Tribe - Book Summary

Discover a new perspective on community and identity.

At the heart of Western society lies an admiration for individual autonomy. We prize the ability to pave our own path and follow personal aspirations without interference.

Indeed, this individualistic approach has vastly improved our world, but it's not without its limits.

The image of a lone ranger, brilliantly captured by actors like John Wayne, often loses its charm in the harsh light of reality. There's a prevalent tendency to overlook the fact that the 'self' requires an 'us' to prosper, and the ripple effect of this oversight is immense.

Sebastian Junger, in his thought-provoking book "Tribe," explores this concept in depth. By weaving together historical records from early American colonization, sociological studies of disasters, and his personal wartime experiences in Afghanistan, Junger uncovers the true shape of the 'us' that is so vital for human contentment.

Brimming with insight and challenging assertions, this book presents a compelling case for a more communal approach to life, anchored in our inherent tribal nature.

Join us on this journey and discover:

why numerous American settlers opted to integrate into Native American tribes;

the reason behind elder Londoners' fond remembrances of the Blitz; and

how crises and conflicts can often stir up the best in us.

The allure of tribal lifestyle for early European settlers in America.

The first English settlers to set foot on American soil in the seventeenth century discovered a territory starkly different from their homeland. They encountered an expansive wilderness, inhabited by tribes leading lives reminiscent of a distant past.

Far from being dissuaded by this reality, many early settlers found the new world to be utterly captivating. They were drawn to the tribal way of living, so much so that numerous settlers decided to take up residence among the Native American communities.

The chasm separating these indigenous ways of life from the modern Western world was indeed significant.

The difference became more pronounced by the nineteenth century. With burgeoning cities like New York and Chicago morphing into densely populated industrial centers filled with slums, the contrast with Native Americans — still fighting with spears and tomahawks — became even more noticeable.

Despite this, many Americans were drawn to the indigenous lifestyle. They adopted Native American customs, married into their tribes, and in some cases, even joined forces with them in battles.

A converse trend, however, was decidedly rare. It puzzled many observers at the time that so few Native Americans abandoned their tribes to embrace European culture.

Benjamin Franklin, one of America's Founding Fathers, was among those intrigued by this trend. He observed that Native American children raised by Europeans showed little attachment to modern culture and often chose to return to their tribes.

Similarly, Franklin noted that many American settlers who had been taken captive by Native American tribes displayed a strong desire to continue living with the tribes that held them, an inclination he found rather perplexing.

This enigma was emphasized in 1763 when a Swiss General, Henri Bouquet, led an English expedition into Native American territories. The raid was conducted in response to the numerous attacks on European settlements by various tribes.

Bouquet’s mission was militarily successful. His primary demand was the repatriation of all European captives to their colonies.

But the so-called 'captives' did not receive this news of their 'liberation' with joy. Instead, they reacted with sadness and disorientation, showing no inclination to rejoin their original families.

Their departure triggered profound sorrow among the Native Americans, who had come to regard these individuals as part of their tribe. These tribes even followed their departing members on horseback as they were reluctantly returned to the European colonies.

Nevertheless, in many cases, these reunions were short-lived. Longing for their tribal lifestyle, several former captives left the colonies to reunite with their Native American families.

The allure of tribal life lay in its egalitarian nature, starkly contrasting Western society.

The fascination that European colonists had for Native American society certainly points to an allure they found missing in their own culture.

In many respects, the way of life of Native Americans acted as a critical lens, helping Western society see its own imperfections more clearly.

A French colonist named Hector Crèvecoeur encapsulated this sentiment in 1782. He posited that the social structure of Native American tribes was the key magnet that attracted outsiders.

Indeed, settlers had been drawn to the tribal way of life for some time. As far back as 1612, just a few years after the establishment of the Virginia colony, fifty settlers married into Native American tribes.

So, what about tribal life structure appealed so profoundly to them?

