By Brian Stewart
Monday, May 23, 2016
Your humble servant recently came across a report showing
that Israel scores highly in surveys of human happiness. The World Happiness
Report 2016 Update ranks Israel 11th in the world out of 158 countries. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Life Satisfaction Index
rates Israel fifth out of 36 countries — ahead of many other advanced
democracies.
At first blush, these data may seem unexpected, since
Israel lives under the constant threat of terrorist violence. By definition,
such violence does not discriminate between military and civilian targets, and
strikes its victims at random. Yet it is partially because of this danger (not
in spite of it) that citizens of the Jewish state exhibit remarkable degrees of
personal fulfillment. The stresses of war and terror often breed social unity.
Little wonder that 83 percent of Israel’s Jewish citizens consider their
nationality “significant” to their identity.
Milan Kundera once defined a small nation as “one whose
very existence may be put in question at any moment; a small nation can
disappear, and it knows it.” Since its inception, Israel has faced aggressive
neighbors bent on its destruction — a near-constant reminder of its precarious
status in the order of nations. Israelis have responded to existential danger
by banding together as if they belonged to a vast kibbutz settlement. They
have, in other words, taken quite literally the ancient Israelite claim to be
people of the tribe.
The phenomenon of tribal solidarity isn’t confined to
Jews. It is the subject of Sebastian Junger’s enthralling new book, Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging.
Junger offers a richly researched work of history, psychology, and anthropology
to explore the deep appeal of the tribal culture throughout history. The result
is a tour de force that should be read by anyone interested in the human condition.
Junger previously served as a war correspondent for Vanity Fair, embedding for long
stretches at remote American outposts in Afghanistan’s frightful Korengal
valley. This experience may help explain his interest in the intimate bonds
that define tribal societies as well as the despair that can come from being
wrenched out of a situation that makes those bonds necessary.
Tribe aptly
opens with Benjamin Franklin’s observation, decades before the American
Revolution, that more than a few English settlers were “escaping into the
woods” to join Indian society. Doctor Franklin noticed that emigration seemed
to go from the civilized to the tribal, but rarely the other way around. White
captives of the American Indians, for instance, often did not wish to be
repatriated to colonial society. At this distance, it is simply astonishing
that so many frontiersmen would have cast off the relative comforts of
civilization in favor an “empire wilderness” rife with Stone Age tribes that,
as Junger notes, “had barely changed in 15,000 years.”
The small but significant flow of white men — they were
mostly men — into the tree-line sat uncomfortably with those who stayed behind.
Without indulging the modern temptation to romanticize what was a blood-soaked
way of life, Junger hazards an explanation for the appeal of tribal culture.
Western society was a diverse and dynamic but deeply alienating place. (Plus ça change…) This stood in stark
contrast to native life, which was essentially classless and egalitarian. The
“intensely communal nature of an Indian tribe” provided a high degree of
autonomy — as long as it didn’t threaten the defense of the tribe, which was
punishable by death — as well as a sense of belonging.
“The question for Western society isn’t so much why tribal
life might be so appealing — it seems obvious on the face of it — but why
Western society is so unappealing.” Junger is making a provocative point, but
he is no provocateur. He swiftly justifies this jarring idea:
On a material level it is clearly
more comfortable and protected from the hardships of the natural world. But as
societies become more affluent they tend to require more, rather than less,
time and commitment by the individual, and it’s possible that many people feel
that affluence and safety simply aren’t a good trade for freedom.
If there is any doubt on this point, consider the
alarming rates of PTSD among our warrior class, and the desire among many of
them to return to war — a subject on which Junger has been at the leading edge
of the public discussion. When combat vets return home, the alienation and
aimlessness of modern society aggravates their psychological traumas and
prompts them to yearn for the brotherhood of combat. It’s not for nothing that
a recent book on post-traumatic stress is entitled The Evil Hours.
War is hell, so this scourge of loneliness may seem the
inevitable price for those who fight in them. The second half of Tribe insists that this impression is
gravely mistaken. “Studies from around the world show that recovery from war is
heavily influenced by the society one belongs to,” Junger observes. Iroquois
warriors, for instance, did not have to contend with much alienation because
the line between warfare and normal Indian society was vanishingly thin. This
is not to deny that the Iroquois were traumatized by combat, but it was
generally acute PTSD, limited in duration and distress. Their trauma was
ameliorated by the fact that the trauma was shared by the entire tribe.
Interestingly, Junger identifies the largely homogeneous
— and happy — state of Israel as “arguably the only modern country that retains
sufficient sense of community to mitigate the effects of combat on a mass
scale.” The Israeli Defense Forces — which are culled from roughly half of the
population — have by some measures a PTSD rate as low as 1 percent. Israel, as
we have seen, is a polity steeped in national purpose and patriotism, and this
certainly helps explain that young Israelis whose fathers have been casualties
of war experience less depression and anxiety than those who lose their fathers
to accidents.
