Tribe/Tribal: I have come to feel that tribe (more specifically, monotribe) is the fundamental unit of human sociality and that it functions as the "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" for our social traits. And I include among those "social traits", identity formation or individual sense of self. Identity is a psychic mechanism that mediates all relationship. Tribe and identity, psychologically speaking, must be understood as indivisible components of personality.
I have no background in anthropology, where "tribe" might have a specific definition differentiable from similar terms like "band", "troop", etc. I don't criticize that kind of usage or mean to redefine it for other fields (I am not qualified to do so). For me, tribe is fundamentally a psychological term. In Jung-speak, it could be called an "archetype". I do suspect that there were genetically predisposed foundations that affected the composition and behaviors of actual tribes long before our species evolved. Prehistoric tribes were probably highly genetically consistent and composed of anywhere from a couple dozen to a few hundred or so individuals. But with the evolution of the human brain/mind, the capacity for abstraction makes tribe more of a psychological concept than a head count. Of course, there may be some validity to theories like Dunbar's Number (roughly 150 for humans) that correlates neocortex size with average number of "tribe members".
For the "archetype" of tribe to be employed, the number of members is fairly unimportant. It could be 10 people or 100 or 5000 or 5 million, because it is a psychic concept, a feeling of belonging to an identity group. So in the 20th century, you get nationalisms that function psychologically like monotribes within each individual. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE and beyond, you have large organized religions (even state religions) like Christianity that operate (for Christians) like a monotribe. At least, with 20th century nationalisms and Christianity, you have an organizational intention (among the elite) of "regressing" to monotribalism and its sense of participation mystique, unified ideology. Monotribalism is the quintessential premodern social structure, which was most seriously assaulted with the post-agricultural revolution and the creation of city-states, and urbanization (is some parts of the world). That modernism made monotribalism seem inefficient. Modernism provided military might, industry, and technological advances at the expense of increased population density, atomization of social groups, hierarchical classism, social injustices, exploitations, accumulation of wealth, and other modern problems.
It would seem that for the civilized world, tribalism died with the advent of modernism. I disagree. Human identity and socialization still fell into the patterns of their predisposed tribalism, which lent itself to ideas of class and race and also to smaller groups like guilds, occupational collectives, and religious sects (where religious diversity was allowed). The individual might live in a modern city, but his or her identity was constructed in relation to those tribal affiliations that were strongest . . . perhaps, class, religion, occupation, race, etc. What changed with modernism was the physical environment, but the physical environment's transition did not place quite enough pressure on the trait of human tribalism that it produced evolutionary adaptations. And yet, it seems that modern humans have always been on the cusp of "mutation" and adaptation, because there are all kinds of psychological diseases that appear and proliferate with modernism. The modern environment causes stress that disrupts individual homeostasis in many cases. But that stress may not be enough to favor some kind of genetic mutation (and/or such mutations have not specifically affected human sociality). It should be noted, though, that other mutations related to modernization like resistance to various diseases and the ability in some populations to break down lactose has occurred since agricultural civilization began.
It is interesting to observe that the human capacity to abstract tribalism extends even to the human capacity to form polytribal identities. Polytribal identity defines the modern human psychological condition. Although individuals can exist quite functionally with such identities, I feel there is a strong pull toward monotribalism, toward a singular tribal source, and toward a unified principle of organization for the individual psyche. Polytribalism can create conflicts in identity, which might make for a less efficient system. But more important than such conflicts, I think, is the fact that modern tribes, individually, are no longer self-sustaining. The survival of every modern tribe is dependent on a network of support. They are all plugged into the "matrix" of modernism. Typically, modern tribes don't even bother trying to be "whole" or self-sustaining, to provide some kind of enclosed environment for all their members.
The closest thing we have to monotribes in the modern environment are usually religious and cult groups, which often seek to repeal modernism and discover some kind of premodern fundamentalism where all tribe members are unified in participation and all others are excluded or even condemned. Monotribalism typically requires strict definitions of others and enemies and places stringent control over tribal laws of purity and heresy and general social conduct and belief.
Beyond religions and cult groups, there are additional highly monotribal modern tribes (which I would simply call modern monotribes as opposed to traditional or premodern monotribes). Academia has a very monotribal character. Its fields and departments and schools of thought lend themselves to such insular monotribalism, as well as its nearly all-encompassing methods of indoctrination. It was actually in graduate school (where I briefly pursued a degree in poetry writing) that I first started recognizing tribal sociality formations. Insularity and indoctrination are very intense in many graduate programs.
Later on, I discovered that Jungianism is also a modern monotribe, although it has specific factions and classes that are often dissociated from one another. Many of the most severe modern monotribes are distinctly anti-modern and either "postmodern" or romantic. Jungianism is very romantic, adhering to a very romantic notion of premodern tribal spiritualities like pantheism and fascinations with the seemingly (or perhaps projected) "animate world". As above, it is also prone to participation mystique, totemization, taboo, scapegoating, and monotribal notions like "anima mundi". Regrettably, it has no sense of social psychology and the relationship between tribe and identity, so these romantic pursuits are not subject to any psychological analysis or much if any awareness.
In academia, postmodernist and poststructuralist tribes have been extremely popular in the liberal arts and sometimes the social sciences. They often exhibit more monotribal structures and patterns than, say, harder sciences that have rationalistic and materialistic perspectives (not that the latter are non-tribal). One of the primary tenets of postmodernism is the passionate critique of modernism, certifiably an "anti-modernism". The modern is often criminalized and any thinker, artist, politician, etc. who is labeled "modern" is often viciously attacked. Sometimes these critiques are more warranted than other times . . . there is always much to critique about modernism. What remains unclear in many of these critiques, though, is how precisely postmodernists are different or have some superior way to be. That will never be demonstrated because such "proofs" are the product (according to postmodernists) of modernist presumptions and arrogance and misguidance. For instance, "science" is seen as wrongly believing in its own modernist meta-narratives. The scientific method of determining "truths" (more accurately probabilities) is rejected on such grounds, but nothing is substituted in its place (the idea that a substitution is needed is, of course, a modernist meta-narrative, too). All postmodernism has to substitute is its own sense of tribal self-righteousness. Its unity is defined by its enemies and scapegoats and by the faith-based critique of these evildoers.
Of course modern monotribes like academic postmodernism are not self-sustaining. They are dependent upon universities, student tuition payments, and specialized journals and readership markets that sustain their dysfunctional monotribalism. They can only exist because they are enabled by the modern environment to remain insulated. So even as such monotribes enact strong identity constructions in their members, they lack a functional, self-sustaining Self principle that enables them to be adapted to an outer environment. These tribes are like dependent children and can therefore live in worlds of unsustainable fantasy. Relationship with the Self is ultimately aimed at adaptation. One can be "adapted" to a particular social context, especially when one has high status within a fairly insular tribe, but outside of that context, s/he might be utterly lost and overwhelmed. Of course, in our society, substantial wealth allows an individual to determine his or her environment pretty well. Such wealth can protect one against the drive for a sustainable Self principle, at least temporarily. But most people don't possess enough wealth to turn their environments into "play dens", and many people with wealth are bored or dissatisfied, hungering for something more meaningful, something mysteriously missing.
The "missing meaning" so common in the modern condition has almost always to do with detachment from any kind of monotribe and its more singular construction of identity. This is often spoken of as "spiritual hunger", but the "spirituality" we typically seek is the kind that comes as the product of indoctrination into a monotribe. It is for this reason that Jungian or psychoanalytic therapies can actually work. They cure by indoctrination, by offering a more monotribal identity group to belong to and be directed by.
