Tribalism Will Triumph: The Politics of Fertility

When liberals look at the modern world, they see the retreat of tribalism as a sign of moral progress. With some notable exceptions, such as China and Singapore, the wealthiest and most productive countries in the world are broadly liberal. By liberalism, we mean a political order centered on individual rights, private property, markets, and decentralized power. These institutions have played a large role in producing the wealth of the modern world.

We might be tempted to conclude that liberalism has emerged as the clear winner in the competition between ideologies. But cultural and biological evolution are best measured across centuries and millennia, not decades. Just as a biological trait can last for generations before a novel environmental threat emerges, ideologies and institutions can flourish in the short run even as they create the conditions for their own demise. 

The Coevolution of Genes and Cultures

We are not the first to advance this kind of argument. Despite his opposition to socialism, Joseph Schumpeter concluded that “a socialist form of society will inevitably emerge” from the conditions created by capitalism. Plato thought that “dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the worst form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” 

The arguments advanced by Plato and Schumpeter were purely cultural. Our argument is partly biological: culture has a deep influence on which genes find their ways into future bodies, which in turn influence what kinds of cultures emerge.

We argue that liberalism will fail in the long run—in part—because it achieves its goals so well. By enforcing private property rights, encouraging free trade, and replacing tribal attachments with the pursuit of individual projects, liberalism enables people to place personal achievements over national, ethnic, or religious goals. 

Causes and Consequences

Individualism and secularism, however, are strongly associated with fertility declines. As Eric Kaufman emphasizes, “wherever faith has fallen…so has fertility.” When people believe there are no collective goals to fight for, people do not want as many children. They often prioritize personal success over civilizational necessities. It is not surprising, then, that as Americans have become less religious and less patriotic, fertility has fallen.

Perhaps more importantly, political orientation is moderately heritable, so those who are less patriotic and religious by nature will tend to have fewer children than average, even if patriotism and religiosity are also influenced by social norms and parenting. Evolutionary biologists have been arguing for over a century that culture and personality interact to shape fertility. The father of statistical genetics, Sir Ronald Fisher, asserted that “temperamental qualities exert a great influence in determining celibacy, or age of marriage, both in men and women.” Recent evidence vindicates this view.

Case Study: Israel

Within and between countries, people who are more conservative and religious have significantly more children. Given enough time, we have good reason to believe that people will tend to inherit personalities that lead them away from liberal institutions. 

Israel is probably the most extreme case study. The modern instantiation of Israel was forged by secular Ashkenazi Jews who fled persecution in Russia and Germany. Yet they built pro-natalist institutions and family-friendly policies that enabled the Orthodox to have vastly more children than secular Jews. Israeli society is growing more religious and more conservative as a consequence. It is also the only developed country in the world that has above-replacement fertility. 

It is safe to say that those who are the most religious and conservative have the most children.

Fertility remains above replacement even among secular Jews, suggesting that Israel’s broader institutional environment (not religiosity alone) encourages people to have children. Still, it is safe to say that those who are most religious and conservative have the most children. 

The Triumph of Tribalism

Over a long enough time frame, we believe that tribalism will triumph. Since religiosity, nationalism, and ethnocentrism are different ways of fostering group cohesion and fertility, some combination of this triad is likely to supplant liberal norms and institutions. Some countries will probably disappear, while others will change their political character. 

Tribalism is a dirty word to progressive ears, since it is a form of parochialism rather than universalism. It says that we should divide the world into “us” and “them” rather than continually increasing the circle of sympathy. 

But maybe we shouldn’t be so worried. After all, love and friendship are also parochial, and they are a core part of what gives us meaning in life. The important question is whether we should prefer one kind of tribalism over another.

Enlightened tribalism may preserve institutions associated with liberalism without accepting liberalism as its governing philosophy.

Religion is not only adaptive but may have even been selected for because it was such a powerful force for fostering collective action and boosting fertility. Ethnocentrism is also adaptive, since it tends to be a stable solution to the game-theoretic problem of deciding who to cooperate with in a situation of scarcity and uncertainty. Because members of an ethnic group are, on average, more closely related to each other than to outsiders, investing in the group can also promote the survival and reproduction of one’s wider kin.

This does not mean religiosity and nationalism are always good. Either can be hijacked to subvert the purpose for which it evolved. For example, some contemporary churches have moved away from traditional teachings on marriage, childbearing, and family life, thereby weakening the norms through which religious communities historically sustained cohesion and fertility. National Socialism is a clear example of an ethnonationalist movement that not only devastated “out” groups such as Slavs and Jews but led to such an overwhelming defeat that Germany was neutered for a century after the war. 

Enlighted Tribalism

We think that if tribalism is a more stable strategy than liberalism, its greater stability also counts in its favor ethically. But we recognize that some forms of tribalism can be destructive to the nation itself, or to other nations. 

Enlightened tribalism occupies a middle ground between liberal cosmopolitanism and blind tribalism. It encourages leaders to build on, rather than suppress, evolved attachments to family, nation and civilization. A healthy society cultivates loyalty, supports family formation, and sustains a shared historical identity. Relations between societies should rely not on cosmopolitan charity, but on reciprocity through trade, treaties, and other forms of mutually beneficial cooperation. The aim is a world of distinct, self-confident civilizations.

Enlightened tribalism may preserve institutions associated with liberalism without accepting liberalism as its governing philosophy. Property rights, markets, freedom of inquiry, and restraints on arbitrary power can strengthen a people by allowing adaptive solutions to emerge. But when individual choice conflicts with demographic continuity, social cohesion, or national survival, the group’s long-term interests take priority. For example, individuals may prefer to use their time or resources as they choose, but a society may require national service when its security depends on it, or use taxes and transfers to support families with children when persistent low fertility threatens demographic continuity. Such a society may also have school curricula that emphasize the importance and continuity of their unique traditions and people, rather than promoting diversity, equality, and inclusion in all its forms.

There is little reason to expect liberalism, as the governing ideal of political life, to endure indefinitely. Its demographic weakness follows from its tendency to place individual choice above collective obligations. As communities sustained by stronger religious, national, and civilizational commitments gain demographic and political weight, the liberal age will recede. The question is not whether tribal attachments will return, but whether they will be guided by prudence and reciprocity, or take shortsighted, self-defeating forms. 

Jonathan Anomaly is a professor and cofounder of a genetics company. He has published two books: Creating Future People (Routledge) and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics: An Anthology (Oxford University Press).

Filipe Nobre Faria is a professor of political philosophy and co-author of “Can Liberalism Last” and "Enlightened Tribalism,” among many other articles. 

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, policies, or positions of the Institute for Family Studies.

*Photo credit: Shutterstock