David Lammy Tribes

David Lammy’s Tribes promises a lot, offers something, but ultimately fails to convince. Your problem lies in the very nature of your vision, not that it is wrong, wrong, or anything less than commendable. This latest failure to convince, in fact, stems from the inability of the overview to deal with the very problems the author identifies at the outset.

David Lammy is a British politician, currently a member of the Shadow Cabinet of the Labor Party. In Tribes, he attempts to assess the political landscape, beginning with a theoretical analysis of why class and other more important identities have fragmented into what might appear to be smaller, interest-based groupings that he calls “tribes.” Many readers can wait for this analysis to develop, but instead the author pursues a personal reflection on some of the ideas raised. And, as the book progresses, the context becomes even more personal, before a final section attempts its rational, credible, and given the above, impossible ending. The approach makes the book highly readable, but less than satisfactory after its promise of theoretical discussion.

The author is an extraordinary man. He was born into a Guyanese immigrant family in Tottenham, North London, raised by a single mother, and later attended Cathedral Choir School in Peterborough. The University of London preceded Harvard Law School, where he became the first black British graduate. In Silicon Valley he became a lawyer and was later elected a Member of Parliament representing the Labor Party. And then he was a government minister. These are just some of the facts from this brilliant man’s life – so far! His wife is white and his children are mestizo, whatever that means, since we are all mestizo, if we are human.

But in an identity search of the kind that seems to haunt modern people, David Lammy sought a DNA analysis. The results suggested a mixture of origins, one of which was linked to the Tuareg of the Sahel of West Africa. The author spends a lot of time and resources researching this link and then, where possible, experiencing it first hand. Although this association is ultimately revealed to be tenuous at best, perhaps even illusory, the author’s willingness and enthusiasm to follow it illustrates a point he makes at the beginning of the book, that identity today seems to be felt. more strongly on a personal level than in a group. Except, of course, where the group has the ability to reinforce and confirm the personal.

David Lammy introduces the concept of neo-tribes, Maffesoli sentiment communities, to identify a contemporary tendency to view one’s personal identity purely in terms of a group identity. Thus, rational approaches to certain topics that are by nature universal are devalued as neotribes develop their own internal values ​​and explanations. It is the fact that it is identity-conferring minority positions that provides the focus for the identity of the neo-tribe. The fragmentation of our social, economic and religious life encourages the replacement of universalism. This is a crucial point.

A few pages on and David Lammy pretty much identifies how this behavior, even propensity, has been exploited by the political right. He cites two successful election slogans: “Make America Great Again” and “Take Back Control,” to which one could add “Get Brexit Done,” as examples of labels that led to campaign success by exploiting groups’ fears for on top of rational arguments, thus defeating rational analyzes that recognized, or at least attempted to recognize, the true complexity of the issues discussed. The slogans denied this complexity and offered an illusion of simple solutions. David Lammy persuasively illustrates how these simple, emotional but inaccurate messages prevailed over the complex, unclear but precise counterargument.

Still in the introduction, he cites a poll that claims that nearly two-thirds of UK voters still believe the frequently falsified claim that the country sends £ 350 million a week to the European Union. David Lammy follows this by claiming that there is still a group of deluded people who think that Arsenal is the best football team in North London. By way of balance, I will remind you that some 35 years ago the philosopher AJ Ayer wrote that it should be impossible for a logical positivist to support Tottenham Hotspur. Joking aside, the author thus illustrates that once accepted by a neo-tribe, a falsehood can retain its own internal illusion of truth.

But people support Arsenal and other Tottenhams. Both cannot be right if they claim to follow the “best” team. However, based on internally accepted values ​​within the group, both may be right. Even a moment after yelling “what a heap of crap” on his own team, such a tribe would rally if the same sentiment were expressed by the opposition. Welcome to the Conservative Party, which is eternally divided internally, but externally as united as Stalin’s allies, until purged, then largely silent. And who cares if the message is irrational, impossible, implausible, or even irrelevant? The tribe will support you to exclude others. And works.

There are many things in Tribes that are rational, clearly expressed, credible, and felt. It is a magnificent snapshot of where British politics and society now reside, precariously in opposing camps, ideologically armed, but often without agreeing on a language where debate could take place, where sensitive questions are usually answered with a snippet. irrelevant and unrelated positive.

The overall message of the book, however, is flawed, as in the end we have returned to the need to acknowledge and acknowledge the complexities of real problems. We must trust our rationality and participate in the politics of discussion and debate. Global problems need global solutions. Working in isolation will foster failure. Disorderly international cooperation and, therefore, effectively globalization is the only way out of local problems. The difficulty with such a laudable, deliverable and sensitive analysis, however, is that it repeatedly fails in the face of slogans that seek and achieve not short-term solutions, but that give identity. Do you remember Vote for Victory?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *