Group thinking, social media, and esoteric information converge in the West and China, but Beijing might do it better. The risk of autocracy is in the control of information. It could stifle it all, as the freedom of thought generated modernity.
It may look like something that happened in Rome. For two decades, Italian politics was bitterly fractured between pro or against billionaire cum politicians cum charmer in chief Silvio Berlusconi. The United States is now riven by people in favor or against a person who may cast a similar shadow, President Donald Trump. Yet easy similarities may be deceiving, as things in the world in America, engaged in some kind of Cold War with China, are very different.
Voting for a limited number of parties may help develop and entrench group thinking in Western democracies, according to recent studies[1], and group thinking is emerging as a vital element of how we consider issues and design society[2]. A growing number of scholars consider tribalism a distinctive feature of human organization and a way of framing problems. Some go as far as singling out the tribal thinking of Western society as peculiar in originating the way of reasoning that produced liberal society and modernity[3].
There are efficient and political consequences in looking at tribalism, and in fact, it may help identify issues dividing the West and China. Group thinking may be a driving force for change and evolution as it spurs competition between thinking groups. It might historically be the case not only in the time of party-voting-liberal democracies.
Between the 5th and 4th century BC, material and intellectual changes moved faster than possibly any other time in Chinese history, and it was accompanied by thinking groups emerging around some philosophical masters (Confucius, Laozi, et cetera) who were sparring arguments to prevail against one another.
However, in present times, group thinking and tribalism within one country could have substantial drawbacks, as it may complicate competition between countries. In liberal democracies, there is internal competition (between tribal parties) and external competition (between national interests). It could be weakening freer societies vis-à-vis more autocratic states, doing without internal competition.
Yet, just in ancient China, thinking groups occurred at the same time as states were competing against each other for survival or prevalence. Actually, thinking groups and states studied and learned from one another, creating ever-successful and syncretic theories that eventually bred the lasting Han empire. In a way, with its competition between “parties” and states, ancient Chinese history could prove that a lively debate that finds a consensus generates the most effective result.
Differences
Presently, things may look special.
The rise of MAGA ideology and its opposition, moving around the woke and the gender choice, is creating an unprecedented stark thinking divide. It is about personal identity and aspirations (the public recognition of personal sexual preferences or of past injustices to be publicly acknowledged) or their denial (considering only two sexual preferences and rejecting addressing past perceived injustices). It is not about social issues (capitalists versus workers with a middle class in between) that defined Western “tribal” party thinking since the 1789 French Revolution.
With present identity and aspirational tribes, finding a middle ground is new and more demanding, as there is no class war to bridge. It may be thus harder to think out of the box, where new developments often happen. Moreover, it is hard for people of one “tribe” of the left or the right to think out of their tribal box for fear of being outcast from one’s tribe – unless it means turning to the other tribe altogether. It’s tough to have ‘patchwork’ ideas from right and left, as either tribe will find it odd to place and label you.
New and harsher competition between thinking groups almost forces the group that prevailed in the latest elections to cast aside thinkers from the enemy camp or people not fully in line. The winning party might pursue dramatic turns from the past. This seems to be happening in America, and because of its position in the world, it is unsettling for the globe. Even if the course is right, a large ship scuttles if it turns suddenly and without enough preparation, contrary to a small speedboat, like Berlusconi’s Italy, without an ongoing Cold War.
Moreover, in a world of harsh thinking competition, either group may be reluctant to engage with or accept thinkers who are not precisely ticking all their right boxes. But this stifles complex thinking.
China and…
Conversely, in China, things are different. There is no open competition between different thinking groups. Boundaries between thinking groups are blurred and ever-changing due to the absence of institutional divides like competing parties in the West. The two extremes, totally in favor of the Communist Party or totally against it, form small minorities.
Most people, even the elite, navigate through critical thinking in private and display official loyalty in public. This creates a fuzzy environment where people can accept different views without being too “tribal” and change their minds quickly and without much justification, allowing other ideas to be examined and considered.
