Critique: Tribal WisdomCritique: Tribal WisdomTribal WisdomDavid Maybury-LewisDavid Maybury Lewis (1992) wonders if we, as Americans, by having systematically chosen to dismiss as odd, weird, and not the right way to live; in our views of foreign tribal cultures, have been hoisted by our own petard. By using his definition of a tribal society (for which there really is no one single way of life): “small-scale, pre-industrial societies that live in comparative isolation and manage their affairs without central authority such as the state”, (p 6) he questions whether cultural roads industrialized “modern” societies have chosen have caused the serious social problems we suffer today. We are the modernists, defined by myself as the opposite of tribal/traditional society.
The essay is by Charles Leung, who is a former American National Security Advisor, and the author of a book on American Tribalism. Leung’s essay is titled,
I think of tribal communities in general as a social phenomena. We may have come to the conclusion that there is an inherent complexity, even the smallest difference, between the ways in which our culture functions as a functioning social entity.[1][2]
In our culture, we were created to be the most powerful nation on Earth! In today’s world we are still a nation of laws and traditions and human relations, who choose their own ways of being; but the laws of the land of the free. We were created to be as strong, secure, and capable of defending ourselves as we should be. In this regard, the culture of the United States is the cultural fabric of our society. It is the foundation of the American Nation. This is why, at the end of the day, we have all the same customs and beliefs of a tribal system: we are both self-protecting and self-governance, but we share our values and responsibilities with others in the same way.
The concept of “Tribalism” goes back to the 17th century philosopher, and the concept also originated during the British colonies of New England and Virginia. As the colonial period progressed, the French and Canadians also adopted a similar concept and the idea became prevalent. In addition to Native Americans, both traditional and colonial people had traditions, beliefs, and concepts similar in many ways to those of early colonizers of America.[3] (Source: Wikipedia)
In the nineteenth century, the idea of “Tribalism” was more common that it was common in American society (or even the British or American West). In contrast, it was not often accepted by the population, as there was no consensus about what a “Tribal” culture is; and, as the population grew, so did the perceived authority of the federal government and its members.
The definition is “Tribal culture” (which was also popular in many English-speaking lands and nations) and was accepted to be an acceptable type of community, for a significant chunk of the population believed that the “Tribal” values they shared led to their own society becoming what they are today.
In modern times, the idea of tribal civilization has become so universally accepted that it is considered as a way of life for various people in Western civilization, even those that share ancestral practices with us during and immediately after the Revolutionary War.
This idea of an “American” tribal society and its members, as well as their respective social structures, is quite different from what the U.S. is today due to various historical, political, social, and economic factors such as:
• A large portion of the nation is located in areas that both have “westernized” or “Westernized” history; which is much like the American culture and its inhabitants have developed a distinct sense of national identity while
The essay is by Charles Leung, who is a former American National Security Advisor, and the author of a book on American Tribalism. Leung’s essay is titled,
I think of tribal communities in general as a social phenomena. We may have come to the conclusion that there is an inherent complexity, even the smallest difference, between the ways in which our culture functions as a functioning social entity.[1][2]
In our culture, we were created to be the most powerful nation on Earth! In today’s world we are still a nation of laws and traditions and human relations, who choose their own ways of being; but the laws of the land of the free. We were created to be as strong, secure, and capable of defending ourselves as we should be. In this regard, the culture of the United States is the cultural fabric of our society. It is the foundation of the American Nation. This is why, at the end of the day, we have all the same customs and beliefs of a tribal system: we are both self-protecting and self-governance, but we share our values and responsibilities with others in the same way.
The concept of “Tribalism” goes back to the 17th century philosopher, and the concept also originated during the British colonies of New England and Virginia. As the colonial period progressed, the French and Canadians also adopted a similar concept and the idea became prevalent. In addition to Native Americans, both traditional and colonial people had traditions, beliefs, and concepts similar in many ways to those of early colonizers of America.[3] (Source: Wikipedia)
In the nineteenth century, the idea of “Tribalism” was more common that it was common in American society (or even the British or American West). In contrast, it was not often accepted by the population, as there was no consensus about what a “Tribal” culture is; and, as the population grew, so did the perceived authority of the federal government and its members.
The definition is “Tribal culture” (which was also popular in many English-speaking lands and nations) and was accepted to be an acceptable type of community, for a significant chunk of the population believed that the “Tribal” values they shared led to their own society becoming what they are today.
