The Identitarian Dynamic

Sofia Ekim 25, 2021

I’m not back “all the way” yet, Gentle Reader. There’s still too much on my platter for me to be as regular as I normally strive to be. But I have enough gas in the tank for a short piece.

I wrote some time ago about the influence of a tribal orientation on sociodynamics. The part that’s most relevant to contemporary political divisions and attitudes ran thus:

     Should political incentives arise that reinforce tribal distinctions and preferences, havoc will ensue. A nation-state cannot endure under conditions of internal inter-tribal strife; as Abraham Lincoln put it, a house divided cannot stand. There must ultimately be either a convulsive reduction of the tribes to political passivity, for example by warfare, or a parting of the ways that dissolves the nation-state into two or more separate units, as happened after the British relinquished the rule of India....
     Most fascinating of all, interior conflicts brought about by political forces can actually germinate new tribes within the nation-state. Those conflicts, and the nascent tribes they elicit, can arise from:
Legal privileges granted to some persons but not others;
National policies that have regionally, racially, sexually, ethnically, occupationally, religiously, or otherwise discriminatory effects;
De facto infringements or abridgements of the rights of recognizable groups.

     When such forces cause new tribes to arise within an existing nation-state, their tribalism tends to be irruptive, disruptive...and sometimes violent. The extent to which they take hold and attract allegiants is the measure of their impact upon the health of such a nation, and the prospects for its continued existence.

When you hear someone decrying “racism,” or “sexism,” or “Islamophobia,” or lambasting the “white identity movement,” or the renascent American nationalism that’s accompanied the ascendancy of President Donald Trump, compare what he’s saying to the dynamic implied by the above. This is particularly important as regards one of the occupational tribes that has recently emerged: the journalists’ tribe.

This recent exchange between CNN “reporter” Jim Acosta and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders is massively illuminating:

Acosta has acquired a reputation as the worst of the worst in the legacy media’s cadre. He’s rude, arrogant, and insistent: the archetype of an entitled personality. When he doesn’t get what he wants, he bitches at maximum volume. Nothing can restore order except his forcible expulsion from the room. And his network is solidly behind him and his tactics.

Acosta is the perfect representative for journalistic identitarianism. That tribe has emerged in response to Donald Trump’s accurate characterization of the legacy media as fundamentally opposed to the interests of the American people. Under current conditions, it’s unlikely to dissipate. The legacy media have been enlisted as an auxiliary arm of the Democrat Party. Its barons are determined to keep what kowtowing to the Democrats has “earned” them – access to the luminaries and power-brokers of the Left – and will therefore brook no divergence from the existing playbook. If you doubt this, consider the unsavory case of Sarah Jeong.

Journalistic tribalism is occupational in nature. There aren’t many other occupations following that pattern at this time, but one exceptionally important one must be mentioned: bureaucratic tribalism. It’s been “under the radar” for many years – see the David Boren quote embedded in this piece — but it’s now “coming out” for all to see as Trump’s “drain the swamp” agenda progresses. Tribalist sociodynamics apply to bureaucrats quite as much as to the races, sexes, sexual orientations, the journalism trade, and so forth.

One final thought for today, which deserves to be in large font:

Tribalism + Politics == Warfare.

Our social peace has been riven entirely because of tribal dynamics. Until the tribes disperse – i.e., until they subordinate their tribal allegiances to the higher cause of the nation – the mud-slinging, disruptions of public events, and violence will continue. Indeed, they’ll grow worse as some tribes perceive themselves to be winning (or losing) against their rivals.

The prospects for social harmony in the near future are bleak. Nor is there any palliative available, other than the individual decision to withdraw completely from social and political life. Perhaps the most penetrating statement that could be made about it all came from Winston Churchill: