Globalism Groupism Tribalism · 2013. 8. 16. · Groupism — the elementary drive to form and take...
1
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2013 S A T U R D A Y D9 PEOPLE must have a tribe. It gives them a name, adding to their own and social meaning in a chaotic world. It makes the envi- ronment less disorienting and dan- gerous. The social world of each modern human is not a single tribe but rather a system of inter- locking tribes. Participants always ranked the out-group below the in-group. They judged their “opponents” to be less likeable, less fair, less trust- worthy. People savour the company of like-minded friends and they yearn to be in one of the best — perhaps an elite college or the ex- ecutive committee of a company, a religious sect, a fraternity, a garden club. The goal is to belong to any collectivity that can be com- pared favourably with other competing groups of the same category. People around the world to- day have grown ever more cau- tious of war and are fearful of its consequences. They have turned increas- ingly to its moral equivalent in team sports. Their thirst for group membership and superior- ity of their group can be satis- fied with victory by their warri- ors in clashes on ritualised battle- fields. Like the cheerful and well-dressed citizens of Washing- ton, DC, who came out to witness the First Battle of Bull Run during the Civil War, people now antici- pate the experience of a battle of the Washington Redskins on the football field with relish. The same applies to Arsenal of Lon- don, Real Madrid or Bayern Mu- nich. Experiments conducted over many years by social psycholo- gists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups and then discriminate in fa- vour of the one to which they be- long. Even when the experimenters created the groups arbitrarily, then labelled them so the mem- bers could identify themselves, and even when the interactions prescribed were trivial, prejudice quickly established itself. Whether groups played for pen- nies or identified themselves in a group-based manner, say, prefer- ring some abstract painter to an- other, the participants always ranked the out-group below the in-group. The prejudices asserted them- selves even when the subjects were told the in-groups and out-groups had been chosen arbi- trarily. In one such series of trials, subjects were asked to divide piles of chips among anonymous mem- bers of the two groups and the same response followed. Strong favouritism was consist- ently shown to those labelled sim- ply as an in-group, even with no other incentive and no previous contact. In its power and universality, the tendency to form groups and then favour in-group members has the earmarks of instinct. It could be argued that in-group bi- as is conditioned by early training to affiliate with family members and by encouragement to play with neighbouring children. But even if such experience does play a role, it would be an ex- ample of what psychologists call prepared learning, the inborn pro- pensity to learn something swiftly and decisively. If the propensity towards in-group bias has all these crite- ria, it is likely to be inherited and, if so, can be reasonably supposed to have arisen through evolution by natural selection. Other cogent examples of prepared learning in the human repertoire include lan- guage, incest avoidance and the acquisition of phobias. Groupism — the elementary drive to form and take deep pleas- ure from in-group membership — easily translates at a higher level into tribalism. People are prone to ethnocen- trism. It is an uncomfortable fact that even when given a guilt-free choice, individuals prefer the com- pany of others of the same race, nation, clan and religion. They trust them more, relax with them better in business and social events, and prefer them more often than not as marriage partners. They are quicker to an- ger at evidence that an out-group is behaving unfairly or receiving undeserved rewards. And they grow hostile to any out-group encroaching upon the territory or resources of their in-group. When, in experiments, black and white Americans were flashed pictures of the other race, their amygdalae – the brain’s centre of fear and an- ger – were activated so quick- ly and subtly that the con- scious centres of the brain were unaware of the response. The subject, in effect, could not help himself. When, on the other hand, appropriate contexts were add- ed — say, the approaching black person was a doctor and the white person, his patient — two other sites of the brain inte- grated with the higher learning centres, the cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral preferential cor- tex, lit up, silencing input through the amygdala. Thus, different parts of the brain have evolved by group selec- tion to create “groupishness”. They mediate the hard-wired pro- pensity to downgrade oth- er-group members, or else in op- position to subdue its immediate, autonomic effects. There is little or no guilt in the pleasure experienced from watch- ing violent sporting events and war films, providing the amygdala rules the action and the story un- winds to a satisfying destruction of the enemy. We would be well advised not to belittle this inclination. It may seem trivial but shifting tribal in- stincts – from the very real battle- field of war and mutual human de- struction, to sports arenas and vid- eo games actually represents civili- sational progress. THE GLOBALIST This article is based on Edward O. Wilson’s 2012 book The Social Conquest Of Earth (W.W. Norton & Company). Group i sm Tr i bal i sm For all the talk about a world without borders and ever more interconnectedness, one fundamental human trait has not lost any of its power: the penchant of humankind to organise itself in tribes. E.O. Wilson, one of the world’s most renowned biologists and author of The Social Conquest Of Earth, examines the roots of ethnocentrism. Globalism
Transcript of Globalism Groupism Tribalism · 2013. 8. 16. · Groupism — the elementary drive to form and take...
