Whether it’s Israel against Palestine, liberals against conservatives, or the Mets against the Yankees, we often believe that our firm, almost religious-like loyalty is normal, unavoidable, and even beneficial. This belief stems from an evolutionary advantage that supposedly helped our species survive.
The common understanding is that human communities have been united by the desire to belong since the beginning. Without this, cooperation wouldn’t have been possible. Therefore, humans are considered inherently tribal due to our evolutionary past. Being part of a group or tribe increased an individual’s survival chances.
While this theory has some truth, it’s only a partial view of a more intricate story.
Our society has instilled the idea that we’re all born with a natural urge to belong and to connect with caregivers. However, many discussions about attachment confuse it with the desire to belong. While attachment is evolution’s way to ensure we bond with parents and providers, anything beyond that is learned.
We are born without affiliations. A newborn doesn’t have a religion, nationality, or ethnicity. Babies don’t naturally attach to groups of strangers. They’re unaware of relationships between adults and complex social concepts. They don’t recognize a group or their place in it.
However, babies are aware of themselves. They can signal their needs, though their understanding of social behavior is basic, and their communication is vague. Around age three, as language helps them understand others’ needs and opinions, children are taught their belonging to certain groups.
Initially, their needs are met unconditionally. But now, children learn that caregiver approval depends on socially acceptable behavior.
Social concepts like “share” and “let others go first” are taught without explanation. We say, “This is how you make friends,” and reward communal behavior with praise.
Meanwhile, caregivers encourage a shift from the parallel play of toddlerhood—where children play independently in the same space—to more interactive play that requires responding to others. The once self-centered toddler is guided into a communal life.
As children grow, they have many opportunities to join peers in carpools, camps, sports, and clubs. Classrooms are divided into teams to reinforce group identity. Assimilating into these groups is seen as crucial for social and emotional health, with opting out rarely considered.
The pressure to conform increases in adolescence when children learn that disregarding the group leads to unhappiness and rejection, while conformity brings social rewards. The desire for popularity becomes strong, and the criteria for joining popular groups become stricter.
No other cognitive behavioral training is as widespread.
This training shapes most children’s upbringing. We learn that functioning as an adult means forming identities based on group belonging. Our culture emphasizes community, making a different view seem abnormal.
I disagree.
Communal behavior can be valuable for a society facing shared difficulties. For individuals, belonging to a group, like a religious community or a circle of friends, can provide social support and ease feelings about life’s futility.
But in today’s world, the communal impulse doesn’t necessarily make us feel safer or more content. Our polarized politics show that it often does the opposite. From systemic racism to authoritarian politics and war, the urge to “belong” alienates us.
Cruelty is too high a price for belonging. Kindness doesn’t require permission, and cruelty should be abandoned. As exclusionary demands grow louder, we need individual empathy, compassion, and kindness, not more groups. As Henrik Ibsen wrote, “When society’s values are corrupted, it is the duty of the individual to uphold true morality.”
“`