Steve has left the Tribe of Anthropik. He and I disagreed constantly: that was a great strength for us. Of the original four members, Steve was always the hardest to get a hold of, the one that spent the least time with the rest of us. He was the most peripheral member, and I think that’s why so many of our best insights came from him. Over the past several months, though, he had become even more distant. He raised some very valid concerns, but he refused to talk to us about them. That he left without hearing us out is probably what hurt us most of all, but it’s provided an opportunity to revisit some very important questions. Given the events that preceded our month-long hiatus, it’s time for us to state publicly what we mean when we say, the “Tribe of Anthropik.”

The term “tribe” is a tricky one, as Steve told us. It’s all caught up not just in imprecise anthropological terminology. Elman Service’s taxonomy made the “tribe” a level of sociopolitical organization between the band and the chiefdom–still egalitarian, but criss-crossed with other organizations, like clans and secret societies. By Service’s definition, Anthropik is not a tribe but a band. Tribe usually refers to societies built on kinship. Wikipedia:

In his 1972 study, The Notion of the Tribe, Morton Fried provided numerous examples of tribes the members of which spoke different languages and practised different rituals, or that shared languages and rituals with members of other tribes. Similarly, he provided examples of tribes where people followed different political leaders, or followed the same leaders as members of other tribes. He concluded that tribes in general are characterized by fluid boundaries and heterogeneity, are not parochial, and are dynamic.

Then there is the sticky issue of cultural appropriation: as native groups are trying to assert their sovereignty, much of the issue hinges on the word “tribe.” Do we do them further disservice beyond the abuses heaped up by our ancestors by using that word, and muddying the already murky waters?

Ultimately … what other word works? “Rhizome” is precise, but it does not elicit the kind of strong emotion necessary for the New Tribal Revolution to succeed. Most importantly, it cuts us off from our heritage. With the word “tribe,” we are reminded that we are not adopting an unproven system, but simply re-using the only proven system we have. Far from being radical, we are the ultimate conservatives.

As Cory pointed out:

Secondly, your tribe is strong in that the three remaining members are solid in their agreement, which is awesome, but I have to point out that you are all family. Like real family. Mike and Jason are brothers, and so of course are going to think alike, and Guili and Jason are getting married, so its a foregone conclusion that you’re solid (congrats again, btw). You don’t have any members anymore that aren’t related. It doesn’t really matter, it just makes it look like that what you have is a family, not a tribe. Just thought I’d point it out from a readers point of view. Do you need anyone else in the tribe to call it a tribe? No, you don’t, but I think there’s more to your solidarity than purely a common philosphical thread, whether you see it or not.

We do see it, but anthropologically, a tribe is a family; the core of the Tribe of Anthropik that remains is the strongest part. We were the members who spent the most time together, and as Cory points out, there is more binding us together than mere philosophy.

In fact, that is a major element not to be neglected. Before our hiatus, Mike wrote:

Members of a group don’t care that other members be like them in every way. They only care about those similarities that are essential to the group. This is why I think groups based on ideas and beliefs tend to have more closed-mindedness. Because by opening your mind to new ideas and new beliefs, you’re compromising what makes the group a group. But groups like herds, packs, tribes–they aren’t based on beliefs. They’re based on a goal. That goal is to make a living. Members of goal-based groups generally don’t care as much about other members’ beliefs (unless they’re totally outlandish). If I work at a widget production company, I could work with somebody that I disagree with on just about everything. If he’s good at making widgets and we work well together, it’s probably not going to be that big of an issue.

A tribe is not built around ideas. Daniel Quinn was quite explicit about this, when he wrote about the comparison of tribes and communes. Tribes are built around a goal: making a living. They have a characteristic means of pursuing that goal–egalitarianism and reciprocity–but it is a goal-based group, not a philosophically-based group. Cory’s concern about our tribe’s philosophical basis is misplaced: we do not have one. We merely have a goal: to escape civilization, and to live instead as humans.

