The new tribalism

The neurobiological substrate of tribalism is among the most robustly documented features of human social cognition. The brain's threat-detection systems — centered on the amygdala and its projections to the hypothalamus and brainstem — respond to out-group members with elevated vigilance, a pattern observable across cultures and ages. Neuroimaging studies by Van Bavel and colleagues demonstrate that group membership, even when arbitrarily assigned, modulates activity in the orbitofrontal cortex and ventral striatum, regions associated with reward processing, suggesting that in-group affiliation is intrinsically motivating independent of material benefits. Testosterone and cortisol interact with group competition in ways that heighten both defensive aggression and social bonding within the group simultaneously. The new tribalism exploits this substrate through digital interfaces specifically optimized to trigger threat-detection and reward-seeking circuits: outrage content activates amygdala-mediated threat responses, while likes and shares activate dopaminergic reward pathways. The combination produces a neurological incentive structure that makes tribalistic content engaging in a way that moderate, nuanced content cannot compete with at scale. Understanding the new tribalism without its neurobiology risks treating it as purely ideological, missing the depth at which it operates.

The new tribalism engages several core psychological mechanisms simultaneously. Terror management theory identifies death anxiety as a primary driver of in-group attachment: when mortality salience is elevated — by economic insecurity, health crises, or cultural change framed as civilizational threat — people seek the symbolic immortality that group membership provides. Uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg) proposes that identity uncertainty — the experience of not knowing clearly who one is — motivates identification with highly entitative, clearly bounded groups that provide simple, unambiguous identity content. This explains why periods of social disruption tend to produce intensified rather than loosened group identification. Relative deprivation theory (Gurr) connects group resentment to perceived unfairness in the distribution of status and resources relative to a reference group — when the new tribalism attaches to economic grievance, it is often relative deprivation rather than absolute poverty that is operative. Each of these mechanisms contributes to the intensity and resilience of the new tribalism; none of them is addressed by simply pointing out that the tribal identification is factually inaccurate or morally problematic.

Tribal identities form early and show remarkable developmental stability. Research on racial and ethnic identification finds that children as young as three show in-group preference, and that this preference intensifies in middle childhood before typically moderating somewhat in late adolescence with the development of more complex social cognition. However, the new tribalism's digital dimension introduces developmental dynamics that are poorly mapped by existing research. Children and adolescents forming identities in algorithmically curated social media environments encounter a different developmental ecology than prior generations: one in which identity-group membership is immediately legible, constantly reinforced, and defined largely through opposition. The developmental consequences are not yet fully understood, but preliminary evidence suggests that adolescents who form political identities primarily through social media show stronger partisan identification, less capacity for perspective-taking across group lines, and less tolerance for in-group dissent than those who form political identities through direct civic participation. This suggests that the new tribalism may be producing developmental trajectories that differ in kind, not just degree, from older forms.

Cultural expressions of the new tribalism are diverse and often contradictory. On the political right, it appears as ethnonationalism, "blood and soil" rhetoric, religious nationalism, and populist movements that frame political contests as existential struggles for civilizational survival. On the political left, it appears as identitarianism — the priority of group membership (race, gender, sexuality, disability status) in political analysis and organizing — and as cancel culture's enforcement of in-group ideological purity. In popular culture, tribal dynamics appear in fandom — the increasingly intense identification with brands, artists, and entertainment franchises that generates the kind of loyalty and conflict more typically associated with sports teams or political parties. In each case, the cultural expression involves the reduction of complex social reality to a binary of in-group and out-group, the generation of intense emotional engagement through that binary, and the performance of loyalty as a primary social obligation. The aesthetics differ; the structure is the same.

At the collective level, the new tribalism has practical applications that are simultaneously destructive and, in limited contexts, productive. Destructive: tribalism in legislative bodies produces gridlock, bad-faith negotiation, and the prioritization of group victory over policy outcomes, as documented by political scientists studying partisan polarization in the US Congress. Productive: group solidarity has historically been essential for mobilizing oppressed communities to assert their rights — the Civil Rights Movement, labor organizing, LGBT liberation — and continues to serve this function. The practical challenge is distinguishing between forms of group solidarity that expand civic capacity and forms that contract it, and designing institutions, media systems, and educational environments that support the former while limiting the latter. This distinction cannot be made on purely ideological grounds; it requires attending to the structure of group identity (Is it defined by shared practice or by opposition to enemies? Does it tolerate internal dissent? Can it form coalitions with those who differ?) rather than to its ideological content.

The new tribalism restructures relationships in ways that often feel liberating before they become constricting. The initial experience of finding one's tribe — a community of people who share one's particular identity configuration and affirm it completely — can be profoundly relieving after experiences of marginalization or invisibility. But the relational costs of intense tribal membership accumulate: relationships with people outside the tribe become strained, complex mixed relationships are deprioritized, and the energy required for purity maintenance within the group displaces the energy available for genuine encounter with difference. The relational life of the intensely tribal self is typically marked by a narrowing over time — fewer close relationships with people who think differently, increasing social homophily, and a gradual impoverishment of the kind of friction that produces genuine growth. At the collective scale, this relational narrowing appears as political sorting — the geographic, professional, and social segregation of people by political identity — which makes the cross-cutting relationships that historically moderated political conflict rare and socially costly.

