Chomsky’s Take on Tribalism and Ideological Control
While Chomsky does not always use the term "tribalism" explicitly, his analysis aligns closely with what we’ve been discussing—particularly his views on how power and ideology are controlled and manipulated in society. According to Chomsky, many of the ideological divisions we see today are not necessarily organic or based on thoughtful disagreement but are the result of deliberate manipulation by elites who control media, culture, and political institutions.
Chomsky's concept of manufactured consent is central to this understanding. He argues that the mass media, acting in the interests of corporations and political elites, frames public discourse in ways that keep people divided and aligned with pre-established ideological camps. This control over the narrative often means that the first group to claim an ideological position defines the terms of the debate, limiting the opposition to reactionary responses and preventing the kind of meaningful, nuanced discourse that might challenge the power structure.
In essence, Chomsky’s critique parallels the idea of ideological territorialism, where the sides are staked out in a way that benefits those in power. He suggests that this process is less about natural human tribalism and more about the deliberate engineering of public opinion to serve elite interests.
The Simplification of Ideology
One of Chomsky's core critiques is how complex issues are reduced to binary choices, which then drive the tribal affiliations we see in political and social discourse. In his view, when concepts like equality, democracy, or freedom are simplified and co-opted by specific movements, it leaves little room for alternative or nuanced perspectives.
For example, in the realm of U.S. politics, the debate is often limited to the two-party system, where people are forced to identify as either Democrat or Republican. This dichotomy simplifies a broad spectrum of political ideologies into a limited set of options, further entrenching tribalism. Chomsky suggests that this not only limits meaningful debate but also serves to obscure more systemic critiques of power—particularly critiques of corporate control, economic inequality, and militarism, which transcend the simplistic left-right divide.
This mirrors the idea we discussed earlier—that tribal lines are drawn early in ideological battles, and the opposition is often forced into adopting positions that may not even represent a logical or coherent set of beliefs but are instead shaped by the need to respond to the dominant tribe’s claim.
Manipulating Tribal Tendencies for Control
While Chomsky acknowledges that humans have tribal tendencies, he argues that these are often exploited by those in power to maintain control. This is evident in how media and political systems exaggerate divisions between different groups—whether national, religious, or political. In many cases, these divisions are not reflective of deep-seated, natural animosities but are the result of manipulation by those who benefit from a divided public.
For instance, in international relations, Chomsky critiques how the U.S. government frames global conflicts in simplistic terms—such as democracy versus terrorism or freedom versus authoritarianism—when in reality, the underlying motivations often have more to do with economic or geopolitical interests. This form of tribalism is encouraged because it justifies interventionist policies and keeps the public aligned with the dominant narrative, while any opposition is framed as disloyal or irrational.
This framing forces the opposing side into reactionary positions, where they are defined not by their own set of coherent beliefs but by their opposition to the dominant power. Again, we see here the same phenomenon of ideological territorialism, where the opposition is left with the remaining ideological space, regardless of whether it aligns with their own values or logic.
Tribalism and Identity Politics
Chomsky has also expressed concerns about the rise of identity politics, which can further fuel ideological territorialism. While he recognizes the importance of addressing issues of identity—such as race, gender, and sexual orientation—he warns that focusing too narrowly on identity-based divisions can fragment solidarity among broader movements for social or economic justice. In his view, identity politics can sometimes serve as a distraction from the larger systemic issues that drive inequality and injustice.
This critique ties into our earlier discussion about how certain terms, like equality or love, have been co-opted by particular movements, leading to ideological division. Chomsky’s point is that while these movements are important, they can be manipulated in ways that prevent unified action against the real sources of power—such as corporate and state elites. The result is a form of tribalism that keeps people locked in conflicts over identity while leaving the broader structures of power unchallenged.
Tribalism on a Global Scale
On a global level, Chomsky’s critique of tribalism extends to how nations interact with each other. He argues that national identities are often constructed or exaggerated to justify aggression, imperialism, or other forms of dominance. For example, the framing of the Cold War as a struggle between Western democracy and Eastern communism created an ideological divide that forced many countries into aligning with one side or the other, even when their interests were not directly tied to the conflict.
This global tribalism mirrors the same dynamics we see in domestic politics: the first side to stake out an ideological position defines the debate, forcing the opposition into reactionary or defensive positions. Whether it’s in the context of U.S. foreign policy, where countries are labeled as allies or enemies, or in the broader global political landscape, where nationalism and identity politics dominate, Chomsky argues that these divisions are often manipulated by elites to maintain control over global power dynamics.
Breaking Free from Tribalism
Chomsky's solution to the problem of ideological tribalism is rooted in his broader philosophy of anarcho-syndicalism, where decentralized power structures and direct democracy would allow for more genuine and diverse discourse. He believes that by breaking down the systems of media control, corporate influence, and hierarchical power, people could engage in more meaningful discussions about issues that matter to them—rather than being forced into tribal camps defined by elites.
In this vision, solidarity across tribal lines becomes possible because the power structures that manipulate and exaggerate these divisions are dismantled. Chomsky's call for greater awareness of how public opinion is shaped aligns with our earlier discussion of ideological territorialism: if people can recognize how they are being divided and manipulated, they can begin to challenge the assumptions of their tribe and engage in more thoughtful, nuanced conversations.
Conclusion: Chomsky’s Critique as a Continuation of Our Exploration
Chomsky’s understanding of tribalism and ideological territorialism serves as an extension of the themes we introduced in the previous post. His analysis of media control, propaganda, and the manipulation of public discourse highlights how tribal affiliations are often engineered by those in power. Rather than being a natural outgrowth of human nature, tribalism, in Chomsky’s view, is frequently used as a tool to divide and control the public, preventing unified action against systemic injustice.
