Tribalism vs. Globalism?

One of today’s great myths, held by many radical environmentalists, is that tribalism (a.k.a. community) and globalism are locked in conflict. Like many myths, there is a grain of truth in this one, but it is also a serious distortion, one that leads to violence and intolerance. It is worth exploring, even if only in a column.

The implicit assumption is that the world used to be a collaboration among communities and countries, each with its own culture and economy, a state both culturally diverse and environmentally more benign. This Edenic vision is usually complemented with the belief that “indigenous” societies are culturally and technologically sustainable, as opposed to industrial ones, which are not, and that in the inevitable conflict between them, the latter destroys the former.

This view is seriously flawed for a number of reasons, most of which are discussed in detail elsewhere (for example, see the September 29 Economist on “Globalization and its Critics”). But I wish to focus on one fundamental flaw that characterizes this mental model: an inability to appreciate human complexity and the continuity of change it necessarily entails.

For the basic, usually implicit, assumption of the tribalism-versus-globalism argument is that the world is static, and, therefore, conflicts occur as a zero-sum game: Someone must win and someone must lose. Thus, if globalism “wins,” tribalism “loses,” and visa versa; there can be no better outcome. This assumption is, however, simply wrong in an evolving complex system, in which conflict is not necessarily bad, but can be an engine of growth. In this case, the world is growing not just more tribal, or not just more global, but both at the same time.

It used to be that the idea of culinary diversity in America was hot dogs versus hamburgers; now, it is a small town indeed that doesn’t have numerous choices among Vietnamese, Thai, Afghan, Indian, Mexican, and perhaps many other cuisines. Are there fast-food restaurants in Tokyo? Sure — and, conversely, Japanese restaurants are in the US.

Geographic communities may be less strong, but they are rapidly replaced, indeed augmented, by Internet-based communities of interest. People in a village used to know perhaps tens of neighbors; now, in developed countries, both in person and online, they interact annually with thousands. More fundamentally, the entire structure of postmodernism, with its pastiche of times, places, and cultural patterns, is a reflection of a growth in complexity that springs from a world where most people cannot live without knowing at least something about other societies, places, and beliefs. International governance systems used to involve only nation-states; now firms, NGOs, and interest groups participate in a more multidimensional, still nascent, process.

Whether it induces a defensive and intolerant reaction, or tolerance and an appreciation of difference, it is a far more complex world for most people. And it evolves. It is not a zero-sum game, tribalism vs. globalism; it is both.

And, in different and new ways, both are growing more robust. The explosive growth of NGOs in the past twenty years is not a story of globalization; it is a story of new tribes created and supported by underlying technologies and languages. It is a story of community and globalization co-evolving — a story of increasing complexity. It is not that there aren’t cultures and tribes that die out. Any creative, evolutionary process necessarily progresses by subsuming or growing beyond some elements, while generating others. The intellectually honest response is not denial, but construction of a more humane world where such losses are cushioned and unique cultural and linguistic information preserved against loss.

This process of increasing complexity brings with it greater choice and liberty — slowly and sporadically, no doubt, but it is there — from the trivial examples of widespread exotic cuisine, to the more fundamental ability of individuals to couple with NGOs representing their beliefs, and thus greatly augment their power.

It is no doubt convenient to adopt the fiction of a fundamental conflict between tribalism and globalism. But it is not just wrong; it is, in the end, an insult to human creativity and freedom.

——————————-

Allenby is Environment, Health and Safety Vice President, AT&T, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and Princeton Theological Seminary, and Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily any entity with which he is associated.