Oddbean

In the previous post, we explored the concept of tribalism and ideological territorialism—the ways in which people tend to adopt beliefs and align themselves with a particular group, often based on preexisting affiliations such as politics, religion, or national identity. We discussed how, once a group stakes out a claim on an ideology, the opposition is frequently forced into reactionary positions, sometimes without logical foundation. Building on that discussion, I want to take a deeper dive into this phenomenon by looking at Noam Chomsky’s understanding of these dynamics and how he critiques the systems that drive them. 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. nostr:nevent1qqsd8muth43l29w3hkp2sdu2xgnwftry3ezhjvc532as4rzurxq7ksgpz3mhxw309akx7cmpd35x7um58g6rsd3e9upzps0f4va9dg4tdjjta06yafjt9ldyptrrz85gdw5xk3jjz6wt266rqvzqqqqqqylqal05