Can Our Tribal Instincts Save Us?

Tribalism has been a sticky part of human social interactions for as long as we have existed. Some, like Cory Clark and his colleagues at the University of Durham, argue (convincingly) that our tribal tendencies are protective, with more tribal societies that encourage group loyalty faring better over time. Tribalism isn’t a trait of people on the left or right. In fact, tribalism can be just as powerful on the conservative right as it is on the liberal left, with all of us filtering what we hear about others and showing a bias toward people we believe are part of our social group.

The question is, though, with the world one large social media platform and a breakdown of social decorum on all sides, could our tribal tendencies make us more resilient or more vulnerable?

Tribalism certainly functioned in the distant past as a survival strategy, with societies that had more fiercely loyal members likely to do better than those with freethinkers who threatened the group’s social cohesion. But does a preference for cognitive bias serve our needs any longer, especially when democratic processes allow us to hold onto our bias and still tolerate the divergent opinions of others (if we feel put out by others telling us what to do, we can always wait until the next election and vote them out of power). In other words, when we feel like we can be both tribal and loyal to our in-group and cooperate with those who we cast as outsiders, does this give us an edge that lets us live better lives with less stress?

Unfortunately, a cognitive turn toward hatred is fraying the foundations of our sense of collective security that we once found through democracy and international security. One needn’t look far for examples of a breakdown in intergroup trust and the pricklier side of tribalism. At a recent hockey game in Vancouver, Canadians (yes, us docile, polite people whose national symbol is the reclusive beaver) booed as the U.S. national anthem was sung. Such behavior speaks to a worrying trend: increasing tribalism and rejection of those whom we find threatening.

I like to think of myself as a practical, commonsense, middle-of-the-road social scientist who can see different sides of almost every argument. Except these days, as that hockey game showed, I’m not feeling very safe in my illusionary peacekeeper’s blue beret, trying to remind people that we have more in common than what separates us. In fact, I’m starting to wonder if tribalism is here to stay and if we shouldn’t instead embrace it as our only way to de-escalate our collective psychological angst. What does the science tell us about the resilience of communities that fracture and exist in echo chambers where their own way of thinking and living is all they get to experience? The news isn’t as bad as I thought it would be.

Konrad Bocian at the University of Kent has found through a series of studies that the more defensive we feel about our ingroup and its values and the more we show what has been termed "collective narcissism" (a defensive belief in ingroup greatness that is not appreciated by others), the more we will defend the moral righteousness of those we feel represent our interests. Contrariwise, the more insecure we are and the more we feel attacked by outsiders, the more we will stand our ground and assert our group’s way of thinking as the one and only truth. In other words, tribalism is both a necessary tool to protect us from outside threats and a potentially nasty soup of moral indignation and intolerance when we feel put down.

If this is true (and it sounds true), then the commonsense (and tolerant) middle ground that many of us thought was a sign of psychological well-being may be incongruent with how people are actually experiencing the world these days. Whether the threat to personal and collective sovereignty is true or not, it doesn’t matter. The fact that people feel attacked has created the conditions for unchecked tribalism and the conflict it breeds.

If I look at this problem as a social scientist with an interest in helping people feel secure and happy, then maybe the solution is not to grow our tribes bigger but to become much smaller. After all, the United States is not looking so united these days. Abortion laws, gun laws, and attitudes toward science, immigrants, health care, and climate change have created irreconcilable differences between states, differences that are literally tearing apart families and communities. It’s much the same in Canada where views on fossil fuels and pipelines, Indigenous rights, language rights, and identity politics have created fear among those on both the left and right and vast differences in what each province wants. If we are going to be this tribal, maybe the solution is to break into smaller, like-minded groups rather than imposing consensus and loyalty on those who would prefer to be different. Might smaller tribes make us feel happier and less threatened psychologically?

If we can’t beat tribalism, maybe, just maybe, it’s time to embrace it. Much to my surprise, there might even be psychological benefits for doing so.