I’d like to pick the brain of the community about something. I’ve been thinking about how we often resolve the conflict between the individual and the group using the concept of “Enlightened Individualism”. To me, this means that there are certain ways to pursue one’s personal interests that correspond with benefiting the group.
This seems to imply a general analysis. If we start with ego centric, ethno centric, and world centric then we might say that a problem can occur when acting from one center harms a different center. So acting from the ego was reconciled with the tribe, and even the entire world, with the introduction of Enlightened Individualism. I would argue that something similar has happened for World centrism, where we realized that attempting, for instance, to totally assimilate everyone into a generic way of thinking and acting, what we might call “assimilationist orange”, may appear to help the entire world but at the expense of the tribe (ethno) and the individual (ego). We seemed to have resolved this conflict with a form of pluralism that allows individuals to find their own path, which can include borrowing from the world’s modern and pre-modern traditions. We might call this “individualistic green”.
So the big question I have is, has there been a resolution of the dangers the tribe presents to the individual and the entire world? Do we still see the tribe as attempting to destroy the ego and the world? We might call the resolution “Enlightened Tribalism”, where acting in the interest of the tribe corresponds with benefiting the individual (ego) and humanity in general (world).
My question for you all is, what would Enlightened Tribalism look like? What limits should be placed on tribalism and what benefits can it offer the world and the individual?