The Double-Edged Sword of Cooperation

Part One: The Cutting Edge

Tribalism vs. Individual Self-Interest

In a recent New York Times Op-Ed column, David Brooks makes a forceful argument for broad-based cooperation as the best solution to our tribalized times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/opinion/us-politics.html

Essentially, he argues that the notion that society is primarily driven by individual self-interest is false: it’s really driven by intense competition among groups. 

He points out populism of both right and left have adopted a “winner take all,” “Us vs. Them” mentality that has come to dominate institutions, including government, as well as permeating society as a whole. While he focuses on the US, his observations really apply across the planet.

Basically, I agree with Brooks’ analysis and his ultimate conclusion that a healthier future demands genuine cooperation across diverse groups. Getting there, however, requires a deeper dive into the conflicting benefits of cooperation, as well as recognizing the conflicting demands of multiple identities.

There is little doubt that a genetic propensity to cooperate ensured those so endowed to survive as the fittest. As Brooks notes, “We thrived because we are better at cooperation.” Clearly, hunting a woolly mammoth as a group activity, and sharing the results with all those sitting around the fire, were far more conducive to success and survival than an individual effort followed by selfishly hoarding the carcass. 

Two aspects emerged from these primal experiences—the recognition of the superior effectiveness of group undertaking and sharing, and the ethical mandate of contributing to, and even sacrificing for the greater good.

But cooperation within the group also enabled effective competition against other groups, much of it violent. From extended family groups to clans to tribes to nations and nation states and empires, internal cohesion has enhanced the ability of one group of humanity to plunder, dominate, or decimate others. 

Whose Greater Good?

Much of this carnage has been driven by the moral imperative of furthering the greater good, which brings us to the question, whose greater good? The answer lies in an individual’s primary identification with a specific group. The options not only include familial and political groupings but race, gender, class, religion, and ideology, among others. And sadly, the moral frameworks that shape acceptable behavior within the group do not seem to apply when dealing with those on the outside. 

Complicating this is the fact that most people identify with multiple groups with potentially conflicting loyalties that may force people to choose, at critical moments, which one is primary. The ancient Greek city states fought each other mercilessly, but also enjoyed a common identity. They shared a religion, an oracle, the Olympics, and a vision of humanity divided between Greeks and barbarians. When faced with a common threat, they united to defeat the Persians.

Similar choices have played out over the centuries. Sometimes people have opted for a broader sense of identification, for better or worse, when joining Crusades and jihads, founding the United Nations and EU, adopting the Geneva Conventions, and launching the Marshall Plan. 

At other times, they have pinned their primary loyalty to a narrower framework, such as the Confederate generals who placed allegiance to their states above that to the Union; members of organized crime syndicates devoted to their own “families;” the far right in Europe and America who strive to keep their societies as white as possible; and the Bharatiya Janata Party that wants to convert India into a Hindu state.

Part Two: Stretching the Envelope

Seeking the Greatest Good

So how do we stretch the cooperation imperative to engage productively with other groups? And how do we blunt the tendency to increase internal cohesiveness at the expense of everyone else? 

These are two sides of the same coin, and offer the same answer. We need, as individuals and as a society, to strive to place our loyalty with the highest common denominator, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Ultimately, this should be our shared humanity. But in many cases, it may just be our common citizenship, shared history, political party, or sense of community. 

How do we do that? There are two critical components to achieving this goal. The first requires consciously modifying our behavior as individuals and as organizations. We can change our own behavior, and must also insist that the organizations to which we belong or support modify theirs. 

Specifically, we all need to stop demonizing opponents or members of other groups. You can criticize others’ beliefs and actions, but avoid ad hominems. Strongly condemn white nationalism, but don’t call your opponent’s supporters “deplorables.” Criticize a legislator’s vote, but not challenge his or her patriotism. 

This requires particular restraint on the part of public figures, especially candidates and elected officials, who are tempted to use group identity to galvanize their supporters. We need to hold them accountable, constantly reminding them that we’re all Americans with equal rights to shaping our future.

There are many ways of achieving this, but ultimately it comes down to the vote. As Brooks indicates, we need to resist the siren call of those who would divide people but focus on “electing leaders who are masters at cooperation.”

We should demand the same self-restraint from all kinds of associations to which we belong, religious, civic, and social, as well as the media, who set the tone of public debate. 

In other words, it’s ultimately up to us, the people. 

None of this will be easy, especially given the self-righteousness that dominant groups have always relied on to assert their priority. This moral imperative to strive to serve the greater good of one’s own group (race, class, religion, party, etc.) is the strongest impediment to cross-societal cooperation.

Embracing Multiple Identities

Here the second component of achieving our goal comes into play—acknowledging the multiple layers of identities that people possess. If we expect people to go beyond the parochial, you must first recognize and value the entire pyramid of group identities and loyalties that define them. Listen to an elderly World War II vet, a disappointed Brexit Remainer who described himself as follows: “First of all, I am Welsh, and I’m British, and I’m European, and I’m a human being.” (Watch the video 

https://twitter.com/bydonkeys/status/1223175366421946369; the quote comes at 1:03.)

In fact, embracing multiple identities, especially ethnic ones, is one of the true characteristics of American exceptionalism (or as I prefer to call it, American idiosyncrasy). In a recent New York Times profile, Alma Zadic, Austria’s justice minister born in Bosnia, explains how she overcame her own ambivalence about her ethnicity through her time in New York: “People were Italian and American, or Mexican and American, and it was totally normal. It was such a revelation. For years I had struggled with this question: ‘Am I Bosnian or Austrian?’ In New York, I learned that I can be Austrian and Bosnian and European at the same time.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/world/europe/austria-greens-alma-zadic.html?ref=oembed

We hold a genuine advantage over most places in the world where primary social distinctions tend to be singular and rigid. In contrast, we recognize multiple simultaneous identities while assuming that when push comes to shove, the “American” label will be primary. 

And now with globalization and a wider knowledge of the world, the idea of a common humanity has taken on a greater reality for many, especially in discussions of global warming and the environment.

The Community as Ground Zero

The place to start for many of us will be at the community level, where the fair resolution of local concerns demands inclusiveness, so solutions do not come at the expense of one or another group, generally the least affluent. This does not mean that every decision must take into account how it might impact humanity as a whole. (“What’s the impact on the fate of our species if we add this traffic light on Main Street?”) 

But it does suggest that recognizing the humanity of all of those who would be affected by these local decisions is a prerequisite for a fair solution. In America, and in many other places on this planet, the diversity of the population impacted by decisions at all different levels is far greater than we have historically been willing to accept. Accepting our shared humanity weakens the grip of more parochial loyalties, and strengthens our commitment to a truly democratic society. And that’s a start.