Help
Sign In
clare graves
November 2009 
Tribal War in South Ossetsia
Posted on Aug 16th, 2008
by 
Albert
Albert
This is from the blog of Keith Rice
wwwi.integratedsociopsychology.net
its a good first analysis in spiral light about what is going on in the Caucasus, and not only there. This is how Keith summarizes it:
The latest Blog on www.integratedsociopsychology.net looks at the underlying
causes of the conflict and how natural PURPLE tensions are exploited by
RED-driven demagogues. 'Tribal'War in South Ossetia' compares the 'Velvet
Divorce' break-up of Czechoslavakia with the brutal wars of separation in the
former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia and suggests considerations for
the United States and other countries concerned to intervene.
SPIEGEL ONLINE
Tribal War in South Ossetsia
Random Thoughts of a SocioPsychologist -
Tribal War in South Ossetia
Posted by keith at 12:34 pm, August 15th 2008.
As the Russian-Georgian conflict in South Ossetia inches towards a volatile, dangerous and perhaps quite short-lived peace, it is a good time for those who would intervene - ‘soft cops' like France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and ‘hard cops' such as American Vice President Dick Cheney - to study the nature of such conflicts, how they arise, how they can be managed, hopefully resolved and, better still, prevented. Better informed, their interventions may have a chance of working.
With ethnic Russian breakaway forces in Abkhazia equally determined to resist Georgian attempts at reintegration and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pronouncing that Moscow cannot work with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, with both armies bloodied and ready to resume combat at the slightest provocation, with civilian dead estimated in the thousands and the two governments hurling accusations of ethnic cleansing and would-be genocide at each other, there is every potential for an awful lot more lives to be lost in the next few months.
At root South Ossetia is a conflict of PURPLE tribalism. The PURPLE vMEME seeks security in belonging; in belonging to some, it demarks itself from others - all too easily leading to prejudice and discrimination against those who are "not of our tribe". Thus, it marks the tribe of Lancashire as distinct from the tribe of Yorkshire and the clan of MacDonald from the clan of Campbell. But where supra-identities can be created, Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen are both ‘English' and MacDonald and Campbell are both ‘Scottish' and England can be marked as distinct from Scotland. English and Scottish can - and have been - ‘British' when dealing with external ‘beyond' challenges - eg: building the British Empire and fighting the Germans in two World Wars. Now, of course, Britons and Germans are ‘Europeans'. Yet still there is prejudice between Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen and between MacDonalds and Campbells.
Racial, religious and political differences can all be used as tribal markers by PURPLE. In fact, anything that distinguishes your own tribe from another.
So ethnic Russians, as they see themselves, are not from the same tribe as ethnic Georgians, as they see themselves. The ‘other lot' are not from our tribe.
That, in itself, need not be a problem. Psychologists from Clare W Graves to William Samuel have reported that studies of tribes untainted by anything beyond their own tribal existence describe them as showing little aggression. When they do become aggressive, it is a defensive aggression to protect themselves and/or their resources - and one of the most important resources for a tribe is its land. So South Ossetia, like Bosnia and Kosovo before it, is a tribal conflict over land.
Unfortunately there seems to be little appreciation of PURPLE tribalism in the more sophisticated thinking of key Western policymakers. Some 12-years-plus after the start of the tribal wars which tore Yugoslavia apart, the United States' invasion of Iraq got bogged down in internecine tribal wars which the invaders had failed utterly to anticipate. Even now it can be argued that one of the single biggest obstacles to progress in Iraq is the US determination to impose one man/one (secret) vote democracy - a BLUE system beyond the understanding of many Iraqis whose PURPLE looks to their tribal leaders to be told what to do and how to think.
Read More..
wwwi.integratedsociopsychology.net
its a good first analysis in spiral light about what is going on in the Caucasus, and not only there. This is how Keith summarizes it:
The latest Blog on www.integratedsociopsychology.net looks at the underlying
causes of the conflict and how natural PURPLE tensions are exploited by
RED-driven demagogues. 'Tribal'War in South Ossetia' compares the 'Velvet
Divorce' break-up of Czechoslavakia with the brutal wars of separation in the
former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia and suggests considerations for
the United States and other countries concerned to intervene.
SPIEGEL ONLINE Tribal War in South Ossetsia
Random Thoughts of a SocioPsychologist -
Tribal War in South Ossetia
Posted by keith at 12:34 pm, August 15th 2008.
As the Russian-Georgian conflict in South Ossetia inches towards a volatile, dangerous and perhaps quite short-lived peace, it is a good time for those who would intervene - ‘soft cops' like France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and ‘hard cops' such as American Vice President Dick Cheney - to study the nature of such conflicts, how they arise, how they can be managed, hopefully resolved and, better still, prevented. Better informed, their interventions may have a chance of working.
With ethnic Russian breakaway forces in Abkhazia equally determined to resist Georgian attempts at reintegration and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pronouncing that Moscow cannot work with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, with both armies bloodied and ready to resume combat at the slightest provocation, with civilian dead estimated in the thousands and the two governments hurling accusations of ethnic cleansing and would-be genocide at each other, there is every potential for an awful lot more lives to be lost in the next few months.
At root South Ossetia is a conflict of PURPLE tribalism. The PURPLE vMEME seeks security in belonging; in belonging to some, it demarks itself from others - all too easily leading to prejudice and discrimination against those who are "not of our tribe". Thus, it marks the tribe of Lancashire as distinct from the tribe of Yorkshire and the clan of MacDonald from the clan of Campbell. But where supra-identities can be created, Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen are both ‘English' and MacDonald and Campbell are both ‘Scottish' and England can be marked as distinct from Scotland. English and Scottish can - and have been - ‘British' when dealing with external ‘beyond' challenges - eg: building the British Empire and fighting the Germans in two World Wars. Now, of course, Britons and Germans are ‘Europeans'. Yet still there is prejudice between Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen and between MacDonalds and Campbells.
Racial, religious and political differences can all be used as tribal markers by PURPLE. In fact, anything that distinguishes your own tribe from another.
So ethnic Russians, as they see themselves, are not from the same tribe as ethnic Georgians, as they see themselves. The ‘other lot' are not from our tribe.
That, in itself, need not be a problem. Psychologists from Clare W Graves to William Samuel have reported that studies of tribes untainted by anything beyond their own tribal existence describe them as showing little aggression. When they do become aggressive, it is a defensive aggression to protect themselves and/or their resources - and one of the most important resources for a tribe is its land. So South Ossetia, like Bosnia and Kosovo before it, is a tribal conflict over land.
Unfortunately there seems to be little appreciation of PURPLE tribalism in the more sophisticated thinking of key Western policymakers. Some 12-years-plus after the start of the tribal wars which tore Yugoslavia apart, the United States' invasion of Iraq got bogged down in internecine tribal wars which the invaders had failed utterly to anticipate. Even now it can be argued that one of the single biggest obstacles to progress in Iraq is the US determination to impose one man/one (secret) vote democracy - a BLUE system beyond the understanding of many Iraqis whose PURPLE looks to their tribal leaders to be told what to do and how to think.
Read More..
Access: Public
