In Hermann Hesse’s novel Journey to the East, the character H.H., a novice in a religious group known as The League, describes a figurine depicting himself next to the group’s leader, Leo.
“It seemed that, in time, all the substance from one image would flow into the other and only one would remain: Leo. He must grow, I must disappear.”
Hesse is describing the sacrifice of an individual self for the sake of a larger cause, but he is also depicting how people create their heroes. Whether it is Vladimir Lenin, Che Guevara, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Hugo Chavez, or even Donald Trump, “heroes” are in the eye of the beholder. They are idealized reflections of the self, and as Hesse’s description implies, the heroic image also feeds off the self, to the point that the individual must disappear.
Tribalism is at the heart of this process. Mankind has a deep yearning for a sense of belonging and for leadership. It is because of this that humans naturally form groups with established leaders.
Some groups are positive manifestations of collaboration and solidarity among individuals. However, when groups are based on an ideology or a particular tribe, they can become discriminatory and oppressive toward non-members, especially if a domineering, charismatic leader is in charge.
The emergence of populist and nationalist movements in the US, the UK, France and other European countries suggests that tribalism is on the rise in the West. Populist movements have set their sights on immigrants and globalization generally.
However, as with all forms of tribalism, these movements pose the greatest danger to the individual. Followers are obliged to pay fealty to the tribe and its chief, but because the tribe brooks no dissent, tribal parties tend to degenerate quickly into competing factions.
Explanations of what has led to our new era of tribal politics abound. For many, the root cause is growing economic inequality. While the rich have become richer, rural blue-collar workers and the poor have been left to fend for themselves against immigrants, refugees and the forces of globalization.
However, even if globalization has benefited some groups and regions more than others, it does not explain today’s tribal politics; if anything, the lack of globalization in certain regions does.
It is worth remembering that most Trump voters were neither poor nor blue collar, but they do largely reside in peripheral regions and smaller cities where the benefits of globalization — though not the costs — have been largely absent. This same urban-rural split is evident in every country that has experienced an uptick in tribal populism in recent years.
Moreover, if globalization, and specifically immigration, are drivers of inequality, then the large cities where refugees, immigrants and poorer communities share the same space should be sites of political upheaval. Yet, in Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and elsewhere, nationalist and populist parties tend to find their supporters outside the main cities.
Although globalization and immigration can be political pressure points, the roots of voting behavior today lie in three interrelated developments.
First, citizens in the West have gradually become less politically organized and more individualistic. Across all liberal democracies, membership in political parties has long been declining, owing to post-war changes in education, social norms and popular culture that emphasize critical thinking and self-expression.
The result is what US sociologist David Riesman has called “inner-directed individuals” — “Cartesian” men and women who think for themselves.
This development would have been indisputably positive had it not overlapped with Western economies’ shift, beginning sometime in the mid-1990s, toward technology-driven growth models, which increased demand for so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills.
As education systems began to focus far less on the humanities, citizens, already less exposed to the political education and guidance offered by traditional political parties, were increasingly cut off from the transmission of humanistic values as well.
The rationale for studying literature, history and art — to learn empathy, develop our emotional intelligence and reconcile critical thinking with universal values — has not disappeared with the opportunities to do so. The false assumption that a humanities degree is less valuable than a STEM degree in the 21st-century labor market does not bode well for the functioning of liberal democracy.
The third consideration is an extension of the second: the increasing commodification and marketization of higher education in recent decades. As universities vie for accreditation and “me too” status, their programs have increasingly begun to resemble one another.
The process of molding “test-ready individuals” recalls a line from Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina: “As for this Petersburg swell, they’re turned out by machinery, all on one pattern, and all precious rubbish.”
Likewise, the commodification of knowledge makes today’s graduates more disposable: vulnerable to replacement by the “machinery” that produced them.
Taken together, these three developments help to explain the rise of a new class of voters: highly skilled, highly paid and poorly educated in the values underpinning liberal democracy. It is not particularly surprising that these voters, bereft of shared traditions of knowledge and understanding, coalesce around tribal identities and the surrender of self to a collective consciousness.
Liberal democracies had supposedly moved beyond “primordial” politics, toward a society of empowered citizens. However, citizens’ power — their ability to identify their interests and to act individually and collectively to advance them — requires a set of skills altogether different from those being emphasized today.
Sami Mahroum is director of the Innovation and Policy Initiative at INSEAD business school and a member of the World Economic Forum Regional Strategy Group for the Middle East and North Africa.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs