Tribalism and the Breakdown of Nations

Edward J. Dodson

[1990]

History reveals that much of the oppression and inequality of opportunity experienced by people in every society exists because we remain dominated by socio-political institutions designed to protect privilege. What we know for certain is that those who gain political power and material wealth on the basis of privilege do not let go without a determined struggle. Moreover, too often the end result of deposing one form of tyranny is its replacement by another.

Another important lesson of history is that the formation of nation-states has seldom occurred out of any desire for unification by individual members of ethnic (i.e., tribal) groups with other cohesive groups. Large states become so because of superior force; and, throughout history only the most isolated tribal groups have escaped conquest and oppression by others. Unfortunately, population growth and the development of sophisticated weapons systems have now virtually eliminated save havens to which small groups are able to retreat as a survival tactic. Clear examples in the modern era include the displacement and near-annihilation of the indigenous tribes of the Americas by Europeans and European-Americans. Particularly in the Americas, the disappearance of virgin lands and the open frontier occurred with breathtaking speed because of the vast migration of people from the Old World.

Today, only the polar regions and the deep oceans remain beyond the territorial control of individual nation-states. And yet, warfare continues as a primary means by which stronger states attempt to absorb additional territory and people within their geo-political control. By these measures, a crucial principle of the doctrine of human rights -- that each of us has an equal right to inhabit the earth -- is crushed beneath the weight of statist or individual claims of sovereignty over specific portions of the earth. As this is read, even the oceans and the ocean floors are being claimed as the exclusive property of individual nation-states.

Conceptually, few would argue the point that our survival demands we must learn to live together under a system of law that secures and protects shared human rights. And yet, the very source of everything on which our survival depends -- the earth -- is divided into contrived entities we call countries, the origins of each traced to conquest and often the annihilation of other groups. Despite a century of what is called progressive reform in many societies, our actions toward one another continue to violate fundamental human rights. Our socio-political arrangements and institutions, even in the most social-democratic of societies, sanction privilege in countless ways. In other societies, people are forced to live in a state of declared or undeclared war with one another. If we are to preserve our earth for future generations and improve the well-being of our own, we must acknowledge the need for immediate and fundamental changes to our socio-political arrangements and institutions. As a starting point, thoughtful individuals in all societies must come together in support of a common program for change, a program built on principles consistent with the protection of human rights and the objective of securing equality of opportunity. Defining what this means in practical terms, however, continues to evade even those who seek its implementation.

From the earliest period of social organization, when kinship and extended families formed the basis of cooperation (and conflict) within and between groups, we have warred with one another for control of our natural environment and the resources needed to survive and prosper. If we have any reason for optimism, it is that cooperation between some individuals within societies gradually created a transnational community existing and expanding alongside the exclusive and monopolistic socio-political arrangements that turned large tribes into nation-states. From the earliest period of empire-building on, then, the battle has raged between the transnational voices of reason and the conflict-dominated behavior of the tribes.

Only in the last few years has the most recent era of empire-building started to splinter and dissolve. From the sixteenth century on, centralized power has been applied in the nation-states to coercively force people of very different ethnic, religious and cultural values to adhere to one system of socio-political arrangements. Such structures are conducive to empire-building and generally bring monopolistically-obtained wealth to a small elite, but (when not mitigated) always leaves the remaining population impoverished. Even in the social-democracies, structural remnants of aristocratic privilege continue to sanction the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a relative few. Where oppression is more overt and poverty widespread, social and political unrest are inevitable.

Rarely has a group holding power recognized the inherent destructiveness of its own actions. Even in the United States, only the rapid deterioration of urban living and then a series of deep and prolonged depressions sparked those in power to look at existing socio-political institutions in a critical way. At the extremes of statist power, the use of coercion imposed centralized decision-making on the people of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China. The question being answered by daily events is what type of system will finally take hold where only coercion held the tribal instincts of a diverse population in check.

If there is anything to be learned from our experiment with pluralism in the United States, it is that the State must assure the highest degree of tolerance and equality of opportunity possible, and that interactions between individuals and groups within society must be voluntary. Securing these objectives, even here, will not be an easy task. Laws written to achieve equality of opportunity have found only inconsistent support even among those who have adopted transnational values. In the United States, where the indigenous tribes were largely decimated and ethnicity weakened by mobility, socio-economic interests are the primary source of distinction and conflict between groups. Unfortunately for the people of many other countries, the experience of living under an unchecked central bureaucracy or elite prevents even the basic forms of voluntary association from evolving into pluralism.

State-socialism depended almost entirely on coercion rather than voluntary association -- on the promise of equality directed by a central bureaucracy rather than a reliance on the fostering of the cooperative side of our nature. Now, with the centralized power of the State under attack, tribalism is re-emerging among the many diverse ethnic groups who were brought together by empire-building and post-colonial boundary settlements. Few of these people feel part of a pluralistic society.

There is some reason for cautious optimism. Transnationalism is far more widespread today than ever before in our history. People increasingly share common concerns for the condition of the earth and its most impoverished citizens. Claims to sovereignty over specific territory, a vestige of tribalism, are increasingly recognized as mere usurpations based on force, fraud and theft. The transnationalist views as self-evident the axiom that the earth is the birthright of all mankind, equally; and, that nation-states exist as administrative jurisdictions only and not as justifiable sovereign powers.

Living in the United States, despite this society's many problems, offers the individual a unique experience in pluralism. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned that we may run out of time before the majority of people adopt transnationalist values. We tend to think of our actions as enlightened and our values as the cornerstones of the just society. We cannot ignore the fact, however, that our society suffers because our laws do not fully protect equal rights of access to nature for all our citizens and equal opportunity for a decent human existence. The signs are all around us that injustice rather than equality of opportunity continues to reign supreme.