Einstein spent a good deal of energy in his later years striving to convince people that nationalism was the greatest evil facing the world. "Nationalism, in my opinion, is nothing more than an idealist rationalization for militarism and aggression."
I think the root of the problem he saw lies in people's innate desire to feel part of a group and to form their identities around these group affiliations. (It is easy to see many evolutionary advantages to this, so I won't try to belabor its purpose or existence.) One of the smallest instances of a tribe is a family unit. "Family comes first" is considered a positive value, even though that mantra means
that other, more "deserving" people might be treated as secondary. Others who are like you get added to your tribes. This is often a really good thing -- your neighbors help each other, church members show up when you go to the hospital, your fellow bridge players give you a sense of being needed, whatever.
There is a nasty flip side to this behavior that has often been crippling and abhorrent. A trivial example would be when someone at an Arkansas game goes from calling the hogs to insulting the other team. Non-trivial instances would be the killing of Christians in the early centuries, the nearly continuous suppression of Jews, racial slavery, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, or the Japanese occupation of Nanking in WWII.
What these all have in common is one group deciding that another group is lesser because of group affiliation alone. It's a person in a group believing, "I am better than 'people' in [the other group] ... who really aren't human at all." It is difficult to imagine Germans, the vast majority of whom were Christian, participating in the Holocaust unless they somehow believed that there was a difference in kind between them and the others, who were not really human. If you compare the way Germans treated captives to how the Japanese did (especially in places like Nanking), you find there is an even lower level of hell than you expected.
So tribalism can go from a comforting network bolstering my identity to a way in which I can feel better about myself by lowering other people. This is stereotyping. I may be broke, but at least I'm white/black/etc. I may be a sinner, but at least I'm not a Muslim/atheist/Christian/heretic/etc.
You see this sort of negative tribalism at work all the time online. How often do you see such mean-spirited things as "All Republicans are racist, greedy homophobes" or "All Democrats are thoughtless, inconsistent moochers"? Atheists bash Christians, Christians bash Muslims, agnostics bash non-scientists....
The worst, though, is when those negative tribal behaviors start being connected with weapons. Timothy McVeigh hated how the feds handled the Waco siege, so he killed 168 people, including 19 children. Bin Laden used American intervention in the Middle East to brand us the great Satan and kill over 3000. The U.S. retaliates and invades Iraq, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, killing hundreds of thousands. It appears that the Boston bombings may have been religiously motivated. The 2011 Norway bombing and shooting by Breivik, killing 77 and wounding 151, were done by a self-proclaimed "Christian crusader" who was trying to protect Norway's traditional Christian values.
This tribalism seeps into our view of history. If I say that American Europeans enslaved Africans, then continue along in the conversation for a bit, there is a good chance that I might start using "we" to describe the acts of the white Americans, and "they" and "them" to describe the black slaves. It might be something like "Yes, America treated the slaves badly. We should never have enslaved them." A black American might reverse that, saying, "They should never have enslaved us." This identity with history colors many aspects -- for instance, the continued ill treatment of American Indian tribes, the lack of any sort of reparations for enslavement, etc.
All of this helped convince Einstein, whose papers and scientific prestige helped guide America down the track that eventually led to developing atomic weapons, that nationalism (where one's tribe is the nation) would quite literally destroy the world if it were not brought into check. His proposed solution was to develop a global government that would be the only group authorized to wage offensive war. (I think he may have been on to something, but implementing the idea will be tough.)
The cure to negative tribalism, in my opinion, is empathy. Empathy goes beyond doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is self centered, and instead tries to get you to imagine if you actually were that person. What if you were brought up as a Muslim in a country where people think all Muslims are potential terrorists? As an American citizen that loves his country, wouldn't that be difficult? What if you honestly believe that small government is better for healing social woes, but liberals keep calling you racist and sexist? What if you think that big problems need big solutions, and the government can actually help, but conservatives call you thoughtless and hypocritical?
What if you imagined that the civilians killed in Pakistan by drones were Americans? Can you imagine how we would react? What if Iran helped prop up a dictator in the U.S. for years, then granted him asylum after the revolution that overthrew him? Would we feel some animosity toward that country?
If we imagine that others are people, with valid feelings and beliefs, that doesn't make us weaker. We don't have to embrace their beliefs, but we also don't have to demonize them. People demonize themselves enough. We become stronger when we realize, through empathy, that there are legitimate grievances that many have against the United States; we can do better there. We are better friends and more informed citizens when we can listen to the libertarians, the PETA volunteers, the middle-roaders, the progressives and conservatives and those too fed up with politics to show that they still care.
