I read a sociological theory some time ago. I can't even remember who the author was. But the gist of it was that during a typical lifetime you can know and relate meaningfully with approximately 200 people. This is your tribe. These are people that you trust to be in your space. You feel comfortable with them because you know a little something about them--like whether they smoke pot or beat their wives or are Republicans or Virgos. That's not 200 people at once, but 200 in your lifetime.
The implication of this theory is that everyone that you encounter beyond those 200 is an outsider, a foreigner. You are not sure if you want them in your space. They are not tribesmen but potential adversaries. You don't know if the guy making your hamburger at MickeyD's is spitting in it or not. He doesn't care about you and you don't care about him. He's a foreigner.
If you live in a large city, you might encounter several thousand people a day just by passing them on the street. Walk down any avenue in NYC and you will pass hundreds per minute. But rarely do you see eye contact between them. They are many times engrossed in cell phone conversations with one of their tribe members. The people that you 'know' are more real to you, even when they are disembodied voices on a cell phone or phantoms on the internet, than the ones you encounter physically in real time.
The first rule of crime is: You don't steal from your friends, you get with your friends and steal from somebody else.
Are humans tribal creatures? Is war and crime inevitable?
Tell Me What You Think About This Theory
-
Lightning Rod
- Posts: 5211
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
- Location: between my ears
- Contact:
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
Dear LR:
You tend to ask questions that are really important, and I feel this little inquiry of yours is no exception.
To travel to Ireland is to view the tribe up close, and listen to a language that at least approximates US English. In 1994 ( I have been to Ireland once, my wife goes every year) we stayed with a couple who had a B and B beside Killone Abbey, near a lovely lake, a great spot. He was an Irish ex- priest, married to a woman fifteen years younger ,a Mexican American from Modesto, California.
The short tale is this: he had been rejected by his Irish tribe for journeying to California, working as a priest, giving up the cloth and marrying this woman. We chatted a bit, and while he didn't admit what I've written above, his conversation was nevertheless revealing.
My point is that our "tribal" status is never as clearly revealed to us as when we become ostracized from our tribe. As far as trusting a group of acquaintances and finding them "real" and gifting them with our "reality" in turn, I must describe the "crowd" I mingled with in college, over thirty years ago.
This group of people was, by and large, highly literate. Most were interested not in scholarship, but in what is sometimes called "creative writing."
To be part of this group you had to:
1. understand that art was the opposite of business, war and (sometimes) crime.
2. not disapprove of the use of cannibis by others, not necessarily use the stuff yourself ( I was an apprentice alcoholic, for example, not a pothead).
3. generally disapprove of US imperialism all over the world.
4. view love and sex as something not intended to end in marriage and the breeding of the soldiers of tomorrow.
5. be willing to take to the streets to back up your beliefs ( since there were sometimes hundreds or thousands of us doing this in Berkeley, this was less bold and scary than it sounds).
6. be so willing not to rat on anyone or become an informer if 1-5 were conscientiously practiced, that no one even had to worry about your loyalty.
If these conditions were met, you could be one of the tribe.
But within this group, intimacy was practically as rare as it was at a Mormon Youth Center or among the Young Americans for Freedom (YAFs).
Strangely, while there was a sort of outer carapace of affinity among both the "poets" and the YAFs, both groups fell in and out with each other and the group, slept around ( to some extent-- the longhairs circulating a bit more, of course) and had to work constantly on their dedication to the "cause." Which generally meant fighting "evil."
My point is that, like the ancient Greeks who used the word "barbarian" for everyone who didn't speak Greek, all the groups prominent in my college years had boundaries around them. To enter the group of 200 you describe in your utterance above, you had to go beyond the criteria I listed. You had to prove yourself in a crisis-- a confrontation. This could be merely a shouting match, a letter to the editor, or some other equally tame instrument or encounter.
Once you strayed outside the group ( became an informer, a "narc" or a "fucking Fascist"), you probably started seeking another group, perhaps a smaller one. You might build your own quorum, and cast your own bloc vote against the world's confusion.
Today, my circle of friends is very much more constricted. Aside from my wife, who is the most trustworthy person I have ever known, there are only half a handful, which probably means that my stream of 200 is drying up, at well under a hundred.
Today, rushing toward death, I am forced ( living at 28 percent of my original salary) to think about money a bit more, something I have always managed more or less to avoid. Some recent hospital stays have cost me more than two years' salary in the old days.
This, I think, is the consequence of getting old. But when I read Arthur Schlesinger, writing at 86 as well as he wrote at 35, I am encouraged.
So I haven't made the 200 level yet, and probably never will. Part of that, I feel, comes from my dissolved family and my "only child" identity. And from the fact that I have never "gaggled" together with other artists ( until now-- on this forum)-- gaggled, that is, with my own kind.
It's remarkable, just to close this rather rambling autobiographical ort, how during my lifetime, one imperial crusade or another by the dear old US has either widened or constricted my personal "tribe."
I tend to trust and "tribally welcome" those who can see the folly of trusting Ashcroft and the Bush administration, for example. When my wife and I marched the main street downtown and went to anti-Iraq - war rallies throughout January, February and early March of 2003 before Bush's attack and aggression took place
( and were heckled by the VFW marchers and random diners at outside restaurants--"Ya fuckin' Comminusts!!"), I felt that old "tribal affinity" strongly once again.
It would be interesting to compare what I have drivelled out above with Cecil's take on your question, since he and I are just the same age.
--Zlatko
You tend to ask questions that are really important, and I feel this little inquiry of yours is no exception.
To travel to Ireland is to view the tribe up close, and listen to a language that at least approximates US English. In 1994 ( I have been to Ireland once, my wife goes every year) we stayed with a couple who had a B and B beside Killone Abbey, near a lovely lake, a great spot. He was an Irish ex- priest, married to a woman fifteen years younger ,a Mexican American from Modesto, California.
The short tale is this: he had been rejected by his Irish tribe for journeying to California, working as a priest, giving up the cloth and marrying this woman. We chatted a bit, and while he didn't admit what I've written above, his conversation was nevertheless revealing.
My point is that our "tribal" status is never as clearly revealed to us as when we become ostracized from our tribe. As far as trusting a group of acquaintances and finding them "real" and gifting them with our "reality" in turn, I must describe the "crowd" I mingled with in college, over thirty years ago.
This group of people was, by and large, highly literate. Most were interested not in scholarship, but in what is sometimes called "creative writing."
To be part of this group you had to:
1. understand that art was the opposite of business, war and (sometimes) crime.
2. not disapprove of the use of cannibis by others, not necessarily use the stuff yourself ( I was an apprentice alcoholic, for example, not a pothead).
3. generally disapprove of US imperialism all over the world.
4. view love and sex as something not intended to end in marriage and the breeding of the soldiers of tomorrow.
5. be willing to take to the streets to back up your beliefs ( since there were sometimes hundreds or thousands of us doing this in Berkeley, this was less bold and scary than it sounds).
6. be so willing not to rat on anyone or become an informer if 1-5 were conscientiously practiced, that no one even had to worry about your loyalty.
If these conditions were met, you could be one of the tribe.
But within this group, intimacy was practically as rare as it was at a Mormon Youth Center or among the Young Americans for Freedom (YAFs).
Strangely, while there was a sort of outer carapace of affinity among both the "poets" and the YAFs, both groups fell in and out with each other and the group, slept around ( to some extent-- the longhairs circulating a bit more, of course) and had to work constantly on their dedication to the "cause." Which generally meant fighting "evil."
My point is that, like the ancient Greeks who used the word "barbarian" for everyone who didn't speak Greek, all the groups prominent in my college years had boundaries around them. To enter the group of 200 you describe in your utterance above, you had to go beyond the criteria I listed. You had to prove yourself in a crisis-- a confrontation. This could be merely a shouting match, a letter to the editor, or some other equally tame instrument or encounter.
Once you strayed outside the group ( became an informer, a "narc" or a "fucking Fascist"), you probably started seeking another group, perhaps a smaller one. You might build your own quorum, and cast your own bloc vote against the world's confusion.
Today, my circle of friends is very much more constricted. Aside from my wife, who is the most trustworthy person I have ever known, there are only half a handful, which probably means that my stream of 200 is drying up, at well under a hundred.
Today, rushing toward death, I am forced ( living at 28 percent of my original salary) to think about money a bit more, something I have always managed more or less to avoid. Some recent hospital stays have cost me more than two years' salary in the old days.
This, I think, is the consequence of getting old. But when I read Arthur Schlesinger, writing at 86 as well as he wrote at 35, I am encouraged.
So I haven't made the 200 level yet, and probably never will. Part of that, I feel, comes from my dissolved family and my "only child" identity. And from the fact that I have never "gaggled" together with other artists ( until now-- on this forum)-- gaggled, that is, with my own kind.
