Tribalism in politics

 Almost 50 years ago, I lived in a council estate in Falkirk in Central Scotland. I was interested to learn that our next-door neighbour had once appeared in the Borough Police Court for assaulting a council workman. It was then common practice for local councils to repaint the doors of all their houses on an estate in a standard colour over a period of a week or two. In this case, maroon doors were being repainted green. But the next-door neighbour was an ardent orangeman and green was the colour of Catholicism. Hence the assault. It is doubtful whether he had ever suffered at the hands of Catholics, took religion seriously, or even knew the doctrinal differences that distinguished the Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity. Instead, he knew which tribe he belonged to, and which tribe was his enemy.

Tribal identity and consequent hostility to other tribes explains much of political behaviour. Policies and actions are applauded or derided not on their merits, but because they symbolise the favoured or the enemy tribe. Violent actions by one’s own tribe are denied, minimised or excused, while similar actions by the opposing tribe are denounced, even as genocide. An army of compliant journalists exists to support these claims. Crude tribalism of this kind is unacceptable to intellectuals or other sensitive souls, so tribalism is disguised by abstract nouns. So intellectual warriors denounce their tribal enemies by opposing ‘colonialism’ (ie the USA and Britain), ‘multiculturalism’ (ethnic minorities), ‘Zionism’ (the Jews), or ‘wokeism’ (women and gays).

Intellectuals also play a crucial part in converting tribalism into nationalism. They do so by concocting a pseudo-history of their tribe/nation, in which it is usually portrayed as the innocent and gallant victim of an evil oppressor. A key consequence is a belief that the exclusion or elimination of this oppressor will of itself produce ‘freedom’ and wellbeing. The real complexity of historic events and the motives that drive events are thereby reduced to a simple moral tale that can mobilise millions. So convincing are pseudo-histories that they attract people elsewhere looking for a cause. This kind of proxy tribalism tends to shift from country to country. In the early 20th Century, the Left in Britain supported the ‘gallant little Boers’. Later, many people idealised the Soviet Union, with subsequent shifts of the idealised foreign country to China, Cuba, and even Albania. On the Right, support for Franco and Hitler morphed into an admiration for the descendants of the gallant little Boers and then to the ruthless capitalists of the USA.

This can all have bizarre results. There have recently been attacks on Starbucks outlets across the world by people who oppose Israel in its war with Hamas. This might seem puzzling because Starbucks has no outlets in Israel, but has many elsewhere in the Middle East, all owned by a Kuwaiti family. Starbucks is not even on the Palestinian BDS list of pro-Israel firms to be boycotted. But Starbucks is seen as a representative of US culture, and the USA is Israel’s main ally. So local branches of Starbucks are attacked and tribal warriors can feel satisfied that they have struck a blow against their hated enemy.