Consider the case of Mary Jemison, a woman who was captured by the Seneca tribe around 1755. She intentionally hid from search parties sent to "rescue" her. She didn't want to return to her previous life.

Her reasons were clear. In her old life, she was used to being bossed around and burdened with monotonous chores. In her new tribal life, she had freedom—no one dictated her actions or demanded specific tasks from her.

That is not to suggest that Native Americans didn't work. They did, but in a far more leisurely and relaxed manner. According to Jemison, life within a tribe, during times of peace, was nothing short of pleasurable.

This was primarily because tribal life was generally more laid-back than colonial society.

Activities like hunting were far more enjoyable than laborious fieldwork. Puritanical inhibitions about sexuality, prevalent in European settlements, were significantly less common. Little things mattered, too — tribal attire, for example, was much more comfortable than the restrictive clothing worn by settlers.

However, the most appealing aspect was the egalitarian ethos prevalent among Native Americans. Most tribes owned only what they could conveniently transport on foot or horseback. The disparity in wealth was nowhere near as stark as in Western societies.

This egalitarianism also influenced social status. Any man could achieve social recognition through hunting and participating in warfare. Women enjoyed higher levels of autonomy and were not expected to bear as many children as their counterparts in colonial society.

Tribal societies offer valuable lessons about freedom and nature to modern Western societies.

Contemporary Western societies enjoy exceptional affluence. They have unparalleled wealth, comfort, freedom, and luxuries. But what more could they possibly aspire for?

Well, perhaps, more true freedom—something that tribal societies are perfectly positioned to impart.

Take, for example, the !Kung nomads who inhabit the Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. A study conducted in the 1960s concluded that members of the tribe worked no more than twelve hours a week to sustain their lifestyles.

The anthropologist who led the research, Richard Lee, noticed that members of the tribe would take turns to hunt and gather food. Once they returned to their camp, they would distribute their haul equally among the community. While no one had an abundance, everyone had enough.

Contrast this with a typical Western lifestyle. The average office worker labors for over forty hours each week. They may be far wealthier than the !Kung, but they possess significantly less leisure time and personal freedom.

A possible counterargument is that Western societies provide the best environment for each individual to chart their unique path.

While there's some truth in this, it glosses over a crucial fact. Human beings are not inherently built for a lifestyle of rugged individualism.

To understand this better, let's revisit the !Kung.

Their way of life mirrors that of our ancestors, living in a manner that remained unchanged for thousands of years until the advent of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago.

However, it requires at least 25,000 years for a species to genetically adapt to a new environment. Despite living in industrialized and technologically advanced societies, we remain, at our core, hunter-gatherers.

Our material wealth grants us the ability to lead independent lives, but our DNA drives us to desire the kind of tight-knit communities our ancestors were part of. The disharmony between these two factors comes at a steep cost: a deep, pathological loneliness. Western societies are plagued by the highest rates of mental illness ever recorded in human history.

War frequently elicits the best in individuals and presents unexpected psychological implications.

Amid World War II, the British administration fretted over how its civilian population would handle bombing raids. Its chief apprehension was the eruption of widespread hysteria.

So, what transpired when the bombs began to descend?

The reaction was nothing like the pessimistic predictions. Instead, many people displayed resilience and courage. As surprising as it may sound, war can coax out the finest qualities in individuals.

The German carpet-bombing of London kicked off on September 7, 1940. This campaign directly targeted civilian regions and claimed hundreds of lives daily. Yet, an air of calm prevailed, and the city's inhabitants maintained their positivity. Instances of looting were scant.

The locals of London persisted with their daily activities, exhibiting a stoicism that came to be known as the Blitz spirit. Upon hearing the sirens, they moved to their air-raid shelters without any significant fuss or panic.

The psychological fortitude of the British populace was even more astounding. The government had estimated that around four million individuals would require psychiatric hospitalization due to war trauma.

Psychiatric wards should have been teeming during the Blitz. Instead, they were experiencing the opposite trend — they were becoming less populated! But what explains this anomaly?

Well, war can have psychological benefits.

Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist who conducted his studies around the turn of the last century, was the first to stumble upon this counterintuitive fact. Every instance when France went to war, its psychiatric hospitals saw fewer admissions. This phenomenon was later observed in different contexts, such as during the civil war in Spain.

Suicide rates often diminish substantially during conflicts. H.A. Lyons, an Irish psychologist, reported a staggering 50 percent reduction in suicide attempts during the 1969 riots in Belfast, Northern Ireland. At the same time, violent crime rates across the city dipped.

By contrast, in peaceful regions, depression among men became more prevalent, presumably due to their inability to participate in the fighting.

Recognizing the positive psychological implications of war is one aspect. Understanding why conflict elicits such surprising effects on individuals is another. In the following part, we'll explore why warfare possesses this unexpected influence on people.

Natural disasters promote unity among people by simplifying life.

After recognising the unexpected and paradoxically beneficial effects of warfare, researchers began to probe deeper. They expanded their focus, contemplating what insights could be gleaned by examining associated phenomena like natural disasters.

They soon uncovered that societies often became more cohesive and supportive in the face of hardships.

Take the research conducted by sociologist Charles Fritz. He explored disaster sites across the United States, interviewing over 9,000 survivors.

He found that natural disasters didn't trigger anarchy or societal collapse. Instead, individuals caught in disaster situations were more inclined to assist each other and their communities.

This increased camaraderie stems from how disasters streamline existence and steer people back to a more primal way of living.

Fritz proposed this theory in 1961. He argued that modern life erodes the social ties that previously bound humans together within their societies.

However, the advent of a natural disaster often rejuvenates these bonds. People understand that their survival hinges on cooperation with others. Rifts based on wealth and race become irrelevant in the face of a collective struggle for survival.

This concept was substantiated by a devastating earthquake in the mountains of Peru in 1970. The city of Yungay was especially severely impacted, with the catastrophe claiming the lives of approximately 90 percent of its residents.

The tremors triggered rockslides that caused huge clouds of dust, making it impossible for rescue helicopters to land for several days. The survivors were left to their own devices. If they hoped to survive, they needed to band together.

That's precisely what they did. They pooled their resources, shared everything they had, and set aside any prejudices or class distinctions.

However, as soon as the rescuers were able to touch down, the old social structures resurfaced. The spirit of solidarity dissipated, and the established hierarchies returned to prominence.

Experiencing the raw face of war alters your life perspective.

It's fairly simple to denounce wars from the comfort of a distant home, yet bearing witness to one paints a starkly different picture.

Take it from Sebastian Junger, a war correspondent who was embedded within the throes of the Afghan conflict.

In the year 2000, he spent two months accompanying Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance in its battle against the Taliban.

During Junger's stint, Massoud was attempting to secure a segment of the Amu Darya river. This area was critically important for the Northern Alliance's war strategy – securing it was essential to supplying their troops before the harsh winter rolled in.

However, they faced formidable opposition. Taliban fighters held the high ground overseeing the river, rendering any attempts at advancing highly perilous.

Massoud's soldiers were vastly outnumbered and were rapidly running out of supplies. During one particular onslaught, they managed to overrun a Taliban stronghold. But then, the counterattack came. Woefully short on ammunition, they huddled in their trenches amidst a storm of rocket fire. The survivors, eventually, managed to slip away and retreat.

This experience took a severe toll on Junger. Upon his return to the United States, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, often abbreviated as PTSD.

His first symptom manifested as a panic attack in a New York subway station a few months later. He found himself engulfed by the sea of faces, the thundering trains, and the glaring lights.

A psychotherapist explained that he was suffering from PTSD. Interestingly, the symptoms of this condition can prove advantageous in war situations: maintaining a constant vigilance, responding swiftly to minor sounds, and sleeping lightly could mean the difference between life and death.

Even anger, another classic sign of PTSD, has its function – it primes you for combat. Depression, on the other hand, can help conserve energy during breaks in battle.

However, these traits, while useful on the battlefield, pose substantial challenges when it comes to reintegrating into the modern Western society. Soldiers returning home from wars often grapple with this. Readapting to normal life can be a formidable challenge.

In the following section, we will delve deeper into their experiences.

War forges profound bonds, making the return to civilian life particularly challenging for veterans.

We previously observed that the psychological well-being of individuals can often enhance during intense occurrences such as wars and natural disasters. But why then do a significant number of soldiers experience PTSD upon their return from conflict zones?

The answer lies in the deep, unshakeable bonds that tragedy and war can form, creating a level of unity that's difficult to find in modern society.

Take the instance of soldiers. Their time in the military is defined by a profound sense of camaraderie. Their connection with fellow soldiers imbues them with a sense of tribal belonging.

American serviceman Win Stracke, who was part of an artillery unit, highlighted this in an interview. Each artillery gun was operated by a team of 15 soldiers. For many, it marked the first time they'd worked collaboratively as equals rather than as competitors. This level of cooperation is one of the aspects soldiers find so appealing about military life.

The ever-present danger from a common adversary fosters a rare degree of closeness among individuals. Survival requires putting complete trust in others with your life. This deep sense of connection is what makes many older London residents look back nostalgically on the times of the Blitz.

However, this is not exclusive to wartime. Interviews conducted with survivors of the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s reveal a similar sentiment. The staggering toll of the disease bonded them into a closely-knit community, a sense of solidarity they often long for in our modern individual-centric society.

The absence of such strong social ties also complicates the reintegration process for soldiers returning home. They encounter a stark divide between their military life and everyday civilian life, suddenly finding themselves in a society comprised of small, isolated family units that lack a communal spirit.

This transition can negatively impact their mental health. Multiple studies have revealed that insufficient social support can double the risk of PTSD.

Thus, it's not just the scars of war that torment many soldiers. Often, it's the experiences they encounter upon their return to 'normal' life that prove most challenging.

Western societies could draw valuable lessons from Native American healing rituals post-war.

Interestingly, Native Americans constitute a higher proportion of the US army than any other demographic group. This stems, in part, from the significant role that warfare plays in their culture. This cultural background also lends them resilience in recovery from war.

Let's explore the realm of Native American healing rituals.

While it's important to remember that not all Native American tribes are homogenous - with some being more prone to warfare than others - every tribe acknowledges the potential for war and the necessity of reintegrating warriors back into day-to-day life.

Upon conclusion of their military duties, men would embark on a 16-day ritual of purification prior to resuming their peacetime roles. However, this was not a solitary process. Tribes maintained a belief that while it was the men who engaged in combat, the entire community was implicated in the war. This meant that everyone was encouraged to participate in the ritual.

Many Native American veterans continue to uphold this tradition. In the 1980s, they opened the ritual to incorporate veterans from diverse backgrounds. Any military service member was welcomed to their annual powwow - a traditional communal gathering - in Oklahoma.

This is a model from which Western societies could potentially learn.

While secular Americans may not be able to directly replicate Native American customs, they could develop community-focused events intended to promote healing.

An effective starting point would be to establish platforms for veterans to share their experiences with the wider community. Unfortunately, this is an area where modern society tends to fall short.

One possible solution would be to utilize town halls on Veterans Day as spaces for soldiers to converse with their communities about their service experiences. The act of speaking and being heard is already a significant stride down the path of recovery.

Closing thoughts

The primary takeaway from our exploration is this:

While wars and natural calamities can cause profound destruction, they can paradoxically also give rise to positive social and psychological impacts. During such extreme events, communities unite, setting aside their differences. People often experience heightened happiness and a renewed sense of purpose. This is because these challenging situations simplify life and strengthen the social fabric. However, these effects tend to dissipate once normalcy is restored. Individualism supplants communal unity, and many grapple with the feelings of loneliness and isolation. The remedy? We must strive to foster a sense of tribal belonging even in times of tranquility.