It's remarkable, just to close this rather rambling autobiographical ort, how during my lifetime, one imperial crusade or another by the dear old US has either widened or constricted my personal "tribe."
I tend to trust and "tribally welcome" those who can see the folly of trusting Ashcroft and the Bush administration, for example. When my wife and I marched the main street downtown and went to anti-Iraq - war rallies throughout January, February and early March of 2003 before Bush's attack and aggression took place
( and were heckled by the VFW marchers and random diners at outside restaurants--"Ya fuckin' Comminusts!!"), I felt that old "tribal affinity" strongly once again.
It would be interesting to compare what I have drivelled out above with Cecil's take on your question, since he and I are just the same age.
--Zlatko
-
Glorious Amok
- Posts: 551
- Joined: August 16th, 2004, 7:25 am
- Location: in the best of both worlds
- Contact:
200 sounds like a lot to me, even in a lifetime.
i attend a school that hosts 16,000 students, and about 5 of them i'd have in my home. others i might invite over, but that wouldn't make them tribe members.
after 33 years, i think i've encountered maybe 30-40 people so far who i felt a true, true tribelike connection to. i've liked a lot of people, certainly socialized with a lot more than even just the ones i've liked... but in the formation of tribes, very few really get in.
so i guess i've still a lot to look forward to! 160 - 170 members still approaching!
although, this makes me wonder about the accuracy of my numbers. maybe i will actually attempt a list....
i attend a school that hosts 16,000 students, and about 5 of them i'd have in my home. others i might invite over, but that wouldn't make them tribe members.
after 33 years, i think i've encountered maybe 30-40 people so far who i felt a true, true tribelike connection to. i've liked a lot of people, certainly socialized with a lot more than even just the ones i've liked... but in the formation of tribes, very few really get in.
so i guess i've still a lot to look forward to! 160 - 170 members still approaching!
although, this makes me wonder about the accuracy of my numbers. maybe i will actually attempt a list....
"YOUR way is your only way." - jack kerouac
-
Doreen Peri
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14539
- Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
There is another theory which is similar and seems to hold true (at least for me)
The theory is based on the Christian organization - 1 person, 12 apostles ... that's the tribe
The theory is that we surround ourselves with advisors and confidants - 12 being the totality of the tribe - meaning that at any given time in your life, you will have 12 people who are the closest to you - 12 with whom you share your heart, your hopes, your pains, your troubles, your life stories
Similarly, each of those 12 people have their own circle of 12 people
and the people in your circle (your tribe) continually change. When one drops out to move on, another fills his or her place in your tribe
*shrug*... similar but a lot easier to comprehend for me because I can't imagine any more than 12 people being close to me at one time
Similar also, because these are the people you "trust in your space"
But different, because you are talking about a lifetime and this theory I'm presenting represents a series of life periods within your lifetime ... who knows? add up all the life periods of 12 in your group and maybe the grand total is 200
(is 200 divisible by 12, evenly? lol...where's my calculator?)
The theory is based on the Christian organization - 1 person, 12 apostles ... that's the tribe
The theory is that we surround ourselves with advisors and confidants - 12 being the totality of the tribe - meaning that at any given time in your life, you will have 12 people who are the closest to you - 12 with whom you share your heart, your hopes, your pains, your troubles, your life stories
Similarly, each of those 12 people have their own circle of 12 people
and the people in your circle (your tribe) continually change. When one drops out to move on, another fills his or her place in your tribe
*shrug*... similar but a lot easier to comprehend for me because I can't imagine any more than 12 people being close to me at one time
Similar also, because these are the people you "trust in your space"
But different, because you are talking about a lifetime and this theory I'm presenting represents a series of life periods within your lifetime ... who knows? add up all the life periods of 12 in your group and maybe the grand total is 200
(is 200 divisible by 12, evenly? lol...where's my calculator?)
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
Zlatko -- the description of the group you hung out with in college sounds exactly like this group here. There's barely a detail different.
I think the problem is that we are rigid and insistent on our requirements for membership. There's an unspoken set of rules, and compliance with the rules (at least externally) is the criteria we use to draw circles around ourselves to shut people out.
