Tribal war
Shamubeel Eaqub tackles our biases
This is a column about a column. Last week’s column suggested tax is love. It brought a range of reactions, from support to derision.
In these divided responses is a narrative of our society and human nature.
We are tribal, we like our own views echoed and amplified back to us and few of us understand the value of public goods.
How we interpret a statement or a situation depends on what tribe we belong to, what the ‘‘norms’’ are, and what the values are. Each tribe reinforced its views and would not give ground to the views of other tribes.
In a small way, it was a reflection of this country’s increasingly polarised and strongly held views of the world.
When talking about ‘‘tax is love,’’ the most outraged were those with strong libertarian preferences.
Looking at their social media behaviour, those supporting National and ACT were closer to ‘‘tax is theft’’ and ‘‘I earned it, I deserve it, and I am not giving it to undeserving others.’’ Individualism reigned supreme.
The most in support of ‘‘tax is love’’ were those from the Green and Labour camps, in that order. Incredibly, Catherine Delahunty of the Green Party even wrote a poem called Tax is love, riffing on my column.
I was quite flattered – I never imagined a column about tax would inspire art. There was a strong seam of collectivism among supporters.
It is hard to tell what reaction NZ First supporters had, probably because its older support base is not as active on the social media that I used as my temperature check.
In the comments section, it was to and fro between tribes. But a lot of it was simply shouting at each other – each strongly believing to be right.
Each tribe is so entrenched and invested in their identity, it seems impossible for them to see the other viewpoint.
However it is also true that the vast majority of the population does not engage in the comments section, which is really only representative of a vocal and opinionated minority.
In reality, a fully individualistic society would be horrible, as would a fully collectivistic one.
Each goes against how humans are wired. We respond to both selfish and altruistic drivers. But the political tribes seem much more polarised than our human make-up.
Also, it is much easier to believe that ‘‘my tribe’’ is right. Because the cost of realising that you are wrong or in the wrong tribe is very high.
To have to completely reassess your values and tribal affiliation is a huge undertaking. It’s much easier to filter and interpret the information we see through a ‘‘my side’’ bias. It gives us the comfort of knowing that ‘‘my side’’ is always in the right.
One significant gap in the individualistic argument seems to be an understanding and appreciation of public goods.
For each of us to succeed, we rely not only on our own efforts and endeavours, but it is also subject to how society functions and the public goods that make it possible.
It may be the education of others, or roads and other vital infrastructure, or rules and regulations that make it an easy and lawful place to do business.
There is a collectivism that delivers those public goods. Individualism drives the innovation and experimentation crucial to progress.
One is not possible without the other. Our tribes may be polarised, but our reality converges.
Like most of New Zealand, I lean towards a collective approach, but with a realisation that individualism matters.
This is why most of our political parties lean left on social policies and lean right on economic policies.
We may belong to different tribes, and our biases amplify the differences, but they may have more in common than we give credit.