In contemporary discourse, the concept of tribalism is almost universally burdened with negative connotations. It is frequently conflated with unreasoned bias, exclusionary politics, and an undesirable evolutionary leftover that modern societies must outgrow. However, a deeper and more critical examination of this assumption reveals that our modern aversion to tribalism stems largely from flawed foundational research and a collective cognitive blind spot. This blind spot obscures the immense collaborative potential inherent in networked, egalitarian, and human-scale cultural organisms.
The Trouble with Tribalism and Modern Psychology
The prevailing Western psychological perspective on tribalism is well-documented in academic literature. For instance, the 2019 study Tribalism is Human Nature, published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, outlines how group loyalties operate within human cognition. The researchers argue that while tribal affiliations can inspire noble actions, they frequently compel individuals to sacrifice objective reasoning and judgmental accuracy for the sake of group solidarity.
According to this perspective, fervent beliefs often function as honest signals of trustworthiness. Dogmatism and resilience against contrary evidence can paradoxically enhance an individual’s persuasiveness within a group, signaling absolute dedication to a collective ideology regardless of factual accuracy. Consequently, humans are often motivated to champion information that protects their coalition’s interests while fiercely resisting opposing viewpoints.
The authors of the study conclude that tribal bias is an innate, nearly ineradicable feature of human cognition from which no group is immune. While this conclusion aligns with certain anthropological observations and acknowledges that tribal biases can historically foster internal group cohesion, the foundational premise of the research exposes a distinct cultural bias. The study operates under the assumption that humans evolved primarily in the context of intense intergroup competition, asserting that groups with loyal members outcompeted those without.
This underlying assumption reflects the internalised ableism and competitive worldview deeply embedded in modern biological sciences. Societies structured around hierarchical empires tend to view the entire living world through a lens of inherent and perpetual competition, rendering them largely incapable of imagining genuine, collaborative relationships between distinct groups.
The Reality of Egalitarian Collaboration
Outside the shadow of hierarchical empires and powered-up institutions, history and anthropology offer numerous examples of egalitarian, collaborative cultural environments. Rather than relying on a naive denial of conflict, these groups typically deploy sophisticated conflict resolution strategies designed to prevent disputes from escalating.
Furthermore, conventional psychological frameworks often overlook the richness of human diversity within tribes and fail to account for how different categories of beliefs actually shape cultures. Persuasion by external actors is rarely the primary driver of belief formation. The negative attributes typically associated with tribalism only emerge when tribes expand far beyond a human scale, or when groups lacking a culture of inter-group egalitarianism collide in resource-constrained environments.
Modern humanity can no longer afford tribal warfare at any scale. Fortunately, counter-examples abound. Cultures that genuinely value and accommodate human diversity are uniquely equipped to adapt to changing environmental conditions. They establish collaborative, egalitarian relationships across groups, often aided by neurodivergent non-conformists who maintain the unconventional connections that catalyze inter-group dialogue. Tribes that refuse to dehumanize non-conformists benefit significantly from the cultural exchanges facilitated by these inter-tribe networks. This reality aligns closely with the diversity of human evolutionary history, even if it is rarely acknowledged in hyper-normative societies driven by massive corporations and centralized nation-states.
The Blind Spots of Industrialized Modernity
More than two centuries of life in industrialized societies—societies that no longer offer visceral experiences of living as an integral part of a human-scale cultural organism—have created a profound cognitive and emotional blind spot. Modernity acts much like a cataract, obscuring our connection to shared humanity and the broader cycles of life. Direct experience with human-scale cultural organisms is now largely restricted to isolated indigenous communities and those who have consciously cultivated collaborative niches within egalitarian worker cooperatives.
Within the narrow Overton window of the global monoculture, indigenous communities, autistic individuals, and other neurodivergent populations often occupy a marginalized space, frequently sliding from being viewed as undesirable to being treated as fundamentally outside normative human expectations.
The practical implications of this hyper-normative culture are acutely felt in contemporary workplaces. A recent case involving the Civil Aviation Authority in Aotearoa New Zealand highlights how toxic institutional dynamics impact organizational cultures. Public commentary on the situation reveals that poor management and high attrition rates are not isolated incidents but systemic issues plaguing government agencies across the board, from justice and health ministries to local municipal councils. People are walking away from stable employment in waves because toxic workplace cultures have become the norm rather than the exception.
This widespread corporate and institutional toxicity is merely the visible symptom of a deeper cultural malady that permeates every aspect of modern life. It explains the massive public resonance of works like The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture by Gabor Maté.
Mutual Aid and Compassion in the Present
Participatory research into cognitive dissonance reveals that many neurodivergent individuals frequently internalize blame for making mistakes or for being exploited by those who ruthlessly play the conventional competitive game of homo economicus. This standard economic game prioritizes polished perception management and self-promotion over honesty and integrity.
When we examine the full impact of a toxic institutional landscape through the lens of timeless philosophical traditions, a more compassionate perspective emerges. It becomes possible to recognize that individuals generally operate to the best of their ability based on their unique neurological histories, sensitivity profiles, and surviving values. Accepting that competitive environments often force well-adjusted people to conceal their true priorities allows individuals to navigate cognitive dissonance without resorting to cynicism. This approach preserves the capacity to extend trust where it is warranted.
Cultivating mutual aid in the margins of the global monoculture requires conserving emotional energy. By refusing to engage in futile, hyper-competitive digital debates designed to exploit frustration, individuals can redirect their energy toward re-engineering their immediate environments, reducing cognitive dissonance, and contributing to genuine ecological and social renewal.
As management expert W. Edwards Deming observed decades ago, systems that rely on merit ratings and short-term performance incentives inevitably destroy teamwork, suppress long-term planning, and foster an atmosphere of fear. True collaboration requires mutual support, the acknowledgment of diverse strengths, and an environment where participants can work together without fear of arbitrary evaluation. Maintaining this balance requires embedding oneself within trustworthy ecologies of care that reject the metrics of the corporate monoculture.
De-powering and Rebuilding Trust
Relearning how to nurture trustworthy relationships is an incremental process that resists quick fixes and standardized ten-step programs. Building deep trust—the catalyst for organic growth up to a human scale—takes sustained commitment and shared experience. Once a small core of individuals establishes deep mutual trust, perhaps through years of collaborating in a worker cooperative, welcoming newcomers becomes a more natural, organic process.
Ultimately, humanity possesses access to a vast repository of shared knowledge, drawn from indigenous wisdom, cooperative traditions, and community-led initiatives. As scholar Yuria Celidwen has emphasized, creating spaces of trust requires immense, courageous work to dismantle the damaging narratives that currently govern modern civilization. By committing to this deep, foundational labor for the benefit of the living planet, communities can lay the groundwork for a truly collaborative and sustainable future.