Take the one Zlatko mentioned (not unlike this one). In his example you could find yourself on the outside (and not trusted) for being a political conservative, for believing creative writing was a practical business more than an art, for disapproving of drug use, for having family values, and so on. If your views and behavior were diametrically opposed in all cases, you were an outsider. If some of your conformance to these opinions was weaker than others, you might find yourself within the group, but treated warily.
The question is why this set of values(or most sets of group values) equates to trust, at all. Are conservatives any less likely to be good people than liberals? Is it a sell-out to want your website to become profitable, more professional, easier for others to read? Is it a negative quality to want to have kids, or to value sex within the context of family life?
It's interesting that the last criterion on Zlatko's list was an unspoken rule of non-NARCing. Well, was this a sweeping rule? My guess is, it was, and you were expected to back up your fellow clique-members even if they'd committed serious crimes.
If you violate a rule in a group like this, you're likely to find yourself on the outside or (at the very least) on the periphery of the group, and not know why. No one trusts you, and yet, you have no logical basis for understanding what you did to violate their trust. So ... you're voting conservative this year. You expressed your opinions. Maybe your opinions were even thought-provoking or totally rational. Why is it that people who were formerly your friends are now backing away from you?
Sorry if this is a huge digression from the topic, Lightning Rod. To answer your question, I think that we ARE very tribal. War is one of the consequences of that, but what's worse, most wars are totally unjustified and irrational. They're based on ridiculous arbitrary assessments of others that have no basis in reality.
Most people have a COMPELLING need to identify with a group and will compromise their priniciples, lie about their core beliefs, alienate former friends and do all kinds of ridiculous and shameful things in order to attain and retain group membership. Think of gang memberships. Think of the absurdity of calling a former friend a "Fascist" because you don't like their political beliefs (or, for that matter, their behavior during an argument
).
Tolerance is the key, but the first step towards tolerance is probably actually a step away from our dependence on each other. The most compassionate people are likely to be the ones that don't fit in anywhere. Being shut out of groups is more often a blessing than a curse, because it forces you to think of others in much broader terms.
I think the problem is that we are rigid and insistent on our requirements for membership. There's an unspoken set of rules, and compliance with the rules (at least externally) is the criteria we use to draw circles around ourselves to shut people out.
Take the one Zlatko mentioned (not unlike this one). In his example you could find yourself on the outside (and not trusted) for being a political conservative, for believing creative writing was a practical business more than an art, for disapproving of drug use, for having family values, and so on. If your views and behavior were diametrically opposed in all cases, you were an outsider. If some of your conformance to these opinions was weaker than others, you might find yourself within the group, but treated warily.
The question is why this set of values(or most sets of group values) equates to trust, at all. Are conservatives any less likely to be good people than liberals? Is it a sell-out to want your website to become profitable, more professional, easier for others to read? Is it a negative quality to want to have kids, or to value sex within the context of family life?
It's interesting that the last criterion on Zlatko's list was an unspoken rule of non-NARCing. Well, was this a sweeping rule? My guess is, it was, and you were expected to back up your fellow clique-members even if they'd committed serious crimes.
If you violate a rule in a group like this, you're likely to find yourself on the outside or (at the very least) on the periphery of the group, and not know why. No one trusts you, and yet, you have no logical basis for understanding what you did to violate their trust. So ... you're voting conservative this year. You expressed your opinions. Maybe your opinions were even thought-provoking or totally rational. Why is it that people who were formerly your friends are now backing away from you?
Sorry if this is a huge digression from the topic, Lightning Rod. To answer your question, I think that we ARE very tribal. War is one of the consequences of that, but what's worse, most wars are totally unjustified and irrational. They're based on ridiculous arbitrary assessments of others that have no basis in reality.
Most people have a COMPELLING need to identify with a group and will compromise their priniciples, lie about their core beliefs, alienate former friends and do all kinds of ridiculous and shameful things in order to attain and retain group membership. Think of gang memberships. Think of the absurdity of calling a former friend a "Fascist" because you don't like their political beliefs (or, for that matter, their behavior during an argument
). Tolerance is the key, but the first step towards tolerance is probably actually a step away from our dependence on each other. The most compassionate people are likely to be the ones that don't fit in anywhere. Being shut out of groups is more often a blessing than a curse, because it forces you to think of others in much broader terms.
-
judih
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: August 17th, 2004, 7:38 am
- Location: kibbutz nir oz, israel
- Contact:
When i work in a group, i prefer to work with a partner or max 3 others. In classrooms, as well, groups seem to work best at 3 or 4 max for maximum responsibility from each member
Here, in my immediate family, we're 6. Six works fine, and each one offers strength.