Consequently, changes are also more cautiously implemented, and the government turns more slowly. The upside is that the ship is less likely to scuttle; the downside is that it is less likely to avoid an iceberg suddenly popping up from the sea across the stern. Sudden surprises are addressed by granting special powers to the top leader, which has upsides and downsides.
China recognizes that thinking differently is helpful, and party discipline should not lead to the suppression of dissenting thought. But how can you admit different thoughts in China without differences hindering the path chosen by the top leadership? By erecting clear barriers. China manages it by making the debate esoteric. It excludes outsiders (tizhiwai, outside the system) from the thinking melting pot (tizhinei, within the system). There is tolerance inside and intolerance outside.
… outside
In the West, it is apparently exoteric, open to all. But actually, if one is not within one party’s mainstream, he’s excluded from honest debate. They may be similarly tolerant in unique small circles and intolerant out of them.
Today in the West, in the war of likes and dislikes of social media, in the polemical and unofficial conflicts presumed to attract attention and increase followers, the spaces to think beyond tribal boundaries are becoming narrower.
These tribes are filled daily with new content that is presumed to be consistent with the tribe’s dominant thought line. In other words, the management of social media based on one’s preferences reinforces singular and tribal thoughts, limiting overall freedom. The result is that authentic thinking in liberal democracies risks being absent or esoteric, limited to small groups who dominate the world of decisions and the mass and social media landscapes. The complex environment might thus not be too different from that of autocratic countries.
The risk of autocracy, therefore, is not only in the concentration of powers in the hands of new autocrats but also in the control of information and thought.
However, modernity, the productive revolution of the last three centuries, was generated precisely by the freedom of thought. Today, a clampdown on this freedom outside of tribes and information monopolies risks drying up any innovation capacity to protect the currently dominant powers.
These movements are inspired directly or indirectly by Girard’s theories of sacrifice. He analyzes what makes a group, a tribe—the victim, the ritual. The ritual of social networks is more demanding than Muslim prayer five times a day. Building a psychological bond to the ever-changing flow of news, important or unimportant, from the smartphone creates something like the medieval sackcloth tied to your leg, reminding you of the sins of your flesh every second.
Division in favor or against
If the US doesn’t address its tribal thinking and intolerant boundaries, it may have huge risks. The international and the American press denounce how recent abrasive US government rhetoric is creating splits with its allies, pressing them to toe a line and not engaging them in burdensome arguments.
Some denunciations of the US policies may be preposterous and far-fetched, but they show the deep rifts. Then, American specialists in Beijing, without open tribal thinking divides, will read them and see opportunities for China. Whatever controversy Trump may start is a possible opening that Beijing will try to harness.
The Chinese are the theorists of the three kingdoms strategy – playing enemies against each other. Mao famously played the KMT, the Japanese, the US, and even the Russians against one another to emerge as the ultimate winner with minimal direct military confrontation. It was after a little more than a decade from the time when he and his communists were about to die.
This means that China’s best weapon is not the use of direct military force but a skillful combination of threats, political maneuvers, diplomacy, propaganda, economic incentives, and occasional use of force.
Why should President Xi Jinping, self-proclaimed Mao’s student, not do the same on a grander scale? The USSR tried to use social divisions in the West to subvert the US. Now, the game is more complicated and subtle. Divisions run not simply between rulers and ruled (as in the Cold War) but between allies and within the US ruling elites. All fissures China, Russia, or Iran could play.
These fissures can be fixed and become advantages for the US if the underlying arguments are turned into open discussions to reach a consensus and unity. It happened similarly during the Cold War when the civilized political debate recreated intellectual unity in the West and became attractive to people beyond the Iron Curtain. They can be mortal wounds otherwise.
Of course, as we saw, the terms of the present divide are different and new, and a consensus and civilized debate could be more challenging to reach.
[1] See https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/groupbased-affect-and-the-canadian-party-system/94882AB254E51E915124914C015A5BAD and https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/understanding-connection-between-party-affiliation-partisanship-and-political-beliefs
[2] See The Tribal Mind and the Psychology of Collectivism, edited by Joseph Forgas, 2024
[3] Joseph Henrich The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, 2020