When we insult groups and let our empathy fade away behind the questionable veil of our chosen tribes, it gets worse.
Let's make it better.
What do you think?
I think the root of the problem he saw lies in people's innate desire to feel part of a group and to form their identities around these group affiliations. (It is easy to see many evolutionary advantages to this, so I won't try to belabor its purpose or existence.) One of the smallest instances of a tribe is a family unit. "Family comes first" is considered a positive value, even though that mantra means
that other, more "deserving" people might be treated as secondary. Others who are like you get added to your tribes. This is often a really good thing -- your neighbors help each other, church members show up when you go to the hospital, your fellow bridge players give you a sense of being needed, whatever.
There is a nasty flip side to this behavior that has often been crippling and abhorrent. A trivial example would be when someone at an Arkansas game goes from calling the hogs to insulting the other team. Non-trivial instances would be the killing of Christians in the early centuries, the nearly continuous suppression of Jews, racial slavery, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, or the Japanese occupation of Nanking in WWII.
What these all have in common is one group deciding that another group is lesser because of group affiliation alone. It's a person in a group believing, "I am better than 'people' in [the other group] ... who really aren't human at all." It is difficult to imagine Germans, the vast majority of whom were Christian, participating in the Holocaust unless they somehow believed that there was a difference in kind between them and the others, who were not really human. If you compare the way Germans treated captives to how the Japanese did (especially in places like Nanking), you find there is an even lower level of hell than you expected.
So tribalism can go from a comforting network bolstering my identity to a way in which I can feel better about myself by lowering other people. This is stereotyping. I may be broke, but at least I'm white/black/etc. I may be a sinner, but at least I'm not a Muslim/atheist/Christian/heretic/etc.
You see this sort of negative tribalism at work all the time online. How often do you see such mean-spirited things as "All Republicans are racist, greedy homophobes" or "All Democrats are thoughtless, inconsistent moochers"? Atheists bash Christians, Christians bash Muslims, agnostics bash non-scientists....
The worst, though, is when those negative tribal behaviors start being connected with weapons. Timothy McVeigh hated how the feds handled the Waco siege, so he killed 168 people, including 19 children. Bin Laden used American intervention in the Middle East to brand us the great Satan and kill over 3000. The U.S. retaliates and invades Iraq, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, killing hundreds of thousands. It appears that the Boston bombings may have been religiously motivated. The 2011 Norway bombing and shooting by Breivik, killing 77 and wounding 151, were done by a self-proclaimed "Christian crusader" who was trying to protect Norway's traditional Christian values.
This tribalism seeps into our view of history. If I say that American Europeans enslaved Africans, then continue along in the conversation for a bit, there is a good chance that I might start using "we" to describe the acts of the white Americans, and "they" and "them" to describe the black slaves. It might be something like "Yes, America treated the slaves badly. We should never have enslaved them." A black American might reverse that, saying, "They should never have enslaved us." This identity with history colors many aspects -- for instance, the continued ill treatment of American Indian tribes, the lack of any sort of reparations for enslavement, etc.
All of this helped convince Einstein, whose papers and scientific prestige helped guide America down the track that eventually led to developing atomic weapons, that nationalism (where one's tribe is the nation) would quite literally destroy the world if it were not brought into check. His proposed solution was to develop a global government that would be the only group authorized to wage offensive war. (I think he may have been on to something, but implementing the idea will be tough.)
The cure to negative tribalism, in my opinion, is empathy. Empathy goes beyond doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is self centered, and instead tries to get you to imagine if you actually were that person. What if you were brought up as a Muslim in a country where people think all Muslims are potential terrorists? As an American citizen that loves his country, wouldn't that be difficult? What if you honestly believe that small government is better for healing social woes, but liberals keep calling you racist and sexist? What if you think that big problems need big solutions, and the government can actually help, but conservatives call you thoughtless and hypocritical?
What if you imagined that the civilians killed in Pakistan by drones were Americans? Can you imagine how we would react? What if Iran helped prop up a dictator in the U.S. for years, then granted him asylum after the revolution that overthrew him? Would we feel some animosity toward that country?
If we imagine that others are people, with valid feelings and beliefs, that doesn't make us weaker. We don't have to embrace their beliefs, but we also don't have to demonize them. People demonize themselves enough. We become stronger when we realize, through empathy, that there are legitimate grievances that many have against the United States; we can do better there. We are better friends and more informed citizens when we can listen to the libertarians, the PETA volunteers, the middle-roaders, the progressives and conservatives and those too fed up with politics to show that they still care.
When we insult groups and let our empathy fade away behind the questionable veil of our chosen tribes, it gets worse.
Let's make it better.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment