When I wrote about this 19 years ago in my book Us and Them (U Chicago Press, still in print!), the first edition subtitle was "Understanding Your Tribal Mind."
However, I now try to avoid using the word "tribal." I think it invites people to think of themselves as sophisticated victims of some supposedly atavistic and primordial trait. As if our political parties and nations were higher ideals that fall back into this less desirable state under pressure.
After more experience with people who are members of actual tribes -- that is, people who think and feel tribal identities the way I sense national, religious and ethnic identities -- I see that "tribal" experience is no more or less primitive than other forms of categorization.
In the library stacks long ago I discovered this book is written every 20 years or so. So if you think I as implying that I wish humanity had just listened to me, that was not my intent.
I just think "tribal" might not be the best word for the topic. And I look forward to reading the Morris book. It looks great.
As a filmmaker, I would urge caution around the use of mass media as a tool for social transformation. While it can be highly effective, as the Mexican and Tanzanian examples show, it can also lead to audience fragmentation if the message is poorly crafted or too far outside the current values of a society.
For example, in the Anglosphere lots of people have stopped watching Hollywood productions (especially 'preachy' TV shows) over the last decade. Based on the comments I see online and amongst my peers in New Zealand, those who aren't watching explicitly mention poor writing/acting, 'the message', or 'the woke agenda' as their reason for tuning out and turning to independent productions instead. In this case, it would seem that the message embedded in these mass media productions is poorly crafted and fundamentally not resonating with the consumers who are expected to pay for it.
This can cause a ripple effect where audiences that are supposed to be swayed towards a message will rebel against it. We can see this in the current trans debate in America, where hostility towards trans issues is increasing despite the messaging in establishment media products. One example of this is the analysis suggesting that the "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" campaign helped to swing the recent election.
That being said, I thought your recent article about using Bollywood to promote the education and employment of young women from rural India would likely be an effective use of mass media messaging. This is partly because Bollywood movies are an event that the whole family goes to see, even if they might leave the cinema during segments that don't interest them, but also because there is a big societal shift happening amongst the burgeoning middle class of India that a well crafted message could take advantage of.
You are absolutely right to include economics as a dominant factor in all of this. Just look at the role of the tech bros. in the 2024 election: Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and J.D. Vance, who is not so much a techie, but who is a protege of Thiel. In my opinion the economic stakes are too high in American elections.
Thiel has been conservative since the 1990s at least. As has David Sacks. Vance isn't even a tech bro. Musk is really the only one you've mentioned that genuinely has shifted from supporting democrats to supporting Republicans.
Rather than economics I think the "tech bros" you cite are influential because they are esteemed as heroic by a significant proportion of the US population. 'Economics' as meant by AE is about financial security and cash flow ie $ in vs $ out.
When I wrote about this 19 years ago in my book Us and Them (U Chicago Press, still in print!), the first edition subtitle was "Understanding Your Tribal Mind."
However, I now try to avoid using the word "tribal." I think it invites people to think of themselves as sophisticated victims of some supposedly atavistic and primordial trait. As if our political parties and nations were higher ideals that fall back into this less desirable state under pressure.
After more experience with people who are members of actual tribes -- that is, people who think and feel tribal identities the way I sense national, religious and ethnic identities -- I see that "tribal" experience is no more or less primitive than other forms of categorization.
Ha! I’m sorry humanity let you down!
Um, what? Not sure I get your drift.
In the library stacks long ago I discovered this book is written every 20 years or so. So if you think I as implying that I wish humanity had just listened to me, that was not my intent.
I just think "tribal" might not be the best word for the topic. And I look forward to reading the Morris book. It looks great.
As a filmmaker, I would urge caution around the use of mass media as a tool for social transformation. While it can be highly effective, as the Mexican and Tanzanian examples show, it can also lead to audience fragmentation if the message is poorly crafted or too far outside the current values of a society.
For example, in the Anglosphere lots of people have stopped watching Hollywood productions (especially 'preachy' TV shows) over the last decade. Based on the comments I see online and amongst my peers in New Zealand, those who aren't watching explicitly mention poor writing/acting, 'the message', or 'the woke agenda' as their reason for tuning out and turning to independent productions instead. In this case, it would seem that the message embedded in these mass media productions is poorly crafted and fundamentally not resonating with the consumers who are expected to pay for it.
This can cause a ripple effect where audiences that are supposed to be swayed towards a message will rebel against it. We can see this in the current trans debate in America, where hostility towards trans issues is increasing despite the messaging in establishment media products. One example of this is the analysis suggesting that the "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" campaign helped to swing the recent election.
That being said, I thought your recent article about using Bollywood to promote the education and employment of young women from rural India would likely be an effective use of mass media messaging. This is partly because Bollywood movies are an event that the whole family goes to see, even if they might leave the cinema during segments that don't interest them, but also because there is a big societal shift happening amongst the burgeoning middle class of India that a well crafted message could take advantage of.
Great essay!
You are absolutely right to include economics as a dominant factor in all of this. Just look at the role of the tech bros. in the 2024 election: Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and J.D. Vance, who is not so much a techie, but who is a protege of Thiel. In my opinion the economic stakes are too high in American elections.
"Tech bros" are still overwhelmingly liberal. Democrats got 40 times as much in donations from tech company employees than democrats: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/workers-several-large-us-tech-companies-overwhelmingly-back-kamala-harris-data-2024-09-09/
Thiel has been conservative since the 1990s at least. As has David Sacks. Vance isn't even a tech bro. Musk is really the only one you've mentioned that genuinely has shifted from supporting democrats to supporting Republicans.
Rather than economics I think the "tech bros" you cite are influential because they are esteemed as heroic by a significant proportion of the US population. 'Economics' as meant by AE is about financial security and cash flow ie $ in vs $ out.
Yes, I mean whether leaders are seen as delivering the goods, or not (eg inflation).