I object to Fukuyama's point of view for many reasons but I think he understands "tribes" per se.
But the problem is that our political alignments have become cultural sources of identity. And so, for people who like Donald Trump, downplaying the epidemic and showing that you’re not scared of the virus has become the mark that you are part of this team, you are part of a tribe that doesn’t believe in the seriousness of the disease. And even if it’s not rational, it’s not based on any kind of scientific evidence, this desire to be part of the team is so strong that it overwhelms people’s reason. We’ve seen cases of things like this before, but unfortunately it’s happening right now in the middle of an epidemic.
I would differ. I think we form tribes with people who share similar ideals.
There has to be another term for those willing to rush a building armed with assault weapons, and willing to infect others to preserve what they call their " freedom ". Cult, perhaps?
The term tribe lumps together too much to be useful.
But the problem is that our political alignments have become cultural sources of identity. And so, for people who like Donald Trump, downplaying the epidemic and showing that you’re not scared of the virus has become the mark that you are part of this team, you are part of a tribe that doesn’t believe in the seriousness of the disease.
Everything is a tribe according to him.
Now we are told that we need to understand history and culture to fully understand a people. Tribe is a throw away term.
In terms of the idea of recognition Fukuyama develops in The End of History, people find a way to differentiate themselves through groups. In so far as the Trumpsters self identify themselves as such a group struggling to defeat other groups, this example is consistent with his definition.
As I have said for the last ten years when Fukuyama has been brought up, the defect in his idea of a group is that it does not reflect people who have "groupiness" thrust upon them. From that perspective, his view is too narrow, not overly inclusive.
Comments
“Many people in the West really don’t understand Chinese history and the deep cultural traditions that exist in China.”
-Fukuyama
To understand the world, you need to understand the"tribes".
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/03/2020 - 7:31pm
I object to Fukuyama's point of view for many reasons but I think he understands "tribes" per se.
by moat on Sun, 05/03/2020 - 8:07pm
I would differ. I think we form tribes with people who share similar ideals.
There has to be another term for those willing to rush a building armed with assault weapons, and willing to infect others to preserve what they call their " freedom ". Cult, perhaps?
The term tribe lumps together too much to be useful.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/03/2020 - 8:19pm
If the term is not useful then why provide a definition of it?
EDIT:
I don't ask that as a rhetorical or debating style question but as one who notices how the term gets used for vastly different points of view.
by moat on Sun, 05/03/2020 - 8:30pm
I don't thinks tribes is a useful term.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/03/2020 - 8:46pm
But you use it a lot.
by moat on Sun, 05/03/2020 - 9:18pm
From Fukuyama in the article
Everything is a tribe according to him.
Now we are told that we need to understand history and culture to fully understand a people. Tribe is a throw away term.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/03/2020 - 10:31pm
In terms of the idea of recognition Fukuyama develops in The End of History, people find a way to differentiate themselves through groups. In so far as the Trumpsters self identify themselves as such a group struggling to defeat other groups, this example is consistent with his definition.
As I have said for the last ten years when Fukuyama has been brought up, the defect in his idea of a group is that it does not reflect people who have "groupiness" thrust upon them. From that perspective, his view is too narrow, not overly inclusive.
by moat on Mon, 05/04/2020 - 4:11pm
No major disagreement.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/04/2020 - 4:15pm