I agree. I find the whole idea of a civilian, peace-time "tribe" of strangers coming together for the purpose of forming a "tribe" a bit hokey. I don't think its realistic. Real historical tribes were people bound together by consanguinity and marriage. The original nation states were essentially extended tribal units based on the same. The military platoon and the perfect storm crew were bound together by common purpose coupled with mortal danger.
I think all of these artificial tribes and communes will melt away quickly when the collapse really gets rolling. The only possible exception to blood ties and lifelong friendships I see is devout religious congregations. Participating in one of those obviously won't fit with the life style of either the average upwardly mobile "consumer" or the modern secular liberal. Orlov addressed some of this in his "communities that abide" and made the keen observation that the cultural attributes of enduring communities are largely anathema to modern Americans.
I myself am neither religious nor a member of a traditionally "enduring" group. I moved back to Ohio because all of my immediate and most of my extended family live within 30 minutes of each other. When push comes to shove, they will be the people with whom I circle the wagons.
…and has brought a fine Suffolk filly to bear. Our farm lacks a miller and a tanner/harness maker a blacksmith would be good but for now I am sufficient.
I fear a loss of property laws and kingdom rodentia. Welcoming the 19th century.
One important message I got from the interview is that we must find our tribe or create our tribe. If family is not near (or is non-existent) we need to develop a tribe. We cannot go it alone either emotionally or physically (after the fundamental economic shifts occur). When I taught The Crash Course at our local university for two semesters, I would typically get at least one student in the class who believed that 40 acres and a gun (or several guns) meant resiliency. I would spend extra time discussing Social Capital and Emotional Capital.
Those whose immediate family lives within 30 minutes are the lucky ones. For some of us, that is not possible. This weekend, I've traveled 16 hours with my spouse to gather with my family and celebrate my dad's 80th birthday. (It takes a lot of time to travel from a remote city in the mountains of Colorado to an even more remote location in the northern Idaho. There aren't a lot of roads through the Rocky Mountains.) And now that I'm here, I know that my family is most definitely my family. But they won't be my tribe when TSHTF because we're all scattered across the western US. And my dad is a heavily armed, fruit-growing, mule-raising westerner who believes that Obama is going to declare martial law after Trump wins the US presidential election so he can stay in office for four more years. Sheesh! Did I mention that Dad is heavily armed? Yet despite our significant differences in how we see the world, Dad is my long-distance tribe by consanguinity (or "blood"). But I don't share his worldview and I'm not moving back to Northern Idaho.
So a take-away message from this interview, for me, is to continue to invest time and effort into building my local tribe. The commitment to a PLACE is critical. Traveling the Lolo Trail yesterday, I thought of the native people who were displaced and traveled the Lolo Trail in the 1800's seeking a new place (unsuccessfully). "Displaced" - the word is more powerful than we sometimes realize. Yesterday, I saw the walnut trees that my dad planted when I was in college. They are 30+ feet high and producing loads of walnuts. He could feed dozens families with all those walnuts. And he does. He gives away walnuts, apples, peaches, grapes, tomatoes, and almost everything he grows. He has developed his "tribe" in his place.
I'm not part of his Idaho tribe. But I'm developing my tribe in my place (Colorado). It might not develop as quickly or as deeply as in the interview, because meeting once a week and looking into each others' eyes seems a bit intense for me. But with commitment to place, people, and the concept of community or tribe, it WILL develop. I could be wrong, but I don't think we have as much time remaining to build our tribe as my dad had to grow his walnut trees…
Another takeaway from the interview was the trust that is necessary for a tribe. The trust (and tough love) in my family is huge. Building trust outside of family (i.e., in the non-familial tribe) requires one big commitment: being trustworthy.
Thanks, Chris, for another interesting interview. So much to consider…
My MKP initiation was in September of 2008. it, along with years of sitting in men's groups helped me make positive changes my life.
I have also tried my hand at community many times and found it to be cumbersome and unrewarding. That being said, I do look forward to learning more about Bill & Zoes book and attend one of his workshops in nearby Ashland Oregon.
Yea, I'm an INTJ, as well. But sometimes, you need to "push the enveloepe" if you want to have a vibrant community. It takes all types, and remember, INTJs only make up about 1% of the population.
Of course, if you don't feel the need for community, why bother to change and grow? Just stick with your natural inclination.
And yet, a Rational/Mastermind appreciates things that work, and so they can and must "waste" time on feelings, perceptions, "excessive" personal contact, and "A, B, C" thinking.
Steven Covey (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) says, "Seek to understand, then to be understood," which is an anathema for INTJs, who already have everything figured out, and simply need others to see and understand that!
So keep reaching out; keep fostering temperament diversity. Keep listening to those chatty "E"s, plod along with those literal "S"s, keep trying to feel what the "F"s feel, and keep listening to the myriad options the "P"s come up with, because there's a whole lot out there that needs to "work" right, and you don't have all day to do it all yourself!
I think just one thing is safe to say about a "tribe:" it always has a unifying theme.
As you state, throughout history, the unifying theme has been bloodlines. But cheap energy has changed that: blood has dispersed. It is not unusual to see your "bloodline tribe" blown to the four corners of the Earth, driven by education, jobs, wanderlust, and Internet dating sites.
Another factor is that with cheap energy, families have become smaller. Before cheap energy, one bred a slave labour force and retirement plan. Now, it is not unusual to find three generations of two-child families – it's hard to form a tribe under those circumstances!
So when "the collapse really gets rolling," the new zeitgeist of frugality and thrift may be enough of a unifying theme with which to form "tribe," especially if (as many of us expect) collapse will be uneven and stratified. I think that as long as there is television (or the Internet), it will be easy to form tribe, simply because of the pervasive, all-encompassing example of what it is not!
Consider yourself unusual and lucky. Most "family tribes" are more physically dispersed than that. And even when they are not, they are often "idealogically dispersed;" I have three siblings in my hometown, but one is a Limbaugh/Trump devotee, another is into "bling" and long walks on distant beaches near expensive hotels and restaurants, and the third would rather drink beer all day. I'm not sure I'd want to be in a lifeboat with any of them!
Although, as I just pointed out, simply the act of being in a lifeboat can be a unifying theme, even among dis-united family members…
We've changed our recruiting. We used to seek those "who were interested in intentional community." What we got were needy, wounded, mentally-troubled people who just wanted to be "taken in" by a bunch of tolerant, caring people, who would "accept them for what they wore" instead of insisting they behave to some standard.
We changed from that focus, to seeking those "who want to do collaborative agriculture." Yikes! That sounds like work!
Now, we don't get so much interest, but the ones who are interested are of a much higher caliber.
The best thing we ever did was agree on a set of values, in priority order. That usually makes it clear when someone is mis-behaving, but we still get people who say they agree with our values, but have their own "spin" on them. ("Sharing means you can borrow my pocket knife, if you clean it carefully and return it quickly, while I get to use anything of yours that I want to, and even leave it out sitting in the rain.")