Philosophical traditions differ sharply on whether tribalism represents a defect to be overcome or a feature to be accommodated. Liberal individualism, from Locke through Rawls, treats prior group memberships as morally arbitrary — irrelevant to the fundamental question of justice, which concerns individuals rather than groups. Communitarianism (MacIntyre, Sandel, Taylor) counters that persons are constitutively embedded in communities, that obligations to co-members are not contingent but constitutive, and that liberal abstraction from community produces not justice but alienation. Evolutionary political philosophy draws on Darwinian insights to argue that in-group preference is not a moral error but an adaptation whose costs become visible only at scale. The political theology of nationalism (Scruton, Hazony) argues that the nation, understood as a community of memory and mutual obligation, is the appropriate scale of political loyalty and that larger abstractions lack the affective depth required for genuine political solidarity. Each of these frameworks illuminates something real about tribalism; none provides a complete account of how to navigate it in conditions of deep pluralism.

Historical antecedents of the new tribalism reveal the structural conditions under which intense group identification intensifies. The sectarian religious conflicts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries share structural features with contemporary identity politics: a previous consensus has broken down, competing groups assert irreconcilable truth claims, and the question of whose framework will govern shared political life becomes a zero-sum conflict. The solution — the Westphalian settlement and its descendants — was not the establishment of truth but the compartmentalization of difference: agreement to disagree on ultimate questions while maintaining shared institutional frameworks. The nationalisms of the nineteenth century emerged in response to the disruptions of industrialization and urbanization, providing identity containers for people whose traditional community structures had been destroyed by economic transformation — a dynamic with obvious contemporary resonance. The identity politics movements of the twentieth century — Black nationalism, second-wave feminism, queer liberation — represent a different historical antecedent: the use of group identification to mobilize political power by those excluded from dominant civic identities.

The contemporary context for the new tribalism is shaped by several reinforcing conditions. The collapse of cross-cutting civic institutions — labor unions, mainline religious congregations, civic associations, local newspapers — has removed the institutional contexts in which people with different identities regularly encountered each other on common ground. Geographic sorting by education and income has produced communities of growing homogeneity, such that many people simply lack regular meaningful contact with those who think differently. The media ecosystem rewards tribal content economically, producing strong market incentives for the generation and amplification of identity conflict. Political institutions designed for coalition-building across difference have been captured by primary electorates that reward ideological purity and tribal loyalty. These contextual factors are mutually reinforcing; no single intervention addresses them all. Understanding them is prerequisite to any realistic political response.

The new tribalism interacts with economic, political, media, and cultural systems in ways that produce feedback loops. Economic precarity generates identity anxiety, which intensifies tribal identification; intense tribalism makes economic cooperation across group lines harder, which deepens precarity. Media systems reward tribal content, which intensifies tribalism, which generates more tribal content. Political systems optimized for tribal competition produce outcomes that disappoint broad majorities, which erodes civic identity and drives further tribal identification. Cultural production increasingly addresses tribal rather than general audiences, which deepens the cultural separation that makes cross-tribal encounter rare. Systemic analysis reveals that no single lever — fixing media, reforming elections, improving economic conditions — is sufficient; the interdependencies are too strong. Effective response requires coordinated changes across multiple systems simultaneously, which is precisely what intensely tribal political environments make most difficult.

The synthesis that the new tribalism requires is the distinction between group solidarity and tribalism proper — between the forms of collective identification that sustain human flourishing and the forms that contract it. Not all group loyalty is tribal in the pathological sense. Communities of practice, neighborhoods, religious congregations, political parties in pluralist democracies — these are forms of collective belonging that can coexist with civic identity and tolerance for difference. What distinguishes tribalism in the dangerous sense is not the intensity of in-group loyalty but the necessity of an enemy: the structural requirement that the in-group be defined by opposition to an out-group coded as threatening, inferior, or evil. The integrative synthesis does not ask people to abandon particularity but to examine whether their particular identity requires a designated enemy to be coherent. If it does, the revision that Law 5 demands is not of the particular attachment but of the enemy-constituted structure.

The trajectory of the new tribalism over coming decades will be shaped primarily by two forces: economic conditions and institutional design. If economic precarity deepens and geographic inequality widens, the material substrate of tribal resentment will expand regardless of any cultural or political intervention. Conversely, significant improvements in the material conditions of currently marginalized and economically precarious communities would remove one major driver of identity-based political mobilization. Institutional design matters because the electoral systems, media regulations, civic education structures, and platform governance rules that shape how identity conflicts are processed can either amplify or moderate tribal dynamics. Ranked-choice voting, reformed campaign finance, civic education that emphasizes constitutional rather than ethnic identity, platform design that does not algorithmically reward outrage — each of these represents a policy choice that shapes the ecology in which tribalism operates. The new tribalism will not be wished away or argued away; it must be politically and institutionally outcompeted by forms of collective identity that offer belonging, meaning, and political efficacy without requiring an enemy.

1. Tajfel, Henri. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

2. Hogg, Michael A. "Uncertainty-Identity Theory." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2007): 69–126.

3. Gurr, Ted Robert. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.

4. Van Bavel, Jay J., and William A. Cunningham. "Self-Categorization with a Novel Mixed-Race Group Moderates Automatic Social and Racial Biases." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35, no. 3 (2009): 321–335.

5. Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.

6. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000.

7. MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.

8. Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books, 2012.

9. Pyszczynski, Tom, Sheldon Solomon, and Jeff Greenberg. In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2003.

10. Rodrik, Dani. The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: W. W. Norton, 2011.

11. Klein, Ezra. Why We're Polarized. New York: Avid Reader Press, 2020.

12. Fukuyama, Francis. Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018.