Tribalism, Brooks argues, is appealing because it helps forge a type of community. But “it is actually the dark twin of community. Community is based on common humanity; tribalism on common foe.” Americans everywhere are seeking relationship. But “weavers” do so by embodying the virtues of empathy, generosity, “radical hospitality,” and “deep mutuality.” In Brooks’s view, a powerful communitarian ethos is swelling across America, challenging the blights of isolation and polarization.
Brooks’ latest book, which touts the joy that one obtains by serving one’s community, is not making much of a splash, as far as I can tell. I think there is a lot of resentment of the fact that he has turned toward preaching after divorcing his wife and subsequently marrying a much younger research assistant. Granted, the second event came too late to have directly caused the first. But Brooks presents his divorce in terms of the suffering he experienced, as if he thinks it helps enhance his credibility as a moral teacher. He comes across as unaware that others might perceive matters differently.
If you actually look at what Brooks is advocating and doing, it has merit. He is suggesting that we get to know our neighbors and also acquaint ourselves with people who are outside of our comfort zone. Invest less in grand politics and more in personal connections. That approach seems to have considerable upside and minimal downside.
But I doubt that any one political culture is “swelling across America.” I think we are splintering. It is no accident that the 2016 Republican Presidential primary and the 2020 Democratic primary produced large numbers of candidates. If we had a proportional-representation electoral system, there would probably be a dozen parties.
V.S. Naipul’s A Million Mutinies Now captured the splintered state of culture in India. I have read a similar book on Israel. Was it Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land, or was it something else? Anyway, I think we see something similar in Europe as well as in the U.S. Instead of the revolt of the public, we are seeing a million revolts.
I think there is a lot of resentment of the fact that he has turned toward preaching after divorcing his wife
I am not sure resentment is the right word here. I suggest very hypocritical consider how much his preaching is about good moral choices while lecturing the working classes for their poor moral choices. Brooks did the ultimate Boomer move here and telling everyone who moral and good he is. (Is 1961 a boomer?)
Honestly, it is good for him to find happiness although I do think of lecturing young people not to be as ambitious to be wrong. If you have savings, this is the right choice for near 60 year old but wrong to give someone at 20 – 25. Young people need to ambitious and somewhat ruthless in the world.
Honestly the smartest thing I heard from a Political Science Professor in college (1993), was that local public government and communities were going to have significant issues accomplishing their goals because most women were now in the paid workforce. He stated that local housewives of the past provided a lot of non-economic services to the community that held it together. And now these unpaid services had nobody to consistently perform these services and he wondered if old retirees would fill this gap. (We have mixed results here.)
What has happened here is women are dominating these roles in paid public position such as social work whom conservatives rant against endlessly.
My city has never had anything come close to the civic improvements for which “idle” women of the past were most often the impetus and some part of the labor. Simply maintaining what they did has proven beyond us. It is a sign of either stupidity or disingenuousness if a speaker on the subject of “community” doesn’t recognize this as point one: the role women played back when they, uh, didn’t do anything compared to women nowadays.
I have often learned something reading David Brooks and I don’t hate him. Often his best columns were those which he tag teamed with Gail Collins.
It sounds like he fails the Kantian imperative. If we look at Brooks and “ask What If Everybody Did That?” he loses credibility.
In case you missed it, there is this as well. By itself it may not mean much–my opinions are a bit unstable and superficial.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/ethnic-extremist-leaves-u-s-to-fight-in-middle-eastern-tribal-war/
Brooks’ point about tribalism vs community is interesting. I hadn’t thought of it that way before, but it makes sense.
To me, the IDW (and this blog’s recent heavy focus on it) is very tribal. And I say that as someone who thinks the IDW is right about a lot of things. Arnold’s quote from earlier this week “The IDW is our Samizdat” was jarring to me.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed this. I think the three axis model is brilliant, but I part of me wonders whether the Kling of the last year or so would have been able to write it.
With respect to the splintering, I wonder whether at least two factors, among others, aren’t aggravating it greatly:
1. The ever-metastasizing micromanagerial nagging/”nudging” of snobbish, virtue-signaling government. What color you must paint your house. What kind of car you must drive – or whether you must not drive at all. What you must not drink, e.g. soda. How to enact collectivism while abjuring responsibility – vide the concept of calling out “fat shaming”, as opposed to encouraging responsibility to avoid imposing gratuitous burdens on the collective. And so on, without end, and in a diversifying society containing significant numbers of adherents to ever more cultures and religions.
2. The ever-metastasizing micromanagerial, snobbish social-media mob mentality, demanding ever more absolute, detailed conformity. Except again for random special cases – vide, again, “fat shaming”. And that to the limitless profit of budding trillionaires, but in the same diversifying society.
As the saying goes, people can’t have it both ways (at least not for long.) But I don’t see any ameliorating factors coming into play for now. I have to assume it will all just get louder and worse.
There is nothing inherently wrong with tribalism, in these terms. The US winner take all political system guarantees it. The other side wins and you are shut out completely. Yes, they are the foe. If you want this type of polarization and hate this is the perfect system of government for you.
Proportional representation, on the other hand, is inherently communal. Splintering allows diversity of opinion and debate while rewarding coalition building and tolerance for others. Nearly everyone is represented. One can vote for an ideal rather than than being forced to support the lesser of two evils. Pragmatic concerns tend to be prioritized over message shaping to attract undecideds.
Of course proportional representation requires a degree of governmental competence and sophistication that is completely lacking in the USA. But experts from places like South Africa and Nigeria could be brought in to address our human capital deficits.
I doubt that you’ve ever lived thru two election cycles in a prop. rep. system.
As a Libertarian, I used to think they were good.
Now, living in a Slovakia with the EU style of prop. rep., I see it, in actual practice, as far inferior to the “two-party” realpolitik of the USA.
More corruption, of both the politicians AND the voters.
Let’s not forget, wanting the gov’t to take money in taxes and put it into your own pocket is what corrupt politicians do — and what voters most often corruptly vote to do.
Well, isn’t this dandy. Tell me I must embrace this namby-pamby empathy thing because the only alternative is simplistic tribalism. Excuse me, I’m going to wander off and lot at other options besides these two.
There is a cargo cult around empathy. Empathy doesn’t cause unity, unity causes empathy. Trying to force or fake empathy just doesn’t work. Look for people with whom you have a common interest, and work from there. Call it a tribe if you like, but ethnicity doesn’t enter into it.
I don’t go looking for enemies. I don’t go avoiding enemies either. Let the alliances sort themselves out, and we’ll all know where we really stand with other.
Could the something else have been Tal Keinan “God is in the Crowd” published 2018?
David could be a bit demented.
Brooks divorcing his wife so as to “trade-in” for a younger model is exactly what life-marriage is culturally designed to strongly discourage.
One of the main reasons to NOT like Trump as a role model is his willingness to do this, altho cheating so often on you wife, like Pres. Bill Clinton did, should also be considered a terrible role model (but Dems kinda like that). Young lovelies shouldn’t be wanting to be the new model, but there are always more hypergamic beauties than rich/ famous/ powerful guys so the alpha-jerks, now including Brooks, can continue doing it.
Community is based on common humanity; tribalism on common foe.
Tribalism is where the hate and separation is coming from.
We need more community, and community building.
But the reason it’s so hard is that it means being physically with people who are different, and uncomfortable to be with.
Not that I endorse either of them, but Trump’s seems less egregious than Brooks. I imagine Trumps bimbos have a pretty good idea wha the deal is going in, and Trump seems to follow through on what he actually promises (children and lifelong financial support). Brooks probably actually convinced his first wife they were in a real marriage based on love and then betrayed her.
I’d have been willing to doc Trump for his behavior on marriage if his opponent hadn’t bullied women on her rapist husbands behalf, and if the Democratic Party wasn’t so anti-marriage/pro-promiscuity in ideology.
I did, and do, doc Trump — but doc Hillary even more, and especially the hypocritical fems who support Bill.