary of one of the scariest events in world history. On March 12th 1938, Hitler announced an anschluss (union) with Austria. The rest is history and the books once more warn us of the dangers of tribalism. So while David Cameron was quick to crow about his achievements for the UK in his recent negotiations with Brussels, people need to be mindful of the immortal words of the late American President, Lyndon B Johnson. When referring to his political opponent J. Edgar Hoover, Johnson famously said, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in". Not perhaps the most eloquent of sayings but the meaning is lost on none of us. In a variation on this, Don Corleone referred to his tribal challenges thus, "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer". So perhaps the Godfather himself had the greatest grasp on how best to contend with tribalism.
I woke this morning to learn that Nicola Sturgeon intends to present a revised case for Scottish independence. Although not surprising given the name of the political party which she leads, it is surprising in many other ways. Having wiped the Labour party off the map North of the border in last year's general election, she has been ideally placed ever since to mount another challenge for Scottish independence. But why?
At the same time, the UK is presented with an opportunity to have a say on membership of the European Union; the first since our grandparents in 1975. Already, the "In" group and the "Out" group are hurling insults at one another and tribal lines have been drawn not by individuals but rather by other tribes who continue to boast widespread influence principally through the omnipotent media. That is no less depressing when we consider that we have another three months of this Neanderthal posturing to look forward to - and even then the animosity between the two factions will remain unresolved.
So while Nicola Sturgeon embarks on another campaign to achieve Scottish independence, at the same time she is also campaigning to stay in the European Union. Given the extent to which Scotland (and their Gaelic cousins) have benefited from European membership, few would express surprise that she advocates the status quo. But others might not be quite so sympathetic. The counter argument is that if Scotland intends to seek autonomy, they ought to do so completely. So irrespective of their annoyance at being tagged to Westminster, they should at least be seeking to make their own way regardless of presumed handouts from Brussels. At the recent campaign for independence, Scotland pointed to their rich reserves of North sea oil. In such a short space of time, those fortunes have dwindled considerably. Indeed, it may be argued that Scotland needs Europe and Westminster far more than the latter need them. But such logic will do little to dampen the appetite for another shot at independence. The irony in all of this lies in the two words "United" and "Kingdom". Evidently, Sturgeon feels no such unity and has possibly never related to the ancient concept of kingdom - or never wanted to.
Like Scotland, Wales also craves autonomy from Westminster while still being happy to receive the not inconsiderable sums from Brussels. And as with the Scots, the Welsh are laid bare to accusations of taking more than they give. While such a stance might on the face of it appear a little unfair, the maths are clear enough. Wales though, is arguably more complicated than Scotland not least for the more obvious North/South divide in the Principality. In Scotland, they have the dual power base of Glasgow and Edinburgh in the South but also have the oil wealth of Aberdeen in the North. Wales sees power largely confined to the Southern triumvirate of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport. Also, while Scotland at least has the potential wealth of oil, Wales is somewhat less endowed with respect to natural resources. It is therefore arguable that the Welsh have the most to gain by staying in Europe but the least to gain by cutting free from Westminster. Yet as I write, the nationalist debate which continues to dominate matters in Scotland has also assumed a louder voice in Wales with partisan lines being adopted by the various tribal structures within the Principality. The power base of Labour in the South of Wales has it's roots in a bygone era in which the Valleys were the industrial powerhouse of the Welsh economy. Those days are long gone with coal mining now a thing of the past and steel making soon to join it. Seldom has the economic future in Wales looked less certain notwithstanding a vibrant tourist industry. Even the farming with which the Welsh are so synonymous has been cap in hand to Brussels for as long as I can remember existing as it does on a system of subsidies and quotas.
Yesterday saw the annual six nations rugby match between Wales and England and support was polarised absolutely along ancient tribal lines. The result almost becomes secondary in importance to the pre-match masquerading of nationalistic support. Only last week, another example of tribalism took place when the red of Liverpool took on the red and white of Manchester United in a European cup competition whose importance is tertiary at best. But because two recognised tribes are pitted against one another, a cauldron of emotion and anger is quickly created. On the night of that match, the tribalism lost sight of the football match preferring instead to become embroiled in distasteful chanting aimed to cause the maximum offence to the opposing fans.
That is the problem with tribalism. It too often fails to show us the credentials of the tribe in question preferring instead to try and vilify the other tribe. In other words, it is very often ineffective and counter-productive. Since the dawn of time, man has chosen to pick his side and stick to it through thick and then - for better or for worse. Such behaviour inevitably begins to look truly stupid when it becomes so intransigent as to dismiss out of hand any virtue in the other tribe. I recall with great fondness the recollections of Geoffrey Boycott the great Yorkshire batsman whose capacity to polarise the county of his birth had few equals. During the power struggle at his county in the 1980s, one of the Yorkshire committee criticised Boycott because he felt that the great batsman was only interested in making them look stupid. Boycott replied with characteristic wit, "They don't need my help".
That is the other defining feature of tribes; they are all too often to be found at opposite poles of a given debate. For proof of this, we can see the right wing policies of David Cameron's Conservative party being pitted against the Socialism being espoused by the new Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. It wasn't like this in the 1990s when more moderate men like John Major and Tony Blair were leading their tribes. Twenty years ago, everyone was engaged in a bloody battle for the political middle ground but those days have now seemingly long gone. The battle now seems to be more concerned with achieving the greatest possible polarity in any given argument.
But this isn't just happening in the (for now) United Kingdom. It is also prominently on display across the pond as the extreme right wing policies of Donald Trump seem to have captured the Republican mood while the Corbynesque Bernie Sanders has made significant progress against the establishment figure, Hilary Clinton, for the Democrats. So the age old tribal dynamics are still alive and kicking but there seems to be a palpable shift in dynamics. The Scots and the Welsh are both angling for a divorce from their longstanding unions preferring instead to pursue the seemingly more financially attractive arrangement with Brussels. But for a cursory warning from history, they would both do well to cast their eyes West over the Irish sea to see what become of their Gaelic cousin when they adopted the Euro. The legacy of that decision is still being felt in Ireland today with a prohibitive cost of living, high unemployment and record numbers emigrating to try and earn an honest wage. It is hardly the stuff of fairy tales. The mantra "careful what you wish for" seems more apt than ever.
Putting aside domestic matters and the current spectacle in the United States, the most worrying aspect of tribalism is surely to be found in Africa and the Middle East were the after effects of tribalism have spawned a new tribe which has thus far proved to be infinitely more worrying than any of it's recent predecessors. If people find the politics of Trump, Corbyn et al extreme, they are as nothing when compared to the new tribes of Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab and of course, the Islamic State of the Levant. The latter would probably not even exist had it not been for the ill advised policies of Blair and Bush. The legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are there for all to see and it is not pretty. No, tribalism of this sort is what we get when we choose the wrong tribe ourselves. But a tribe is like trying for a baby. It can be a very frustrating process to finally get what you were after but thereafter, you are stuck with it.
Yesterday marked the 76th anniversary of one of the scariest events in world history. On March 12th 1938, Hitler announced an anschluss (union) with Austria. The rest is history and the books once more warn us of the dangers of tribalism. So while David Cameron was quick to crow about his achievements for the UK in his recent negotiations with Brussels, people need to be mindful of the immortal words of the late American President, Lyndon B Johnson. When referring to his political opponent J. Edgar Hoover, Johnson famously said, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in". Not perhaps the most eloquent of sayings but the meaning is lost on none of us. In a variation on this, Don Corleone referred to his tribal challenges thus, "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer". So perhaps the Godfather himself had the greatest grasp on how best to contend with tribalism.
Comments
Post a Comment