The Rule of the Clan

I recently read the book The Rule of the Clan, by Mark Weiner. The basic premise of the book can be described as:

• People used to live in societies dominated by clans, and in some places they still do
• Clans provided both physical services (like security and law enforcement) and psychological benefits (sense of identity and emotional security)
• However, clans are incompatible with individual liberty (and individualistic morality)
• Only a strong central government can create room for individual liberty by providing services that would otherwise require the existence of clans
• We need to cultivate strong government institutions or our liberty is at risk (due to the possible reemergence of clan power)

Lately I have been a huge advocate for developing complex relationships and strengthening extended family bonds. My motivation has largely been that without these complex relationships, we cannot achieve emotional security. Weiner doesn’t deny that clans provide this benefit, but makes a compelling case that they have a pretty significant down-side.

What is a Clan?

First, we should probably ask what it means for a society to be clan-based. Weiner defines a clan-based society as “legal structures and cultural values of societies organized primarily on the basis of kinship.” I think it is important to note that in addition to being based on kinship, clans tend to be smaller than nations. I have discussed before the idea of Dunbar’s Number, and that group size can have a big impact on how groups function. So let’s say that clan-based societies are characterized by sub-Dunbar groups that provide:

1. Physical security
2. Dispute resolution
3. Asset ownership

In a liberal, nation-based society, a central government provides physical security and dispute resolution, and people generally hold property as individuals (or, to some extent, as married couples).

Within the context of a modern nation, it isn’t likely (and probably not desirable) for clans to retake responsibility for providing physical security). However, clans could have a greater responsibility for dispute resolution (especially for disputes between members), and it is certainly possible (although not necessarily easy) for people to hold assets in common.

Weiner and I seem to agree on the following:

1. Emotional security and a sense of belonging are good
2. Clans provide emotional security and belonging
3. Individual liberty is a good
4. Clans suppress individual liberty

So the big question is whether emotional security and individual liberty are mutually exclusive. By having more of one, are we necessarily going to lose some of the other? It is tempting to just answer: sure, there’s a tradeoff…just like in everything else we can’t have something for nothing. But what is the mechanism by which clans suppress liberty, and how do they promote emotional security and belonging?

Shame vs Anxiety

In clan-based societies, moral values tend to place more emphasis on the effects of your actions on the clan (i.e., whether you bring honor or dishonor to the family). He calls this concept Shame, and distinguishes it from Guilt, which is more of an individual things based more on comparing your actions to some universal principle.

One of the main reason why clans can be so oppressive is that they are so effective at applying shame. When we depend on people we know for income and security, we become very sensitive to how our actions will be seen by those other people. In a modern liberal society, families still shame each other, but we can escape our families, earn our own income, and rely on the state for basic physical security.

One way of looking at this is that when we leave behind the clan, we trade shame for anxiety. Within a clan, subconsciously we understand if we behave properly we will be taken care of. Outside of a clan, we have more privacy, but our brain isn’t entirely comfortable with that. We are built to navigate a world of complex relationships and in their absence we can never quite be at peace.

When talking about these issues with Mercedes, she has pointed out that one reason I am nostalgic for clan life is that as a man, I haven’t been subject to the full weight of shame and guilt that a traditional community can impose. I do find it plausible that close knit societies are especially oppressive for women. I also find it plausible that the anxiety that comes from lack of a close knit community can be especially difficult for women. A quick google search reveals that “women have consistently higher prevalence rates of anxiety disorders”:

Gender Differences in Anxiety Disorders: Prevalence, Course of Illness, Comorbidity and Burden of…

So maybe women suffer more in clan-based societies and individualistic societies. I am pretty sure that high anxiety in a modern society is unhealthy, and I would be be interested in learning whether feelings of guilt or shame have a similar impact, but I don’t know of any research on that question.

Rumspringa

So how do I propose to achieve emotional security without subjecting people to oppressive expectations and shame? Basically, my theory is that people should experience different levels of freedom (and security) at different points in their life. Children are surrounded by strong extended-family relations. Young adults are sent out into the world to find themselves, and then they are expected to come back and rejoin the clan. Of course, once they leave, they will be in a position to choose not to come back if they don’t want to. If they do come back, they subject themselves to letting everyone else in the clan know their business.

One reason for this cycle is that I think young adults are in the best position to handle anxiety. At a certain age, our bodies start producing hormones that make us want to reject our heritage and explore new things. We become more sensitive to the oppression of expectations and more oblivious to the stress and anxiety that comes from being without the protection of a clan.

Well, I am not entirely sure about that second part. It seem that young adults are psychologically needy in many ways and tend seek out new clan-like social structures (e.g., gangs, teams, fraternities, sororities, cliques, military units, etc). But perhaps it is better for them to have some freedom in experimenting.

But after a person is done experimenting, I think there is value in having something to come back to. It is like the Hero’s Journey cycle of being taken from your safe place, experience challenges, find new powers, prove yourself, and then return home.

In the above image, the “Known” can represent clan life and the “Unkown” can represent life in an individualistic society. Here “Known” can refer to both being familiar with your context, and knowing yourself and what is expected of you. In the “Unknown,” both the world and your identity are a mystery.

In a modern society people often talk about knowing yourself as it relates to things like having favorite musics and food flavors. It is about your preferences. But true knowing is about your relationship to other people, so you really can’t be known to yourself until you commit to other people. It is useful to have a world of freedom within which to find yourself. But once you see who you, complete self actualization should happen within the context of the clan.

The Church

Weiner seems to think that the social benefits of the clan can be had within alternative groups. His favorite seems to be the professional association. He waxes poetic with statements like:

“ Professionals are responsible above all not to the claim of kinship but to the public-spirited ideals of their learned guilds.”

While I do think it is enjoyable to be a member of various societies and clubs, I am a bit skeptical that a club or a guild can really provide the all-encompassing social and emotional security provided by a clan. In the end, while Weiner does grant that clans provide emotional benefits, I don’t think he is too bothered by the sacrifices we have made in pursuit of individual liberty.

Perhaps a better alternative is religion. Having grown up LDS, I feel the Mormon church has provided a much better sense of community than anything else I have experienced. In fact, one could argue that my interest in clans is at least in part an attempt to recapture some of that sense of community. Most LDS people probably view the church as a force for protecting and strengthening the family. This is almost certainly true for nuclear families. But in many ways it might be more correct to view the church as an alternative to the clan. People who are drawn to the church are those who appreciate the need to such a tight knit community (and who are willing to pay for it).

Perhaps in the absence of religion the desire for such a community would go unfilled. It seems like this is largely the case for many non-religious Americans. However, the church might also crowd out investment in extended family relations, and the growth of religious communities might (together with the development of strong central government) help explain the long term decline of the clan.