2009/3/17 Nikhil Mehra <nikhil.mehra...@gmail.com> How long can the shared threat perception last? At some point the source of
> the threat either dissipates or its magnitude will be revealed to have been > overstated, which I think will eventually lead to a split in the tribe into > those who continue to blindly abide by the original threat perception and > those who revel in dismissing it. And once the threat perception dissipates > and is not replaced by a fresh threat perception that unifies, then does > this hasten individualistic thought? My point being that basing tribal > identity on a common threat perception is fraught with inherent risks that > can undermine the existence of that tribal entity much more than objective > criteria like common language, region, religion etc. can. > > Having said that, it is clear that a lot of consolidation of religious > power, in particular, has been based on creating a common threat perception > and then pointing to the religion as being the provider of all answers. > > Nikhil > a. you could add race, caste, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, language, ideology and nationality to religion in that regard. b. the threat perception is exacerbated/perpetuated via the reinforcement of polarising ideas by ghettoisation/exclusion both physical and, perhaps more importantly, in access to information about the other. this exaggerates the significance of one aspect of identity (the one under perceived threat) at the cost of others, thereby suppressing within tribe differences and between tribe similarities. add the tribal need to quell dissent and/or demonstrate loyalty for even greater polarisation. amartya sen uses a hypothetical pogrom based on foot-size in his book 'identity and violence' to illustrate the point most memorably for me, given my lifelong experience of being discriminated against by the shoe trade ;). - Ingrid