S A T U R D A Y , F E B R U A R Y 2 , 2 0 1 3 SSAATTUURRDDAAYY D9
PEOPLE must have a tribe. Itgives them a name, adding totheir own and social meaning in achaotic world. It makes the envi-ronment less disorienting and dan-gerous. The social world of eachmodern human is not a singletribe but rather a system of inter-locking tribes.
Participants always ranked theout-group below the in-group.They judged their “opponents” tobe less likeable, less fair, less trust-worthy.
People savour the company oflike-minded friends and theyyearn to be in one of the best —perhaps an elite college or the ex-ecutive committee of a company,a religious sect, a fraternity, agarden club.
The goal is to belong to anycollectivity that can be com-pared favourably with othercompeting groups of the samecategory.
People around the world to-day have grown ever more cau-tious of war and are fearful ofits consequences.
They have turned increas-ingly to its moral equivalent inteam sports. Their thirst forgroup membership and superior-ity of their group can be satis-fied with victory by their warri-ors in clashes on ritualised battle-fields.
Like the cheerful andwell-dressed citizens of Washing-ton, DC, who came out to witnessthe First Battle of Bull Run duringthe Civil War, people now antici-pate the experience of a battle ofthe Washington Redskins on thefootball field with relish. Thesame applies to Arsenal of Lon-don, Real Madrid or Bayern Mu-nich.
Experiments conducted overmany years by social psycholo-gists have revealed how swiftlyand decisively people divide intogroups and then discriminate in fa-vour of the one to which they be-long.
Even when the experimenterscreated the groups arbitrarily,then labelled them so the mem-bers could identify themselves,and even when the interactionsprescribed were trivial, prejudicequickly established itself.
Whether groups played for pen-nies or identified themselves in agroup-based manner, say, prefer-ring some abstract painter to an-other, the participants alwaysranked the out-group below the
in-group.The prejudices asserted them-
selves even when the subjectswere told the in-groups andout-groups had been chosen arbi-trarily. In one such series of trials,subjects were asked to divide pilesof chips among anonymous mem-bers of the two groups and thesame response followed.
Strong favouritism was consist-ently shown to those labelled sim-ply as an in-group, even with no
other incentive and no previouscontact.
In its power and universality,the tendency to form groups andthen favour in-group membershas the earmarks of instinct. Itcould be argued that in-group bi-as is conditioned by early trainingto affiliate with family members
and by encouragement to playwith neighbouring children.
But even if such experiencedoes play a role, it would be an ex-ample of what psychologists callprepared learning, the inborn pro-pensity to learn something swiftlyand decisively.
If the propensity towards
in-group bias has all these crite-ria, it is likely to be inherited and,if so, can be reasonably supposedto have arisen through evolutionby natural selection. Other cogentexamples of prepared learning inthe human repertoire include lan-guage, incest avoidance and theacquisition of phobias.
Groupism — the elementarydrive to form and take deep pleas-ure from in-group membership —easily translates at a higher level
into tribalism.People are prone to ethnocen-
trism. It is an uncomfortable factthat even when given a guilt-freechoice, individuals prefer the com-pany of others of the same race,nation, clan and religion.
They trust them more, relaxwith them better in business andsocial events, and prefer themmore often than not as marriagepartners. They are quicker to an-ger at evidence that an out-groupis behaving unfairly or receivingundeserved rewards.
And they grow hostile to anyout-group encroaching upon theterritory or resources of theirin-group.
When, in experiments, blackand white Americans wereflashed pictures of the otherrace, their amygdalae – thebrain’s centre of fear and an-ger – were activated so quick-ly and subtly that the con-scious centres of the brainwere unaware of the response.The subject, in effect, couldnot help himself.
When, on the other hand,appropriate contexts were add-
ed — say, the approachingblack person was a doctor andthe white person, his patient —
two other sites of the brain inte-grated with the higher learning
centres, the cingulate cortex andthe dorsolateral preferential cor-tex, lit up, silencing input throughthe amygdala.
Thus, different parts of thebrain have evolved by group selec-tion to create “groupishness”.They mediate the hard-wired pro-pensity to downgrade oth-er-group members, or else in op-position to subdue its immediate,autonomic effects.
There is little or no guilt in thepleasure experienced from watch-ing violent sporting events andwar films, providing the amygdalarules the action and the story un-winds to a satisfying destructionof the enemy.
We would be well advised notto belittle this inclination. It mayseem trivial but shifting tribal in-stincts – from the very real battle-field of war and mutual human de-struction, to sports arenas and vid-eo games actually represents civili-sational progress.THE GLOBALISTThis article is based on EdwardO. Wilson’s 2012 book The SocialConquest Of Earth (W.W. Norton &Company).
Groupism
TribalismFor all the talk about a world without
borders and ever moreinterconnectedness, one fundamental
human trait has not lost any of itspower: the penchant of humankind to
organise itself in tribes. E.O. Wilson,one of the world’s most renownedbiologists and author of The SocialConquest Of Earth, examines the
roots of ethnocentrism.
Globalism