By recognizing how ideological lines are drawn and how terms like equality, love, and liberty are co-opted by various movements, we can begin to challenge these divisions and engage in more meaningful, productive dialogue. Chomsky's critique encourages us to look beyond the surface of tribalism and see the deeper forces at work—forces that seek to maintain control by limiting the range of acceptable ideas and framing opposition as reactionary or illogical.
In doing so, we may find a way to break free from ideological territorialism and reclaim the ability to engage with complex issues in a way that transcends tribal affiliations.
quotingThroughout human history, the evolution of communication has played a significant role in shaping ideological divides. From the invention of the printing press to the rise of social media, the phenomenon of ideological territorialism, or what some refer to as tribalism, has persisted. This tribalism appears innate rather than learned, arising as people flock to one side of an argument based on preexisting ties—be they religious, territorial, or social. While modern discourse often uses the term tribalism, this behavior may be more deeply rooted in what could be described as ideological territorialism, where the first group to stake out a claim often defines the lines of opposition. This process shapes the ensuing debates, even when the positions lack logical coherence.
nevent1q…al05
The Dynamics of Ideological Territorialism
In many instances, when an argument or a new ideology emerges, the group that first establishes its stance on the issue tends to define the opposition. Rather than choosing sides based on thoughtful reflection, many people align with their "tribe," adopting the positions of those within their community, whether conservative or liberal, Christian or Muslim, or aligned with national identities like American or Chinese. This behavior has become a defining feature of modern discourse, where the first group to stake out a claim frames the conversation, leaving the opposition to claim whatever ideological territory remains.
This dynamic often places individuals on weak or strong ground based on the ideological positions their tribe holds. In cases where the tribe loses the majority of arguments or fails to prevail in public discourse, all of the arguments from that side are often discredited. Regardless of whether the losing side had nuanced or even correct positions, they are declared wrong by the victor, creating a binary view of right and wrong, winner and loser, in the realm of ideas.
Co-opting of Language and Concepts
One of the most fascinating aspects of ideological territorialism is the co-opting of terms and concepts that transcend political, religious, or social divides. Words that once held universal meaning—such as equality, liberty, love, and faith—have been claimed and redefined by different movements, leaving those outside of those movements feeling alienated or excluded.
For example, the term "liberality" is a concept that few Americans, regardless of political affiliation, would disagree with in principle. Yet, the language of ideological divides often implies that those on one side are liberal, while the other side is not. This creates a false dichotomy, suggesting that the fundamental values of liberality—openness, generosity, and a willingness to change—are exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.
Similarly, the word "equality" has been co-opted by various movements, particularly within the context of sexual identity and civil rights. The LGBTQ+ community, for example, has adopted the term to symbolize the fight for equal rights, which has led to a shift in how the term is perceived by others. Those who oppose certain aspects of this movement, such as the acceptance of non-traditional sexual practices or the exposure of children to these topics, may now view "equality" as a term that implies allegiance to a worldview they do not share. As a result, the word has become polarized, despite its fundamental meaning of equal treatment and opportunity for all.
Another notable example is the rainbow, a symbol originally rooted in biblical tradition. According to the Christian story of Noah, the rainbow was a sign of a covenant between God and humanity, promising that the Earth would never again be destroyed by a flood. Yet, in modern times, the rainbow has been co-opted by the LGBTQ+ movement to represent diversity of thought and identity. While this use of the rainbow initially focused on sexual diversity, it has since expanded to encompass racial and cultural diversity, often excluding dominant groups in a given society, such as those seen as holding power in Western empires.
This co-opting of symbols and language is not limited to sexual identity. The term "love" was similarly redefined during the 1960s free-love movement, where it became associated with sexual liberation and countercultural ideals. For many, this movement shifted the meaning of love from a spiritual or familial bond to something transient and physical, a stark departure from its original, multifaceted connotations.
Likewise, "faith" has been co-opted by certain religious movements to justify financial exploitation or rigid dogma. In some religious circles, faith is used as a tool to control adherents, demanding financial contributions or unquestioning obedience to religious authorities. This has led to a backlash against organized religion, with many associating the word "faith" with manipulation rather than spiritual conviction.
The Impact of Ideological Territorialism on Modern Discourse
Ideological territorialism can have far-reaching consequences on how society engages with important concepts. When one side of a debate stakes a claim on a term, the opposition is often left in a reactionary position, rejecting not only the specific claims of the other side but also the very terms and values they once might have shared. As these terms are co-opted, their meanings shift, and individuals who disagree with the dominant ideology of a given movement may feel that they must abandon the terms altogether, even when they align with their original meanings.
This phenomenon creates a kind of ideological entrenchment, where individuals and groups become locked into predefined positions based on tribal associations rather than logic or shared values. Once a concept like "liberality," "equality," or "faith" is claimed by one side, it becomes difficult for the other side to engage with the concept in a productive way, as the terms themselves are seen as belonging to the opposing tribe.
Moving Forward: Reclaiming Language and Thought
To move beyond ideological territorialism, it is essential to recognize the value of shared concepts and to engage with them in a way that transcends tribal affiliations. Equality, liberality, love, and faith are not the exclusive property of any one movement, ideology, or religion. They are universal values that have been co-opted and redefined in ways that divide us. By reclaiming these terms and grounding them in their original meanings, we can begin to bridge the divides that ideological territorialism has created.
This requires a willingness to engage in dialogue across tribal lines and a recognition that no single group has a monopoly on truth. It also requires humility—acknowledging that even when one side wins an argument, the other side may have valid points that deserve consideration. By challenging the co-opting of language and ideas, and by rejecting the notion that tribal identity should define our beliefs, we can begin to build a more inclusive and thoughtful discourse, one that honors the complexity of human thought and experience.