Even America’s World War II generation did not suffer the
rates of trauma that are common today. Of course, a broad swathe of American
society served under arms in a conscript army that at its peak, together with
the Navy and Marines, fielded a force 12 million strong. It was also crucial
that the GI generation came home to a remarkably cohesive society that had
shared in and sympathized with the sacrifices that had been made.
Contemporary America is a considerably less consolidated
society than it used to be. Cultural diffusion and economic stratification have
increased the isolation felt by those who have borne the heat and burden of
battle. I won’t soon forget the photograph shown to me upon my arrival in basic
training by a particularly hard-bitten drill sergeant. It captured a graffito
scribbled on a wall in Ramadi, Iraq, that read: “America is not at war. The
Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.”
Multiple studies demonstrate that “a person’s chance of
getting chronic PTSD is in great part a function of their experiences before going to war.” The relationship
between combat and trauma seems to be a murky one. For instance, “combat veterans
are, statistically, no more likely to kill themselves than veterans who were
never under fire.” (Even a significant number of Peace Corps volunteers report
suffering severe depression after their return home, especially if their host
country was in a state of emergency when they did.) In Junger’s telling,
particular burdens endured by disadvantaged Americans — from a poor educational
background to chaotic family life — can make a candidate especially susceptible
to PTSD. Indeed, these risk factors “are nearly as predictive of PTSD as the
severity of the trauma itself.”
The decline of social order and solidarity has
contributed to a loss of what researchers call “social resilience.” This has
simultaneously supplied more potential candidates for PTSD and impaired
society’s ability to help them recover. The United States must place a premium
on boosting its levels of social resilience. Americans should no longer be
content to simply thank veterans for their service; sporting events are not
places of healing. Nor should they seek to outsource the responsibility to the
federal government. The solution lies closer to home, in the mediating
institutions of civil society — from families to churches to community and
professional associations.
First, ex-combatants shouldn’t be regarded, or encouraged
to regard themselves, as victims. America is an affluent country, Junger
writes, that can afford to perpetually care for a victim class of veterans
dependent on government largesse, “but the vets can’t.” They have generally
performed exemplary service for which they should be honored, and they must
know that their service is not over.
Next, veterans (like most social animals) depend upon a
sense of purpose that begins with a job and a position in society. Here the “hire
vets” initiatives and retraining programs are necessary but insufficient. The
traditional means of securing social resilience has been egalitarian social
provision. Individualist America may blanch at that notion, but it should at
least act to build a more open economy and inclusive culture where individuals
can reliably advance by merit and develop social capital.
And last, a revival of national cohesion is needed if we
are to arrest the full savagery of battlefield trauma. This will require what
Edmund Burke called “a revolution in sentiments, manners and moral opinions.”
One clue about how to achieve this can be found in the early pages of Tribe, when Junger tells an affecting
anecdote about his father. Not long after the end of the Vietnam War, the author
had received a Selective Service registration form in the mail, in case the
United States government ever needed to conscript him into the military. When
he announced that, if drafted, he would refuse to serve on political grounds,
his father’s reaction caught him off guard. Although sternly opposed to the war
in Indochina, Junger’s father insisted that American soldiers had “saved the
world” from fascism during World War II and many never came home.
“‘You don’t owe your country nothing,’ I remember him telling me. ‘You owe it something, and depending on what
happens, you might owe it your life.’” This did not oblige anyone to enlist in
an unjust war — “in his opinion, protesting an immoral war was just as
honorable and necessary as fighting a moral one” — but it did mean that the
country had just claims on its citizens, and refusing to sign a registration
form constituted a dereliction of duty.
This passage calls to mind John Updike’s book of memoirs,
Self-Consciousness, in which he
expresses his contempt for the counterculture that allowed opposition to the
Vietnam War to become an indictment of American society writ large. In the
poignant chapter “On Not Being a Dove,” Updike writes that his “undovishness”
was a product of his “battered and vestigial but unsurrendered” faith in God
and country. “I was grateful to be exempted from the dirty, dreary business of
maintaining the overarching order, and felt that a silent non-protest was the
least I in gratitude owed those who were not exempted.”
In this age of social and economic fragmentation, many of
our disadvantaged fellow citizens have begun to chafe against an elite class
that often behaves as if it were exempted from the national compact. Nobody
should be surprised if the ranks of disaffected citizens – not least those who
have borne arms in our name and in our defense — ultimately decide that the
sensibility of the tribe is superior to our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment