Caring for Your Family Leads to Nationalism
So I watched the movie Skyscraper. In it, The Rock plays Will Sawyer, an ex-military turned building security expert who has to kill people to save his family from a fire in a skyscraper. I'll just briefly share a few scenes and show how this relates to ideas proposed in Jack Donovan's book Becoming a Barbarian. Also, this post assumes that movies can teach us about human nature. Below is a trailer to get you a bit acquainted with the topic.
Let's begin.
Towards the beginning of the movie, Will was attacked by his former squad member for the sake of money and jealousy. Obviously he was depicted as the bad guy because he went against the principles of friendship. The audience makes no second thought as to whether the guy was good or evil: this is because we accept that honorable men are not supposed to harm their friends! Although the traitor was helping the cause of other people, we knew that to protect ones friends from harm and to harm ones enemies to protect ones friends is praiseworthy. Since he didn't do that, but the opposite, we thought he was the bad guy.
In the middle of the movie, the bad guys hold Will's young daughter as hostage in an attempt to make Will open the penthouse which had the billionaire that he worked for in (the bad guys did not like the billionaire). Will nearly sacrifices his life in an act that could kill him and his daughter if failed, could kill the billionaire if successful (and maybe his daughter too). He immediately tries to save his daughter by climbing outside the building to jump on a turbine motor. The scene was very cool and The Rock looked quite heroic but there was a startling implication that went over the heads of everyone in the audience (except me of course). That implication was that Will was willing to kill an innocent billionaire for the sake of his daughter. Postmodernist society has us believing that all lives are equal in value. The billionaire has provided a billion dollars of value to people and the nation adores him, whereas the girl only matters to Will. However according to the movie (and I guess in real life) it is only natural that a 'real man' would be willing to kill anyone (including himself) for the sake of protecting their kids. Personally, this is rightfully so.
At the end of the movie, a scene depicts Will getting out of a police car, being surrounded by fast talking reporters and ecstatic cheering fans. After all, most of his ordeal was recorded on live television and that made him famous! He couldn't give a crap to anyone as soon as he got out of the car, because he was only focusing on finding his wife. He was a nice guy, but he was pushing people out of the way for the sake of finding the second half of his family. Obviously, this indicates that in the movie (as well as in real life) that when we strongly care for a person, we necessarily reduce our care for the rest of people around us.
Now what does this have to do with Jack Donovan's book, Becoming a Barbarian?
Becoming a Barbarian focuses on the idea that the more we care for the world, the less we care for the people immediate to us. The book suggests that we shouldn't care about all the killing, death, and destruction that we see happening in the news and that we should channel our care into care that actually has the potential to materialize (i.e. only to those we interact with regularly). The book is anti-globalist and pro-tribalist but raises some good points.
One idea that's kind of implied in the book is that the ideal family man/tribal chief/patriarch is that they are a nationalist; many care for their family over everyone else, and by extension, their tribe over everyone else, and by extension, their community over everyone else, and by extension, their nation over everyone else. I think it's natural that we prefer our own to the unknown. It's in stark contrast with the 'love-everyone-kumbaya' anti-nationalist anti-racist rhetoric that we get from everyone but that's the point. Donovan calls this global monoculture as the detested Empire of Nothing.
This implies that you should stop watching the news because it's content revolved around the plight of people who you will never know, but still strangely care about. It detracts from focusing your energy to care for those in your life who really matter.
Ghilan talks about this issue. I'll just mention the key takeaways from the video to avoid watching the video below.
The main point of this blog was to show that the more you care for your ingroup (more commonly, your family and less commonly, your friends), the more willing you are to harm others to keep them safe. The stronger the positive emotions that are associated with inclusion, the stronger the emotions that are associated with exclusion.
So what does that say of efforts to include people?
Do we need to have efforts to include groups for example like LGBT in places like universities? Ideally, if Donovan is correct, the few LGBT folk will create their own small communities where they will receive inclusion, love, and care from their own tribe, as well as develop a bit of resentment for those who are not of them. Also, poor abundant normal white folk have their own groups too large for any intense brotherhood tribe to develop which they so desperately crave (and that's why they become racist alt-right kids).
Philip Ball writes in The Guardian, in his post, Empire of Sums, about piece about Peter Churchin's attempt to mathematize history.
I'll just share a few ahadith:
But that raises the question, whose life is more valuable, one's family or those of stranger? Naturally a man will say his own family and Islam confirms this. However only in cases where benefitting a family member will cause an injustice to another, this is haram and the definition of nepotistic. I feel that this is a moral gray area and that the correct moral course of action regarding benefitting your family vs harming others depends per situation. This trippy moral dilemma even has a name for it, the Heinz Dilemma!
How willing are you to cause a 1 harm too a person who is related as a 2 to you to benefit a person who is 3 related closer to you with 4?
Replace 1 with a relation: acquaintance, stranger, coworker, enemy
Replace 2 with a harm: theft of $500, amputation, murder, pinch
Replace 3 with a relation that is closer than 1: brother, sister, wife, friend
Replace 4 with a benefit: chemotherapy, meal, bath, tennis racket
What ingroups are you part of? What outgroups do you or your ingroup dislike? Do you think you need more intense smaller ingroups or larger lukewarm outgroups? Do you think intense ingroups harm or benefit the world? Let me know in the comments below!
Let's begin.
Towards the beginning of the movie, Will was attacked by his former squad member for the sake of money and jealousy. Obviously he was depicted as the bad guy because he went against the principles of friendship. The audience makes no second thought as to whether the guy was good or evil: this is because we accept that honorable men are not supposed to harm their friends! Although the traitor was helping the cause of other people, we knew that to protect ones friends from harm and to harm ones enemies to protect ones friends is praiseworthy. Since he didn't do that, but the opposite, we thought he was the bad guy.
In the middle of the movie, the bad guys hold Will's young daughter as hostage in an attempt to make Will open the penthouse which had the billionaire that he worked for in (the bad guys did not like the billionaire). Will nearly sacrifices his life in an act that could kill him and his daughter if failed, could kill the billionaire if successful (and maybe his daughter too). He immediately tries to save his daughter by climbing outside the building to jump on a turbine motor. The scene was very cool and The Rock looked quite heroic but there was a startling implication that went over the heads of everyone in the audience (except me of course). That implication was that Will was willing to kill an innocent billionaire for the sake of his daughter. Postmodernist society has us believing that all lives are equal in value. The billionaire has provided a billion dollars of value to people and the nation adores him, whereas the girl only matters to Will. However according to the movie (and I guess in real life) it is only natural that a 'real man' would be willing to kill anyone (including himself) for the sake of protecting their kids. Personally, this is rightfully so.
At the end of the movie, a scene depicts Will getting out of a police car, being surrounded by fast talking reporters and ecstatic cheering fans. After all, most of his ordeal was recorded on live television and that made him famous! He couldn't give a crap to anyone as soon as he got out of the car, because he was only focusing on finding his wife. He was a nice guy, but he was pushing people out of the way for the sake of finding the second half of his family. Obviously, this indicates that in the movie (as well as in real life) that when we strongly care for a person, we necessarily reduce our care for the rest of people around us.
Now what does this have to do with Jack Donovan's book, Becoming a Barbarian?
 |
| Cover of Jack Donovan's Book, Becoming a Barbarian |
Becoming a Barbarian focuses on the idea that the more we care for the world, the less we care for the people immediate to us. The book suggests that we shouldn't care about all the killing, death, and destruction that we see happening in the news and that we should channel our care into care that actually has the potential to materialize (i.e. only to those we interact with regularly). The book is anti-globalist and pro-tribalist but raises some good points.
- We interact with people online on the other side of the world but not with our neighbors.
- There is no 'us' without 'them' (i.e. the more loyalty and inclusion one feels for the ingroup, the more hostile one feels to members of the outgroup)
- You can't care for everyone so care for those you can actually care for (i.e. your family and friends) and forget the rest,
- War united people and caused feelings of inclusion so strong people were willing to die for their ingroup (as well as to kill members of the outgroup).
- Also relevant but from a previous book, that the bigger the group, the more lukewarm the bonds of brotherhood.
- "There are no more statues of heroes because no true villains can be acknowledged."-Straight from the book
One idea that's kind of implied in the book is that the ideal family man/tribal chief/patriarch is that they are a nationalist; many care for their family over everyone else, and by extension, their tribe over everyone else, and by extension, their community over everyone else, and by extension, their nation over everyone else. I think it's natural that we prefer our own to the unknown. It's in stark contrast with the 'love-everyone-kumbaya' anti-nationalist anti-racist rhetoric that we get from everyone but that's the point. Donovan calls this global monoculture as the detested Empire of Nothing.
This implies that you should stop watching the news because it's content revolved around the plight of people who you will never know, but still strangely care about. It detracts from focusing your energy to care for those in your life who really matter.
Ghilan talks about this issue. I'll just mention the key takeaways from the video to avoid watching the video below.
- News is not meant for informing, it's meant to keep your attention, regardless of whether the information could benefit you or not, and monetizes your attention through advertisements.
