OPINION:
Since he first walked this earth, man has organized himself into tribes. There is safety in numbers and, along with physical and practical advantages, comes the most appealing benefit: belonging.
Politics is no different. With the midterm election looming, examining the psychological forces and incentives that drive tribal behavior can help us understand political movements and electoral outcomes.
For most of the human species, the feeling of belonging isn’t just a desire; it is a biological and psychological necessity. We are, after all, social creatures.
Broadly speaking, voters and activists are initially drawn to political tribes (and politicians) by one of four psychological motivations — the Four Ps: principle, practicality, personality, or popularity. Members can join the same tribe but for different reasons.
Principle is rooted in a set of unchanging beliefs or convictions. It includes religious or ideological alignment and a moral compass that always points in the same direction. It concerns the ends and the means.
Practicality is focused on outcomes and usually tied to personal benefit. It is party-, candidate-, and even principle-agnostic. Less concerned with the details or ideological consistency, pragmatism reigns supreme.
Personality stems from the appeal or charisma of the tribe leader, or the trust they elicit. Star power, style, and even heroism entice and excite. Conversely, others are primarily motivated by distrust or disdain for an opposing leader.
Popularity is driven by an individual’s craving or need for acceptance, relevance, and the desire to be on the winning team — the bandwagon fan.
Once within the tribe, these different factions are united but do not lose their divergent psychological characteristics.
Every tribe has its rules, and these rules are heavily influenced by the competing motivations of its members.
There will always be one dominant set of rules that governs the tribe. If you want to know what kind of tribe you’re in, ask yourself: What am I not allowed to question? Is it the principles, the outcomes, the leader, or something that might jeopardize the tribe’s mainstream appeal? That’s your answer.
Many successful political movements and campaigns become tribes of personality as the identity of the tribe is fused with its leader. This makes sense. Voters use politicians for ideological shorthand. Political power is impressive and attractive, and inspiring leaders build trust.
Across society, individuals use tribal attachments to build better versions of themselves, weaving them into their personal identities. These additions can become permanent. Just ask any Ford truck owner if he would switch to Chevy, or a Red Sox fan if he would defect to the Yankees.
Once political fans, like sports fans, lock in on a team or hero and put on their jersey — physically or metaphorically — there’s almost no going back.
Watching your team lose is painful. But there’s another kind of loss that’s even more devastating.
We’ve all heard, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” For many, the inverse is also true: “My feelings don’t care about your facts.” Or more precisely, “The fear of what I might lose — or be forced to give up — won’t allow me to entertain even objective facts that don’t validate my tribal membership.”
And deep in the subconscious, “I can’t bear the thought that I might have chosen incorrectly; I’ve invested so much. What would all my ’friends’ say? Who would I become? I could never consider another tribe or hero because I would lose a part of my identity — a piece of me would be amputated.”
For influencers and those who have achieved relevance or status within the tribe, there’s even more to lose. Many have professional, social, and financial incentives tied to the tribe’s success. These incentives encourage them to defend and praise the tribe and its leader while attacking internal challengers and denouncing those who step out of line.
This becomes a competition all its own as they work to prove their loyalty, preserve their prestige, and protect their own identities.
All this willful tribal blindness is not unique to the political left or right — and watching hours of cable news or living in the same social media echo chamber will not restore sight, reason, or good faith.
The cure comes in two doses and is hard to swallow: humility and courage.
Humility, to consider that we may be wrong; courage, to search for truth at the risk of personal loss.
These virtues prove difficult when all of us want to belong. As existential psychologist Rollo May put it, “The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.”
If you think tribal conformity only describes your political opponents, you’re probably overlooking your own blind spots. There are lessons to be learned by all.
Let us each examine ourselves, stand loyal to the truth, and when required, be unafraid to break from the tribe.
• Paul Mullen is the assistant director of marketing at the Heritage Foundation.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.