Talk:Neotribalism

Untitled
are amish neo tribal? 210.9.15.116
 * No, I'd say they're plain old Tribal. Read the article for the differences. Mjk2357 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

what roots?
It would be cool if the references on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and William Kingdon Clifford could actually be cited properly because niether one of those wiki-linked bios thows any light on specifically how their social philosophies are "Neo-Tribalist". I understand how Rousseau's social contracts were designed as compromises with modern-society (ie. they were not designed to further the progress of modern sovereignty, but instead to protect man from its progress, at least the violent progress of sovereignty that Hobbes envisioned). But I know nothing of what Clifford has to say on this and his wiki bio mentions little also. If indeed "Neo-Tribalism" is rooted with Rousseau and Clifford it would be great to provide that information that connects them, thanks. User:Hypomnemata 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest in this article.


 * Clifford coined the term "tribal self" and wrote about how this aspect of ourselves can or cannot adapt to the modern world. From his article:


 * The other phrase, "tribal self," gives the key to Clifford's ethical view, which explains conscience and the moral law by the development in each individual of a "self," which prescribes the conduct conducive to the welfare of the "tribe."


 * The idea that morality is based on "tribal" instincts (and not abstract metaphysical concepts as in Kant's thinking) shows up in the ideology of neo-Tribalists. Whether or not this was directly due to Clifford's influence is uncertain from my reading at least.

Mjk2357 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

merger
I've proposed merging New tribalists here. New tribalists mostly repeats information in this article, albeit without much clarity, and without much beyond what exists here. Jd2718 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be ok with merging the New triablists into this article, but not the other way around. Neo-Tribalism addresses a broader subject and, in my opinion, is much better written (and not just the parts I wrote!) Mjk2357 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, that was my intention in placing the tag. New tribalists is a mess; Neo-tribalism is well-written. Jd2718 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. New tribalists appear more radical whereas Neo tribalism appears more moderate or at least seems to present the opportunity for moderation. Just as those who engage in democratic politics may hold different positions or stances (e.g. liberal democratic, compassionate conservative, neo-conservative, etc) this notion of 'modern tribalism' too appears to contain differing positions, attitudes and strands of belief and action that deserve differentiation in order to maintain each position's integrity. Gaiaeve (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the New tribalists article should be merged here. While I agree with Gaiaeve that "New Tribalists", from a Daniel Quinn perspective, represent a clear subset of Neo-Tribalism that difference can be(almost is) adequately address here. Chipstata (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that while the distinction is clear, the message is similar; New Tribalists fit within the scope of Neotribalism very well for the purposes of discussing the topic educationally. Combining the entries on the philosophy and the practice seems a very good way to combine available material into something more comprehensible for the outside viewer. --Talmanes (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed merge. --Jcbutler (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for citation problems
Hi, there. Just wanted to say that I think this article is very well written. Unfortunately, it doesn't read like secondary research, and has few references. See No original research. I have marked areas where I think there are problems. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Text
I have had to remove large portions of text as Gibberish, This is about the Socialogical subject of Neotribalism, New Tribalist is a movement that hold tribalism as the most natural form of human cultural evolution. We must seperate the two. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind expalining what the difference is please? Munci (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One is a veiw that humans are tribalism as the most natural form of government. One is the sociological theory that human in close proximity form close social groups (think of high school cliques and Frat brother)

It is easy to make the mistake "hey we have set our intetional community in tribal pattern. Neo Means usually used in a way old customs as if recreating that culture thus we are Neo-tribal." people are using the "neo" in NEo-tribal the same way we use "neo" in "neo druidism." When really they are quite seperate Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that you have missed out the word "form" i.e. that you meant to say "humans in close proximity form close social groups". If so, I understand the difference now. Thank you for explaining it to me.Munci (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * oops fixed now thanx Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * i largely discovered this by accident, i was writing a ethnography trying to use the term a NRM as Label for the group; low and behold this term did not mean what thought it meant. Diving into the topic though book work has since shown me that they are two separate ideologies, so i am as new to the difference as you are so dont worry Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

postmodern?
This article has a "postmodernity" box on it, but I tend to think of postmodernity as associated with the left in general, while I think of neotribalism as associated with the right, with various resurgences in identity/nationality politics, like national anarchism. Is that a totally wrong impression? Or is there something to explain here? --Delirium (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be a wrong impression. --Loremaster (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Doing a bit of research, it appears the academic sources partly support me and partly support you; i.e. the matter isn't really settled. If you head over to Google Scholar, you can find a whole bunch of articles about the relationship between neotribalism, the left, and the right. --Delirium (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup. Might be good idea to expand this article to mention the politics of neotribalists. --Loremaster (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Tribal society?
Neo-Tribalist is a theory/concept in sociology and anthropology that has nothing to do with any type of social movement about restoring tribal society. Neo-tribalism does not mean anything like the Prefix "neo" would be used in "Neo-Nazi" or "Neo-Druid" i will keep removing this stuff until i see a RS that uses it in the context Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

confused
Seems someone took this article to insert an advertisment that is not encyclopedic in my opinion, it doesn't help explain the concept. Example, under "Aesthetics" this heading is not only biased, it doesn't help explain how it relates beyond furniture. See this with no quotes "In Theory of the Forms, Plato states “Beauty” transcends the world of sense experience”, which means that the experience of beauty is unlike what we would today describe as the aesthetic experience. Beauty and ritual both transport the person to another place and/or time. My art deals with the role of being a “guide” for modern culture, myself, I am a medium for spirit to pass through. My work is to be seen as a rite of passage from past to present. My use of ancient Sumerian Cuneiform in my photography is to show that prior to current times, ancient and primitive art, was created by the tribal shamansor master artists skilled in symbols, materials and sacred (fetish) items". - Johnny Bailik 2012." RupJana (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Entire 'Aesthetics' Section should be removed
It's just a hodgepodge of quotations with no analysis or theory whatsoever. Entirely unencyclopedic and, as RupJana noted, it smacks very much of advertisement.CharlesMartel (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)CharlesMartel

I agree with CharlesMartel, it should be removed. As of now, it contains a singular link to an artist's website, whose purported work exploring neotribalism seems to have no connection with the sociological term.Freshdried (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)