I'm (trying to finish) reading Francis Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order. He's a good enough writer, but it's still tough sledding at times. It is tough when you have a chapter that covers 2000 years of Indian history and you have to make it compelling.
Anyway, one of his points that I've gleaned so far is the pervasiveness of tribalism. The first form of socio-political organization was the clan or kinship group. There were small, very tightly knit groups that organized along family lines.
Tribes grew from that, as humans developed agriculture and were able to settle more densely. Tribes have some form of common ancestor - often mythic and are bound by more extended kinship ties. As China and India attempted to develop states, they constantly struggled to overcome the tribal nature of both societies. In the end, China was able to create a series of dynasties that functioned as states, whereas India never quite got there, because of the social orders created by Hinduism. The power of caste undermined the power of the state.
But in each case, the power of kinship unity, of tribalism, constantly undermined the ability of leaders to create even mildly pluralistic states. India remained pluralist without creating a state (foreign invaders did that) and China created a state by eliminating pluralism.
Which brings me to our current predicament. We have two Americas (sorry, Obama). We have a largely urban, coastal, pluralist state, and we have a largely rural, white tribe. The two are not inhabiting the same political space. They speak a different language, and believe in different sources of strength and power.
Unlike 1860, this division is not starkly geographical, in the sense of the compass. We can't simply divide in two today anymore than we could have in 1860 (despite some willingness in my beliefs to jettison that other America).
One thing that is for sure is that ANY modern polity can collapse if they allow tribalism to "trump" pluralism.
No comments:
Post a Comment