When we're with my brother, his wife and 2 daughters; my parents and my sister and her husband and kids, grand total = 10 +5.
As family, we share DNA and the in-laws amongst us share love for that DNA along with some borrowed cultural signals.
So we share a basic system of signals.
This makes for good tribe.
When whole clans get together on the kibbutz, there are definite feelings of mafia power. Those with more members count for more. Those with more members prone to hysteria get more.
Yet, kibbutz life dissolves outright warring between these mini clans. The system was created to force people to look at the higher ideal - the community as a whole.
If i were to be a member of one of these large clans + in-laws and kids and so on, i'm sure that the 200 mark would loom very quickly in my horizon.
Since i'm not, i think the 200 mark is a generous but optimistic figure.
One thing - when i was temporarily a member of the Gurdjieff group in Toronto, our members counted at about 50. When we got together with the New York group, we were easily 150. We shared meditations, meal preps, craftwork, and sacred gymnastics.
(another story).
This group was only a satellite group from the main Paris hub. Hence, if i were to feel a part of anything Big - that would've been my chance. It didn't work that way, though. My own ego was far greater than the tribalness of that community.
However, by the nature of the Gurdjieff tribe, war would never have entered the picture. This is/was a movement dedicated to individual work, and constant effort to develop the human body and mind.
Must tribes fight? L-rod, no. Of course not. But tribes are composed of people. Same old common denominator.
If people are willing to dissolve their pride, desire for vengeance, and greed, there's a chance that wars will not occur.
judih
Here, in my immediate family, we're 6. Six works fine, and each one offers strength.
When we're with my brother, his wife and 2 daughters; my parents and my sister and her husband and kids, grand total = 10 +5.
As family, we share DNA and the in-laws amongst us share love for that DNA along with some borrowed cultural signals.
So we share a basic system of signals.
This makes for good tribe.
When whole clans get together on the kibbutz, there are definite feelings of mafia power. Those with more members count for more. Those with more members prone to hysteria get more.
Yet, kibbutz life dissolves outright warring between these mini clans. The system was created to force people to look at the higher ideal - the community as a whole.
If i were to be a member of one of these large clans + in-laws and kids and so on, i'm sure that the 200 mark would loom very quickly in my horizon.
Since i'm not, i think the 200 mark is a generous but optimistic figure.
One thing - when i was temporarily a member of the Gurdjieff group in Toronto, our members counted at about 50. When we got together with the New York group, we were easily 150. We shared meditations, meal preps, craftwork, and sacred gymnastics.
(another story).
This group was only a satellite group from the main Paris hub. Hence, if i were to feel a part of anything Big - that would've been my chance. It didn't work that way, though. My own ego was far greater than the tribalness of that community.
However, by the nature of the Gurdjieff tribe, war would never have entered the picture. This is/was a movement dedicated to individual work, and constant effort to develop the human body and mind.
Must tribes fight? L-rod, no. Of course not. But tribes are composed of people. Same old common denominator.
If people are willing to dissolve their pride, desire for vengeance, and greed, there's a chance that wars will not occur.
judih
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
I know you think artists do need a separate set of rules. I get that from certain things about your life, and from reading between the lines of your words on the artist's page. Care to elaborate and answer your own question?
I can't answer the question from an artist's perspective, but I think that the rules of "engagement" with others can vary widely depending on one's priorities. I like to be solitary. Involvement in this website is a radical departure from my usual hermitic behavior. I could not imagine living in a family. The noise and the stress of dealing with so many personalities overwhelms me after a while.
I think I'll learn more about kibbutzes. Judih describes her experience quite positively. It gives me some hope, even though I think there still may be underlying social rules binding kibbutzes together.
Yes, you're right. Groupthink IS warmth and the warmth is seductive. I prefer to be wary of it.
I can't answer the question from an artist's perspective, but I think that the rules of "engagement" with others can vary widely depending on one's priorities. I like to be solitary. Involvement in this website is a radical departure from my usual hermitic behavior. I could not imagine living in a family. The noise and the stress of dealing with so many personalities overwhelms me after a while.
I think I'll learn more about kibbutzes. Judih describes her experience quite positively. It gives me some hope, even though I think there still may be underlying social rules binding kibbutzes together.
Yes, you're right. Groupthink IS warmth and the warmth is seductive. I prefer to be wary of it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests