George Friedman, one of the most brilliant geopolitical
analysts in the world calls it brotherhood
in his book “Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe” and in his recent blog post.
I have referred to it as group-identity resonance – which is when you use the
same processes as self-identity resonance but with group attributes. It is the root of peer pressure, racial
discrimination, nationalism, and many other really powerful social psychology
motivations. We have many groups that we
identify with. Our family. Our company (in good cases). Our town.
Our religion. Our sports
teams. Our University. Our country.
Each of these has its own unique set of attributes that become active
parts of our personality when the group identity is evoked. An attribute that we might not even believe
in ourselves becomes a part of us for the period of time that our group
identity is dominant.
I have a strong feeling that George Friedman’s idea will
resonate with you and seem intuitive when you hear about it, especially if you
are familiar with identity-resonance in general. The way Friedman applies it to
geopolitics is really brilliant. Of
course, that may be because he is one of the world’s leading experts in
geopolitics. The key message is that a strong
feeling of belonging (group-identity resonance) has more influence than rule of
law, peace, or prosperity on world peace.
In the US, who do we consider part of our societal in-group? In the
beginning, it was our state. That is why
the Civil War was possible. But now, it is the whole country. If an alien came down to earth and asked you “which
side are you on in this world?” I suspect that many US citizens would say
“American” before we say most of our other attributes. Especially compared to other countries, immigrants
to the US are much more likely to assimilate, in part because there is such as
strong identity of being an American as part of our residency. You don’t even have to be a citizen to feel
it.
In Europe, they don’t have this. Their societies evolved over centuries based
on ethnicity and tribe. The Middle Ages pretty much locked in their mindset to
the point where immigrants can’t assimilate.
They don’t feel like they can be accepted into the broader community
because the community identity is based on something they can’t have – the
ethnicity. So they keep the one they
have. And once the multiple communities
coexist within the country, it is easier to associate with others of your
ethnic identity rather than your national one.
You already have the attributes, you know what they are, and you are
accepted by them. Friedman makes a great
case that this is why the European Union can’t get its act together. The Germans care more about how the German
economy is doing than how the Greek economy is doing, by orders of magnitude. So they would rather see the EU experiment
fail than risk their German stability. “Je
suis Charlie” is a great marching chant, but I doubt that it will result into
any lasting inter-ethnic group identity. Friedman has me convinced.
My Take
Unfortunately the others - rule of law, peace, and
prosperity - come in cycles. Economies
will have periods of inflation and recession as well as growth. We thought there was a new normal where we
would have smaller, shorter recessions and longer more constant periods of
growth. Our central bankers were too smart to let us fall into a new
depression. Then we had the 2007 “Great
Recession” crash, which is just easing in the US and looks like it is getting
worse in Europe. Prosperity is fleeting.
Conflicts arise that no one predicted. Two years ago, ISIS was an Egyptian goddess
or a software application. Two years
ago, who thought Russia would be invading Ukraine? Who knew about Yemeni Houthis? These are not over. Peace is fleeting.
Rule of law always seems
stronger than it really is. The recent
police shootings in Ferguson and Staten Island demonstrate this. So does the Edward Snowden situation. And these examples are in the relatively stable
US. Just search for “corruption” on your
favorite news aggregator and you will see endless examples around the
world. There is a reason that the
Nigerian army can’t do anything about Boko Haram.
The group identity challenge emerges when we look at how people
react to these kinds of challenges when they arise. We attribute the best ofmotives to members of our in-group and the worst of motives to the “other.”
If we could somehow develop a group-identity called “human” we might get
better results from a world-wide perspective.
I suspect (and I am not the first) that only when we are faced with some
extraterrestrial invader that there is any chance this might emerge. But one can hope . . .
Your Turn
This is my second World Peace related post. But I really think it is
important so I want to throw the idea out to everyone who understands people,
behavior, and interaction. How can we
get people to develop stronger group-identity resonance to “humanity” than to
their religion, race, tribe, or soccer team (for the uninitiated, soccer
hooligans are a serious problem for these same reasons). I love the heatedness of the Red Sox –
Yankees rivalry, but even after Game 7 of a tough ALCS, I would help a Yankee
fan if he fell in the parking lot. Can
we generalize this attitude to all of our other group-identities?
Do you see a path forward?
