Post
by jennypenny » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:38 am
I'm under the weather so I apologize if this is fuzzy or rambling ...
What I took from Junger's book is that we develop our tribe with people with whom we share an enemy or have a common bond that's based on a significant shared need or challenge (lower on Maslov's hierarchy) -- in a way, sensing that our personal survival is linked to the survival of the group. Looking for similar interests isn't enough, nor is being neighbors or 'mom' friends or school mates. And while I think giving can be deeply rewarding, it doesn't automatically help develop a sense of tribe. Your NOLS example is a good one for showing how a shared journey can produce those feelings. It's similar to the vets Junger described.
Sports is a good substitute and it's popularity is unsurprising when viewed through Junger's lens. I can also better understand the SJW fever on college campuses when I consider it as tribe-building. Most of those kids are helicopter kids who probably didn't face much adversity growing up, or if they did they didn't face it alone. They never got the chance to bond in that way with anyone. (not in the way of say a group of kids from an old Stephen King novel) I'm sure the shared outrage over a common enemy -- even if the 'enemy' is a social construct -- touches them deeply and helps them experience that unique tribal feeling that Junger described.
Even for adults, our world is so comfortable (even at the lower rungs of the economic ladder in the developed world) that it's hard to connect with other people at the tribal level. Look at all of the concocted ways of doing it, from tough mudder runs to charitable walks. I wonder if some of the political hysteria this year (some, not all) comes from people connecting through shared political foes. I imagine that if a person elevates a political affiliation to the tribal level, then losing to the enemy would be deeply upsetting.*
I've been wondering if people can feel that tribal bond through more intellectual pursuits and/or Maslov's higher levels. The thread on collaboration and Lewis's new book about Kahneman and Tversky got me thinking about it. I'm not sure. Maybe if the need is great enough or not met any other way? Or if there's a shared 'enemy' even if it's only public ignorance about a topic? I'm going to read The Undoing Project next week to see what Lewis's thoughts are on it. Maybe it comes down to the subject matter and whether it produces the feelings a shared quest, even if it's only for truth or enlightenment.
@theanimal--In your first post you said "Today, many are able to find a tribe through work, following sports or religion." I'm starting to wonder if that's really true. I've been thinking about this a lot since I read the book. It's forced me to reevaluate some of my associations. I think I derive a sense of community out of those groups, but I'm not sure if it goes as deep as 'tribe' in the Junger sense. The sense of quest or journey is missing, at least for me. There are occasional shared 'enemies', but they are usually of the political or contrived sort so I can't really buy into the notion enough to connect deeply with people in the group. I also never see people with differing opinions as enemies (too much Christian programming maybe) so that might be what's limiting me personally.
It may sound weird, but I've always avoided being friends with people who have special needs kids because I was afraid that I was self-labeling and condemning myself to a life that focused too much on our issues. Looking back, I think that was a mistake. While I don't want our family issues to become our identity, I think the shared experience of dealing with the same difficulties might have produced stronger bonds than I've experienced with other people. It's a little late now I suppose, but I'm keeping that lesson in mind as I reconsider which groups are worth my time.
*On the forum, I thought we bonded over our quest for independence and our shared feelings of being rejected by mainstream society. I'll admit that for me, that made the bonds feel tribe-like. That's partly why the recent discord unnerved me. I didn't understand how other issues that I deemed less important could challenge and sometimes sever those bonds. Maybe it's that we're all on our way to ERE now and don't feel the same need for ERE companions? Maybe we all just got swept up in the hysteria? I don't know. Political differences aren't that important to me when judging people, so I'd never bond with someone deeply over that. I also wouldn't reject someone over that either. Maybe others feel differently and find certain political affiliations beyond the pale.
My sense of tribe here came from sharing more global values like anti-consumerism and our open-door policy toward people irrespective of their various affiliations. People were judged based on their words and actions, and IMO judged fairly, even if not always favorably. In turn, people shared an amazing level of detail in journals and elsewhere about themselves. Some have questioned what we really know about each other in recent political discussions and intimated that we can't possibly 'know' other forumites. I wholeheartedly reject that. Many of us have shared details and thoughts that we wouldn't feel comfortable sharing with anyone IRL. We let our real selves show because we sensed that we would be accepted on this island of misfit toys. In doing so, we also opened ourselves up to the criticisms of the group because we felt it would benefit the group and ourselves -- that our goals were aligned. That (to me) is the essence of the kind of tribe to which Junger was referring.
Maybe I'm just being naive. I've never been good at understanding people, individually or as a group.
