In this interview, Nikos Sotirakopoulos discusses tribalism, identity politics, and the future of liberalism in what seems to be an increasingly divided world.
About the Guest
Nikos Sotirakopoulos is the author of The Rise of Lifestyle Activism and Identity Politics and Tribalism. He holds a PhD in political sociology, and his work focuses on tribalism, identity politics, liberalism, and the ideas shaping modern political culture. You can follow him on X at @Nikos_17 and subscribe to his Substack.
Interview
Simon Sarevski: Before we talk about serious topics, I feel like we need to start with definitions about what we are really talking about. Thus, what is tribalism?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: Tribalism is a mindset, a way of viewing the world, a prism under which you view yourself and others. It’s a pair of glasses you put on, and you see yourself and others not as individuals, but as members of groups; groups that are in competition with each other.
We know that there is a bad part, but what is the “good” part of tribalism, if there is one? Why are human beings drawn to it in the first place?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: There is no good part in tribalism. There is a great benefit from cooperation and solidarity; but these things are incompatible with tribalism. Cooperation means I find people with whom I share goals, dreams, and values, and we put our efforts together towards a common goal. We have chosen this goal because it will make our life better. Think of a corporation, or a science lab, or a martial arts dojo. Tribalism is different; we are united based on group allegiance, or some basic superficial characteristics (like the color of our skin), and there is no effort to pursue productive goals, but just to fight it out with other tribes. Many are drawn to it because it is the easy, lazy choice; it is a choice by default. If I haven’t achieved anything in my life, and I don’t bother to put in the effort to achieve anything in the future, I can just identify as being Greek, or ‘anti-woke,’ or whatever, and expect this to give meaning to my life as I fight the other tribes.
What are the main differences between the identity politics employed by the Left and the Right? Are they equally dangerous, or do they threaten different institutions and values?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: They are equally poisonous, first and foremost for the person who buys into these identity politics. Tribalism makes you stupid, as it atrophies your brain – the main navigating instrument you have in life. You substitute your judgement with the party-line and the consensus of the group. But more to your question: in the short term, identity politics of the Left are more dangerous. This is because they have more cultural dominance, and they enjoy a veneer of respectability in academia and the established media. In the long term, the tribalism of the Right will prevail, as the Left has taken it too far and only a few ‘normal people’ — people not embedded in the woke echo chamber — can buy into it. Though there’s a 3rd alternative: a hybrid of Left and Right tribalism, which will embody the worst characteristics of both. I already predicted such a development, and I see worrying signs we’re getting there.
How are today’s culture wars different from those of the past? Are we exaggerating modern polarization, or are there genuinely worrying parallels with the mass political movements of the 20th century?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: Mass movements of the 20th century were more based on ideology and an intellectual commitment. This also made their followers more willing to kill and die for. Both communism and fascism are examples of the above. Also, it was a different era with a different type of people; think of the veterans of WWI, and how familiar they were with violence. Luckily, these days we are lacking this level of commitment, combined with this ‘human type’. But this doesn’t mean we are safe. Notice how in the last few years, violence is more and more accepted as part of the game (see the riots of the summer of 2020, the events of January 6th, celebrations of Hamas at universities, the excuses for the murder of Brian Thompson, the health insurance CEO, etc.).
Does geopolitical conflict inevitably intensify tribal politics at home? Are we witnessing a return to nation-centered tribalism?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: Not necessarily. A geopolitical conflict can be one based on values: see, for example, the Cold War, where you had relatively free societies facing an authoritarian system that negated your right to your own life. I still think today the big-picture geopolitical conflict (the West vs China-Russia-Iran, etc.) is still one based on values, so it does not have to lead to tribalism. I feel a close affinity to Ukrainian fighters, for example, though I have zero tribal-level connection with them.
What role have elites, media, universities, and especially social media played in intensifying tribalism? Are algorithms radicalizing people, or merely revealing instincts that were already there?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: The no.1 culprit is the education system, academia, and our intellectuals. For decades, they have taught people to view themselves first and foremost as members of groups, with the intellectual poison of Marxism, standpoint theory, intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, etc. Social media mostly exacerbates what is already there in one’s mind.
Are people truly ideological, or are most of us primarily seeking belonging, meaning, status, and community?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: Let’s be careful with our words, and let’s not give tribalists a leg to stand on when they don’t deserve one. The search for meaning — a purpose in life — and the search for community — people with whom you share values, ideas, positive productive goals — are great things. But what does it mean to seek to ‘belong’? The way tribalists use the term, it can mean giving up responsibility for your own life. It can mean that the burden of thinking, of making up your own mind, is too heavy for you, and thus you delegate it to someone else. But to quote my favourite author, Ayn Rand: “When a man declares: ‘Who am I to know?’—he is declaring: ‘Who am I to live?’”
