I would enjoy reading a post along these lones.
Basically, it seems to be one way to organize and define how we think and talk about the vorldviews of individuals within and between cultures. Although sociologists and other thinkers have always talked about it, using other terminology, I’m always drawn to ‘tribalism’ because it evokes images invilving the beginnings of social man. From clans to tribal councils to attempts like tte UN, it’s a fascinating story. The subtext is always about the individual’s relationship to the group.

One of your points earlier was, if I understood rightly, was that regardless of which end of the political axis; that we are in a time when the two parties tend to protect and accuse in similar ways, only ‘the what’ they protect and ‘the who’ they accuse, differs. (and their consciousness about doing so often seems slim in some; or else perhaps the resultant divisiveness serves in covert ways.)

In other words, the content of opposing groups might be different, but process they use is the same or similar. I think that is a good fundamental thesis Pacatrue. A solid one.

Just to weave into your insights about Chinese and Korean cultural configurations: One of the marks of ‘clustered’ tribal behavior is that persons act predictably in process and in content in order to maintain ‘belonging.’ There’s not much variation.

I think the trite way of saying it might be: the tribal members aren’t allowed to think outside the box. There’s tribal opprobrium waiting for those who do; shunning is the word. We have seen so much of it lately, even in a ‘horizontal’ culture, for instance with the Senator from Idaho. Goodness, so swiftly he has been set out on the ice floe, didn’t you think? Shunned instead of contained or healed or protected. The tribe is sometimes like an organism in and of itself, that almost automatically ejects what it considers threat or weakness, and consumes or draws to itself, strength (remember the idea of eating the heart of the lion in order to be ‘like’ the lion) in order protect it’s health and dominance.

Adoption, wow, a subject for a whole other post. A fascinating and ancient cultural subject. We will do that soon.

dr.e

In a horizontal society, professors might identify with professors, workers with workers, CEOs with CEOs, children with children, etc. In a more vertical society, people identify more with the corporation they belong to, the school, or the family, the hierarchy that they have a place in. In Korean culture, there are significant obligations between people in a single company that far outweigh those in America.

One way to see it is just on how people identify themselves. In the U.S., I’d identify as a student or an accountant or an admin. In Korea, someone might identify themselves as someone from Daewoo, Hyundai, or from Seoul National University. (These are of course very broad brush strokes and ignore lots of variability among individuals and societies.)

I bring this up, with your mention of tribal mentality, because my experience is that American relationships are rather broad, while at least Chinese and Korean ones are more constrained and specific, but intense. It’s like we have relatively weak obligations to many, while they have strong obligations to a few.

This shows up even in when to say “thank you”. I once got in trouble in China for saying thank you far too much. I would buy something at the store and say thank you at check out, for instance. To me, that’s basic politeness. But in Chinese it comes off as disingenuous. The word ‘thank you’ almost means more and if you use it for just any old thing, it rings as false. Is the American system where you acknowledge everyone more better or does it reduce the thanks to something trivial?

In a more significant way, adoption in the U.S. is quite strong. Many tens of thousands of people feel both a desire and a moral obligation to provide homes personally to children who do not have them. In Korea, adoption is much less common, despite their being enough wealth now to adopt.

The point? There could be a tendency to see vertical societies as tribal, but there are also some significant strengths to such an organization as well. Executives in Korea would not just get rid of someone and bring in their replacement part. They are under moral obligations towards such people. Etc.

Okay, this was too long.

Your post, I think, points out that continuing odd problem that I wish we could lessen: “Whatever I want for me, me, me,
but not a whit for thee.”

I think maybe I ought write more about ‘tribal mentality; which gives only to its own kind. I keep thinking that speaking about alternatives to “I give only to those who are like me” can be
mediated and changed just enough to matter,
by continuing to raise the idea to libconservatarians.

I think many are, as I think you are inferring too,
wanting other options rather than the same ol,
same ol rock chucking and meta-illogic.
dr.e

Of course, things don’t always break down this way. There are people for whom governmental regulation can hardly ever be justified or for whom no burden is too large, but still….