If someone seeks to join the Tribe of Anthropik, they are not tested for their philosophy. They are tested for their personality (personality clashes are much more important to avoid in a tribe than in a cubicle farm), their contribution, and their attitude towards the tribe. Do they really want to take part in our reciprocity, or do they simply want to abuse it? These are the important criteria: not whether or not they agree with us philosophically. If a right-wing, evangelical Creationist who though civilization was the best thing ever shared our goals (maybe he thinks civilization is great for others, but he’d rather have something else for himself), truly took part in our reciprocity, and didn’t present any major personality issues with existing members, we’d welcome him with open arms–even moreso because he disagrees with us. Diversity is the greatest source of strength; intellectual diversity, included. The tribe is able to leverage that strength because it is not a group defined by an idea; it is defined by a goal.

The goal that the Tribe of Anthropik revolves around is to survive the collapse of civilization. In a century, there will probably still be cities: ruined enclaves where life is nasty, brutish and short. But the culmination rising for 2012-2015 makes it extremely likely that our civilization will reach its “breaking point,” and begin a precipitous decline into catabolic collapse within the next ten years.

The Tribe of Anthropik’s goal is to escape such devastation (and perhaps, in so doing, to provide an example of one possible escape route to others) by making a living together, in the only manner that’s ever proven effective on the long term: in an egalitarian, tribal framework.

Though, even if there were no collapse looming, we’d still pursue this goal. Civilization is dehumanizing–we do not want to live our whole lives as cogs. We want to live before we die. The only thing the spectre of collapse changes for our plans is that it makes them plausible–without collapse, civilization is unstoppable and inescapable, and freedom can only be a fleeting anomoly that’s quickly strangled. Even if we faced that, I know I, personally, would rather die for a few days of freedom, than live many long decades of subjugation.

The most difficult part of our goal is not learning primitive skills–though that is crucial, and takes up most of our preparation time at the moment–but learning to create a sustainable culture. What do we keep? What do we change? Where do we look for inspiration when we find our own customs wanting?

At present, we are still deeply enmeshed in our civilization. That is changing. The life of a forager is a relatively easy one. What is difficult is being a forager on civilization’s fringe. That is extremely difficult. One possibility we’ve discussed is to purchase two or more plots of land adjacent to some national forest. Most national forests could support a band of hunter-gatherers living carefully within the law, but the laws as they currently stand do not make that an easy proposition. Rangers are mostly interested in the marijuana growers who set up shop in the national forests, but that makes them very keen on the usual “no camps for more than 14 days” rule. Migrating seasonally between two or more properties not only emulates normal forager transhumance, it also avoids the most difficult part of living in a national forest–where you actually do your living.

Bag limits and hunting and fishing regulations make purely hunting all of one’s food a daunting prospect, so even though permaculture is far dicier as a long-term prospect than simply hunting and gathering, it may be necessary in the crucial interrim period of co-existence. The owned properties provide the land to grow permaculture gardens and sow the beginnings of a food forest. When combined with an avid pursuit of game up to the legal limits, providing a band’s full nutritional requirements year-long becomes plausible.

Of course, with land comes taxes, and hunting and fishing licenses require money. There are a number of other expenses to consider. While the meager salaries one can attain from the internet and writing may be too little for a fully civilized man, once the need for utilities, rent, mortgage, grocery bills, et cetera ad nauseum are eliminated by the forager lifestyle, such a meager salary may become quite sufficient. At that stage, our need for money–our need for civilization–is predicated solely on the things civilization itself demands from us at the point of a gun: tax money, licenses, and so forth. When we do not need civilization for sustenance, shelter or community–when we need it only to obtain the “protection money” to keep them from hitting us like the mob, then I think we can reasonably call ourselves “self-sufficient.”

That’s still in the future, though. For now, we’re learning the basic skills and beginning to stitch together the start of a new culture. Whatever way we eventually come up with, though, it will be whatever means to that end we deem most likely to yield success. Our goal–the thing that defines us as a tribe–remains the same: to become human. That’s what we are; that’s what we’re trying to do. That’s the Tribe of Anthropik.