I am not really surprised, given the company I keep, that recently I am being asked,"As an anthropologist can you explain the world-wide trend towards popularism, nationalism and conservatism?" It does seem to be a political fact that a form of illiberal totalitarianism with hard-line leaders is spreading across the globe: of course, there's Trump in the USA, Putin in Russia, Chi in China, Erdogan in Turkey, Kim Jong-il in North Korea, and a long list of dictators or aspiring dictators from Belarus to Zimbabwe, even within the European Union (eg. Victor Orban of Hungary). I refuse to mention Brexit!It does seem paradoxical that the more the world becomes a 'global village' through the revolution of electronic communication and easy travel, with the implied closer relations and understanding of 'other' societies and cultures, the more intolerant and xenophobic some people are becoming. I recognize this is a massive generalisation but the growing strength of right wing and totalitarian politics across a tranche of political cultures is a phenomenon that requires explanation.At the risk of being reductionist and being accused of over-simplification, I believe there is a general explanation which emanates from an understanding of Evolutionary Psychology. If we recognise that much of human behaviour was forged while homo sapiens lived during the Stone Age, which lasted roughly 3.4 million years, while the historical period of ' civilisation' has only about 5,000 years of existence, the argument is that much of our unconscious behaviour is a response to the Stone Age environment and our 'civilised morality' is merely a veneer. This 'primitive' behaviour reflects the basic demands of survival and reproduction – and relates to what Herbert Spencer, a follower of Darwin, dubbed, “The survival of the fittest.” Our early ancestors were, like modem humans, social animals and it is our ability to cooperate that was an important reasons why our species has become dominant on earth. However, at the same time humans are competitive both at the personal and unitary level – indulging in violence against each other over reproductive opportunities and physical resources. A crucial unit for those early societies was the tribe, which while it provided identity and social cohesion also led to hostility and violence to 'others' – non-members of 'the tribe'. The modern term 'tribalism' has a negative connotation to describe situations where people are overly loyal to their own group. 'Their own group' has, ironically, through the ease of access provided by social media, often become an 'echo-chamber', providing a 'conservative' sense of belonging, shared views and, sadly, prejudiced certainty in the uncertainty of a fast-changing world where identity, customs and mores are being eroded by the changes brought about by multi-nationalism, multiculturalism and migration. So this rough-honed argument is that, paradoxically, the more the world becomes a global village the more people are retreating into tribal groups to defend their attitudes, their identity, their way of life, their certainty/security against the uncertainty of change in a 'shrinking' world and its concomitant consequences.
Comments