Those of us born in the 90’s are too young to remember when there was such a thing in Australia as Protestant and Catholic public institutions. The Victorian Public sector, so I am assured by a former secretary, was an institution for smart catholic boys. This was because many other relevant places would simply not hire you if you were catholic. It’s certainly nice to be on the safe end of such a dangerous situation.
A lot of things can lead to the return of the tribes, although perhaps not these specific ones. An international incident between two groups which are both present in Australia (see Sunni vs Shia conflict in Sydney), a politician or business which profits by generating schisms along certain identity lines (I’m sure you don’t need an example from me here). Indeed, one doesn’t have to scan the news too hard to see little instances which assure us that tribalism is still alive and well in the hearts of many Australians.
Fear, in this context, works to focus the mind on one aspect of an identity. When Serbs (or Sunnis or homosexuals) are threatened I am a lot more focused on being a Serb than I am on any other, previously no less central, part of my identity. Conflict makes identity simple and peace makes it complicated.
In this context, building up shock absorption capabilities is a priority. One way to do this is to make it harder to profit off of making identity simple. Another is reducing isolation with the aim of multiplying identities, with the ultimate aim of reducing passions through this division.
This is a technocratic task but a lot starting points are available to the policy maker:
- Undermine or remove tribe based schools, isolation aids fear
- Regulate marketing with a mind to removing adverts that play off tribal sentiments
- Make unwelcoming institutions more welcoming to reduce isolation
- Look at migration policy with a mind to avoid some of the actors from the second paragraph
- And my personal favourite; Pagovian taxes on place of living based on homogeneity indicators. Treating the comfort people get from living amongst people who are like them as a negative externality.
This damage mitigation approach will not gain universal endorsement.
Partially this is because it begins by accepting that a certain degree of tribalism is beyond eradication. Imperial, or communist, detribalisation can be achieved in relation towards particular tribes. However, new ones will replace them and the old task of total national unity is a pie in the sky which humanity lost a lot reaching for. This approach facilitates no national unified spirit. If successful, these policies will not create a unique monocultural nation where one people dominate one land. The nationalist dream will remain unattained, funnily enough, for the sake of national security.
Others will reject it because these measures grant no cultural security to their favoured minority groups. Not all cultures will maintain the large claim they hold on the identity of certain people. At the extreme end of this approach, Aboriginal, or Jew, will simply be one of the many things an average Australian may be. It will make as much sense to focus on one of them as it makes for you to focus on your star-sign or blood-type. They are all things that are a part of the person, but passions are too divided between the many coexisting forms of identity to warrant any unique attention to one of them. This goal may be rejected as assimilation and a destruction of heritage, and indeed some special dances and songs may be lost.
Hopefully, even in rejection, both these groups, will have gained an awareness of possible trade-offs in this area, or the simple enrichment that comes from a different perspective, by joining me for some contemplation.
At this point I feel it would be remiss to not acknowledge the impact Michael Walzer’s – Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, had on these thoughts.
razipilli 