In modern times, the idea of tribal civilization has become so universally accepted that it is considered as a way of life for various people in Western civilization, even those that share ancestral practices with us during and immediately after the Revolutionary War.
This idea of an “American” tribal society and its members, as well as their respective social structures, is quite different from what the U.S. is today due to various historical, political, social, and economic factors such as:
• A large portion of the nation is located in areas that both have “westernized” or “Westernized” history; which is much like the American culture and its inhabitants have developed a distinct sense of national identity while
The essay is by Charles Leung, who is a former American National Security Advisor, and the author of a book on American Tribalism. Leung’s essay is titled,
I think of tribal communities in general as a social phenomena. We may have come to the conclusion that there is an inherent complexity, even the smallest difference, between the ways in which our culture functions as a functioning social entity.[1][2]
In our culture, we were created to be the most powerful nation on Earth! In today’s world we are still a nation of laws and traditions and human relations, who choose their own ways of being; but the laws of the land of the free. We were created to be as strong, secure, and capable of defending ourselves as we should be. In this regard, the culture of the United States is the cultural fabric of our society. It is the foundation of the American Nation. This is why, at the end of the day, we have all the same customs and beliefs of a tribal system: we are both self-protecting and self-governance, but we share our values and responsibilities with others in the same way.
The concept of “Tribalism” goes back to the 17th century philosopher, and the concept also originated during the British colonies of New England and Virginia. As the colonial period progressed, the French and Canadians also adopted a similar concept and the idea became prevalent. In addition to Native Americans, both traditional and colonial people had traditions, beliefs, and concepts similar in many ways to those of early colonizers of America.[3] (Source: Wikipedia)
In the nineteenth century, the idea of “Tribalism” was more common that it was common in American society (or even the British or American West). In contrast, it was not often accepted by the population, as there was no consensus about what a “Tribal” culture is; and, as the population grew, so did the perceived authority of the federal government and its members.
The definition is “Tribal culture” (which was also popular in many English-speaking lands and nations) and was accepted to be an acceptable type of community, for a significant chunk of the population believed that the “Tribal” values they shared led to their own society becoming what they are today.
In modern times, the idea of tribal civilization has become so universally accepted that it is considered as a way of life for various people in Western civilization, even those that share ancestral practices with us during and immediately after the Revolutionary War.
This idea of an “American” tribal society and its members, as well as their respective social structures, is quite different from what the U.S. is today due to various historical, political, social, and economic factors such as:
• A large portion of the nation is located in areas that both have “westernized” or “Westernized” history; which is much like the American culture and its inhabitants have developed a distinct sense of national identity while
The article is easy to follow, articulate, and I related well to its theories. Maybe the fact that I related too well causes me to wonder a bit at the objectivity behind Maybury-Lewis thinking. He did well to provide a structured compare and contrast type essay, presenting tribal viewpoints with modern viewpoints regarding the same subjects. He touched on relationships between man and man, and man and his environment. He compared teenage youth from culture to culture. He explained violence in terms of political science. He covered, what I feel to be, the most important issues of all: those of spirituality. But in each case, tribal viewpoint with its consequential cultural effects won out over modern views. He did not mention, in all fairness, the many positives, which have resulted from modern culture. Or if he did, he questioned the ultimate good of those positives or potential hazards. Medical advances, for example, were never mentioned as a positive that could only have come about through modern culture and its credo of achievement.
I agreed completely, as I mentioned, with his stated ideas. His studies of tribal societies can be broken down to one basic. In modern civilizations, materialism and individuality are the valuables and in the tribal or traditional societies, people are the resources. Peoples relationships with one another and the Earth are the constant he found in primitive groups.
He found the modern world to idealize individuality, from formal schooling to cultural experience, preaching the idea that personal achievement at any cost is the basis of life and the reward is status. Any human potential toward kindness, generosity, patience, tolerance, cooperation, compassionare literally undervalued: any job that requires such talents usually has low pay and low prestige.” (p. 7). This seems so honest a comparison to me as I study the strong cooperative lifestyles of people who must live as a group in order to survive. These same people have also developed a strong bond with the land that is their economic resource. They have a respect for that which comes from the Earth by means of foraging or hunting. The tribal culture almost instinctively knows that once it resources are depleted, their society will be destroyed. They understand the value of cooperation and compassion. They respect, ironically, the time reap and the time to sow. They move on as herds become smaller, not waiting until only two or three are left to put on exhibition in a zoo. They recognize