- The news distorts what we prioritize and isn't good for our mental health; our memory and concentration suffers.
- Abu Hamid al-Ghazali never spoke on political issues because he focused on the underlying causes. He focused on what he could control.
The main point of this blog was to show that the more you care for your ingroup (more commonly, your family and less commonly, your friends), the more willing you are to harm others to keep them safe. The stronger the positive emotions that are associated with inclusion, the stronger the emotions that are associated with exclusion.
So what does that say of efforts to include people?
Do we need to have efforts to include groups for example like LGBT in places like universities? Ideally, if Donovan is correct, the few LGBT folk will create their own small communities where they will receive inclusion, love, and care from their own tribe, as well as develop a bit of resentment for those who are not of them. Also, poor abundant normal white folk have their own groups too large for any intense brotherhood tribe to develop which they so desperately crave (and that's why they become racist alt-right kids).
Philip Ball writes in The Guardian, in his post, Empire of Sums, about piece about Peter Churchin's attempt to mathematize history.
Turchin calls such solidarity asabiya, an Arabic word used by the 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun to denote "mutual affection and willingness to fight and die for each other". A courtier of several North African sultans, Ibn Khaldun was the first person to propose that asabiya is the fuel of empire building.
Using modern understanding of how cooperative behaviour develops in groups of organisms, Turchin's models suggest that asabiya becomes particularly strong on the frontiers of empires, where two civilisations confront one another. This, he says, was how a small group of Cossacks led by Yermak Timofeyevich was able to defeat a much larger army of Tatars in Siberia in 1582.
Thus, the "meta-ethnic faultlines" between civilisations are "asabiya incubators" from which new empires spring. Here, either you unite or you die.
The happy consequence is that frontier peoples bury their differences and help one another. The downside is that they exaggerate factors that distinguish them from their foes, who become subhuman barbarians, heathens or infidels. It's us versus them.
Sounds familiar? Turchin points out how, after 9/11, a US radio host referred to Arabs as "nonhumans" and claimed that "conversion to Christianity is the only thing that probably can turn them into human beings". America has all the hallmarks of an empire, he says, and it is one in which asabiya is showing its dark side in nationalism and xenophobia. "Today the most violent clash of civilisations occurs on the meta-ethnic frontiers of Islam with the western, Orthodox, Hindu and Sinic civilisations," says Turchin. But if his theory is right, it will be in these conflict zones, such as the borders of Europe, that the next great empires will arise.What does Islam say about this?
I'll just share a few ahadith:
- The Prophet when he was asked: "Is it tribalism for a man to love his people?, and he said: ''No, tribalism is to support your people in an injust cause." [Ahmad]
- Ibn Taymiyyah said: 'The caution, here, is for a man to be prejudice toward his sect based on Jaahiliyyah cause only. Nonetheless, supporting one's tribe or sect in a just cause without any transgression is something good, and its ruling could either be an obligation or something recommended according to the situation.
- “Whoever fights under a banner of folly, supporting tribalism, or getting angry for the sake of tribalism, he dies in a state of ignorance.” [Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah]
In summary, it's haram to advocate to cause injustice towards other groups of people for the simple reason that they are part of the outgroup.
But that raises the question, whose life is more valuable, one's family or those of stranger? Naturally a man will say his own family and Islam confirms this. However only in cases where benefitting a family member will cause an injustice to another, this is haram and the definition of nepotistic. I feel that this is a moral gray area and that the correct moral course of action regarding benefitting your family vs harming others depends per situation. This trippy moral dilemma even has a name for it, the Heinz Dilemma!
Another question, how big is what you consider to be your family; is it your nuclear family, cousins, community, friends, city, nation, race, linguosphere, coreligionists?
For most people, the concept that strong group identities lead to injustice against an outgroup is why they dislike racism, cliques, and any sort of strong group identity. Interestingly, although mainstream Muslims shun racism along with the rest of the modern world, Islam likes a strong Islamic identity but everyone else hates it and calls it racism out of lack of proper terminology.
The conclusion is a question.
The conclusion is a question.
How willing are you to cause a 1 harm too a person who is related as a 2 to you to benefit a person who is 3 related closer to you with 4?
Replace 1 with a relation: acquaintance, stranger, coworker, enemy
Replace 2 with a harm: theft of $500, amputation, murder, pinch
Replace 3 with a relation that is closer than 1: brother, sister, wife, friend
Replace 4 with a benefit: chemotherapy, meal, bath, tennis racket
The effect of nationalism is that it forces you to increase the gravity of 2 and decrease the gravity of 4. You are more willing to harm others for a smaller benefit for your own people.