For the WSJ, Aylin Woodward writes,
For 20 years, the Ngogo chimps of Uganda’s Kibale National Park “were living the good life by being together,” Mitani said. They helped one another, dominated and killed apes from neighboring groups, expanded their territory and boosted their babies’ chances of survival.
But in 2015, the group started splitting into two clusters…
Members of the smaller of the two groups launched coordinated lethal attacks on the other, aiming to kill rival adult males. By 2021, these raids had expanded to target younger apes, averaging several infant deaths a year since.
Interviewed in the Free Press about this story, Colin Wright says,
Groups of chimpanzees don’t have opposing religious or ideological differences to clash over. There doesn’t need to be anything real driving the hostility, other than individuals in the chimpanzee group identifying an “outsider.” As the two chimpanzee groups grew more distant, they naturally became more hostile. And part of that is due to the group getting so large that only so few social bonds could be maintained.
Outgrew their Dunbar Number, eh?
And back to WSJ, Rob Henderson writes,
The chimpanzee civil war challenges a dominant theory about human conflict. A prominent view in political science holds that warfare requires cultural markers such as religion, ethnicity, language and political ideology. This is why civil wars are often explained through the lens of sectarian or ethnic division.
The Ngogo chimpanzees had none of these things.
It’s wonderful to be on the right side of something with a tribe who agrees with you. And so to have somebody or to have a set of institutions that you can say, “Well, these are worthy of hate or worthy of disdain,” is a kind of bonding in a strange way for the people who are on the right side. So when I especially read things written by a lot of people from Claremont, I just think there is such a vitriol there. And that was what got me thinking about the Hazlitt essay, that there’s a kind of energy that this vitriol gives, this being on the right side of the culture wars.
And I think that does explain some of the energy on the right, that it’s not so much about this constructive vision of conservatism, which I would like to put forward, but it’s hating the right people in the right way. And I get that. I mean, I understand there are things that we ought to oppose and to resist for sure, but I don’t think that is the essence or the core of a conservative disposition. Or if it is, that’s not a conservatism that I want to be part of.
How does she want to practice conservatism?
our job as conservatives is to preserve and to share a cultural tradition that consists in things like literature, art, poetry, philosophy, music. I mean, all of these things which are in danger of being overlooked by contemporary culture. And that to me is the essence of this conservative disposition.
Remainers love the idea of European integration and Leavers hate it. As we show, initial large differences in attitudes towards the EU became even larger after the referendum, as people sought to become good group members and adopt their group’s norms. But this also applied to some other policy areas, like immigration, about which people knew, or at least thought that they knew, the group norm.
Although I agree with Tilley’s description of the psychology of tribalism, I did not get a good feeling about the essay. He makes it sound as though the Brexit referendum created the divide between the mainstream elites and the populists. But that “revolt of the public” phenomenon was there regardless, waiting to be ignited.
The dominant male was not always the biggest or strongest; the political struggle that determined dominance involved an elaborate pattern of shifting alliances.
He is writing in praise of Chimpanzee Politics, by Frans de Waal. That is one of the books on my reading list (or “vibe-reading” list) for my political psychology course. He also praises The Nurture Assumption, by Judith Harris, which is part of the vibe-reading as well.
substacks referenced above: @
@
@
"... our job as conservatives is to preserve and to share a cultural tradition that consists in things like literature, art, poetry, philosophy, music."
"Humanities Department Conservatism". Well, ok, enlightening and uplifting the sensibilities of smart young people and ensuring cultural cohesion and continuity by preserving the practice of transmitting a heritage of great works from generation to generation is both important and a genuinely conservative impulse and mission. I bet Corey has her own share of vitriol for the despicable academics who are obsessed with destroying this tradition and denigrating those works.
Still, to define a positive vision of conservatism in such narrow terms is frankly ridiculous, not to mention inconsistent with, you know, the history and tradition of what people mean when they talk about "conservative" perspectives and positions. As just one example of many, how about attitudes about crime and what is necessary and proper in law enforcement and the assurance of public order, safety, and security?
Did we not just go through yet another period of disastrous experiments with the very non-conservative approach to that question? Should one not be entitled to the expression of at least a little vitriol directed at the people who imposed this degeneration on our communities and quality of life? Sometimes factional adversarialism is rational and principled and not merely chimpanzee tribalism.
"The Ngogo chimpanzees had none of these things."
And we know this.....how, exactly?