When we look at events like Trump vs. anti-Trump politics, Brexit, or even tribal dynamics in universities or sports fandoms, are we seeing fundamentally the same psychological mechanism across different domains — or are some forms of tribalism more ‘political’ and others more harmless or even socially productive?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: At its root, it’s the same phenomenon. Remember…tribalism is a way of thinking, or, better, a way of NON-thinking. It’s a ‘technology,’ a software, and it just applies in different ways in different areas.
Why has universalism lost prestige compared to identity-based thinking, and can liberal societies remain stable without some shared cultural or moral foundation?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: Because thinking in first principles, and consciously choosing some values to guide your life takes effort. It is an achievement, which is why 99,999% of human history is tribal warfare, poverty, and misery. The West, based on the ideas of the Enlightenment, in short, reason and liberty, is the exception, and if we don’t cherish it enough, it will soon be a memory.
Regarding the second part of your question, absolutely no: liberal societies cannot remain stable without a foundation of the values that make such a society possible.
Is liberalism psychologically “thin” for human beings? Does freedom require some deeper, non-political source of cohesion and meaning?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: Liberalism is “thin” if it tries to survive on a borrowed morality; the morality of non-liberal movements and of non-liberal eras. If your goal on this earth is to sacrifice your one and precious life for something ‘bigger than yourself,’ then you don’t need liberalism.
There are 100 shades of collectivism and authoritarianism that can help you throw your life away to some god, a king, the proletariat, the white race – you name it. Liberalism requires its own value proposition…one that says ‘my life is mine, and I have a right to live it for my own happiness, to pursue my own goals, to form bonds of love and solidarity with the people I want. It is up to me to find the meaning of my life.’ Either we’ll grow the backbone to defend liberalism on this basis, or liberalism will keep losing, as it currently does.
What does non-tribal thinking actually look like in practice? What can individuals realistically do to resist becoming tribal themselves? Or should we maybe become ever more tribal?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: This is like asking, “What can individuals realistically do to avoid drinking poison?” Just don’t drink the poison. There is zero benefit in drinking it; it will literally destroy your life.
Non-tribal thinking is proper thinking. It asks, “Is this true?” and not, “Who says so?” It is the choice to make reality itself your final arbiter, not your group’s party line. Just open your eyes and try to make sense of the world objectively – which means, try to tune your mind with the facts of reality.
Here’s a random example…let’s say in the war in Ukraine I support Ukraine — which I do. If I see a report though that Ukrainians torture for fun Russian prisoners, the proper attitude is not to dismiss it as “meh, surely Russian propaganda” or “even if it happened, it’s okay, because I’m on team Ukraine.”
The proper question to ask is: a) did it happen? Who says so? How can I find good verifiable sources on whether this is true? And b) If it proves to be true, then I ask: is torturing prisoners ok with my value system? What do I claim to stand for in this world? What type of values do I propagate? Is me whitewashing this behaviour in accordance with my values?
P.S. The example is hypothetical…Luckily, I haven’t come across such reports.
For a young and curious person trying to better understand tribalism, politics, freedom, and human nature — besides your own Identity Politics and Tribalism: The New Culture Wars — what books would you recommend they start with?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: As you said, I’d start with my book! Also, if you put on YouTube my name and tribalism, you’ll find various videos where I condense the argument in shorter form. Then, I’d check out the book The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity, which examines how tribalism took over social institutions. For a deeper dive, this playlist from my former colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute will make you an expert on the topic.
You’ve spoken before about individualism and freedom — so let me end with this: how does one find freedom in an unfree world?
Nikos Sotirakopoulos: First of all, the world is remarkably free, by historical standards. Amazing stuff is possible, though we want to 10x this, and then the sky is the limit. The most important question to ask is this: what do we want freedom for? And the answer is: to live a great life. So my message to our movement is: we need to have a positive vision for liberty. The goal is not ‘liberty, so that we don’t end up in gulags,’ though not ending up in gulags is a good start! The goal is: ‘liberty, so that life can be amazing, in ways we haven’t even started to imagine.’ Too many in the liberty movement fight only against something, not for something. I don’t just want to ‘end the Fed’ or abolish the regulatory state. I want maglev trains, geo-engineering, curing all major diseases, living an active life til the age of 150. And we need liberty for such great endeavours.