What do you think?
Rate this book
Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity And Political Change
Sociology, Political Science
242 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1975
About the author
Harold R. Isaacs
30 books6 followersProfessor Harold R. Isaacs was an American journalist, South-East Asia scholar, author, and professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His son, Professor Arnold R. Isaacs, is also a South-East Asia scholar & has followed in his father's footsteps in many respects.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 18, 2016
This work, written in 1975, attempts to explain the roots and nature of ethnic, national and other forms of group identity. Furthermore, it proposes that these tribalistic identities are of increasing importance in the political and social spheres, as humanity moves towards greater fragmentation rather than unity. Reading in 2016, this can be seen as somewhat prophetic, predating the explosion of ethnic nationalism after the collapse of Communism in the 1990s, the rise of Islamism in the 2000s and indeed the recent rise of European nationalisms over the past few years.
Isaacs traces the origins of this resurgent tribalism to the collapse of European imperialism after World War 2 and the consequent gradual de-legitimization of racial hierarchies as a defining force in the world. He explains that ideologies such as communism failed to ever provide a serious alternative to nationalism. This is certainly an interesting thesis, but it’s at odds with most subsequent accounts of the rise of nationalism in the socialist bloc, which tend to reject the idea that these identities remained “dormant” throughout the Soviet period and were “released” in the 1980s, preferring circumstantial explanations. Unfortunately, Isaacs does not cite any sources whatsoever in the first chapter, where he lays out these general theories. As such, it is entirely unclear whether his explanations are built on substantial sociological research, or are simply summaries of his own anecdotal observations and opinions.
Aside from the first chapter, however, the work is well sourced. The second chapter is particularly rigorous in this respect, providing a seemingly comprehensive summary of the attempts of earlier scholars to define “identity”. In this chapter he draws predominantly on the field of psychology (notably Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson and Erich Fromm), plus to a lesser extent from sociology (Edward Shils) and anthropology (Clifford Geertz). In the end, Isaacs concludes that the central elements of identity are the “primordial” factors of “assumed blood ties, race, language, region and custom”. He credits the importance of these factors to the fact that they provide the individual with some kind of security, and that people are usually exposed to them from birth.
However, rather than a focused attempt to prove or defend the claims made in the first chapter, the remainder of the book is more of a meandering journey through a range of interesting topics related to the issue of identity. As such, it cannot really be compared to later, much more rigorous works on the topic (e.g. those by Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith) and if you’re seeking something along those lines, you may be disappointed. Nonetheless, despite the lack of systematic approach or central driving thesis, this work is worth reading for its wealth of enlightening anecdotes and factoids mixed together with summaries of the ideas of various relevant scholars such as Joshua Fishman and Dankwart Rustow and tied together by Isaacs’ erudite philosophical musings. His account of the shifting senses of identity in the United States in the wake of the civil rights movement are especially interesting.
In my opinion, the only major weakness is the writing. Although Isaacs was a reporter-turned-scholar, his writing style is more literary than academic or journalistic. Some may view this positively, enjoying the poetic and aesthetic quality of his prose, but I personally found it frustrating at times: he sacrifices clarity for verbosity and displays a penchant for superfluous, obscure extended metaphors.
Nonetheless, despite its unnecessarily grandiose prose and lack of thematic focus, I heartily recommend this work, which brings together anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, (socio)linguistics and politics to intelligently discuss the issue of identity.
Isaacs traces the origins of this resurgent tribalism to the collapse of European imperialism after World War 2 and the consequent gradual de-legitimization of racial hierarchies as a defining force in the world. He explains that ideologies such as communism failed to ever provide a serious alternative to nationalism. This is certainly an interesting thesis, but it’s at odds with most subsequent accounts of the rise of nationalism in the socialist bloc, which tend to reject the idea that these identities remained “dormant” throughout the Soviet period and were “released” in the 1980s, preferring circumstantial explanations. Unfortunately, Isaacs does not cite any sources whatsoever in the first chapter, where he lays out these general theories. As such, it is entirely unclear whether his explanations are built on substantial sociological research, or are simply summaries of his own anecdotal observations and opinions.
Aside from the first chapter, however, the work is well sourced. The second chapter is particularly rigorous in this respect, providing a seemingly comprehensive summary of the attempts of earlier scholars to define “identity”. In this chapter he draws predominantly on the field of psychology (notably Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson and Erich Fromm), plus to a lesser extent from sociology (Edward Shils) and anthropology (Clifford Geertz). In the end, Isaacs concludes that the central elements of identity are the “primordial” factors of “assumed blood ties, race, language, region and custom”. He credits the importance of these factors to the fact that they provide the individual with some kind of security, and that people are usually exposed to them from birth.
However, rather than a focused attempt to prove or defend the claims made in the first chapter, the remainder of the book is more of a meandering journey through a range of interesting topics related to the issue of identity. As such, it cannot really be compared to later, much more rigorous works on the topic (e.g. those by Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith) and if you’re seeking something along those lines, you may be disappointed. Nonetheless, despite the lack of systematic approach or central driving thesis, this work is worth reading for its wealth of enlightening anecdotes and factoids mixed together with summaries of the ideas of various relevant scholars such as Joshua Fishman and Dankwart Rustow and tied together by Isaacs’ erudite philosophical musings. His account of the shifting senses of identity in the United States in the wake of the civil rights movement are especially interesting.
In my opinion, the only major weakness is the writing. Although Isaacs was a reporter-turned-scholar, his writing style is more literary than academic or journalistic. Some may view this positively, enjoying the poetic and aesthetic quality of his prose, but I personally found it frustrating at times: he sacrifices clarity for verbosity and displays a penchant for superfluous, obscure extended metaphors.
Nonetheless, despite its unnecessarily grandiose prose and lack of thematic focus, I heartily recommend this work, which brings together anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, (socio)linguistics and politics to intelligently discuss the issue of identity.
November 9, 2024
Maybe not quite a full four stars, perhaps more like 3.75- but I have such great respect and admiration for the late Professor Isaacs that I am happy to spot him the extra quarter-star. While absolutely brilliant and well worth reading for that reason alone, this book is somewhat dated at this point in both style and content. In addition, reading it in 2024 (very nearly fifty years after it was published), and thus knowing what has happened during those many years since it was released, was often profoundly depressing...
To some degree, this work could easily function as a book-length introduction to the somewhat younger but sadly now also late Professor Benedict O'G. Anderson's masterpiece of scholarship, Imagined Communities: Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism, which was published roughly eight years later. Both men were extraordinarily brilliant scholars and fine writers, but Professor Isaacs generally wrote in a more straightforward, plain-spoken style. This was partially, no doubt, a result of his many years working as a journalist before returning to academia after the war, following the publication of his 1947 twin masterwork No Peace For Asia & New Cycle In Asia: Selected Documents on Major International Developments in the Far East, 1943-47. At the same time, though, Professor Isaacs made clear throughout this book that he intended it to be an entry level, but thoroughly new, investigation of the most basic components of human identity- from personal all the way to national, and including every sort of influence in between. Given that Professor Anderson's book looked at essentially the same question(s), but from a quite different perspective (largely historical, in that he attempted to trace, backward in time, the idea of "national identity" all the way to its historical origins), the two works seem to fit together quite well, though most likely that was an unintentional consequence of the particular path each of them were led down by their scholarly interests and curiosity.
In any case, I recommend highly both the present book and Professor Anderson's aforementioned book- though I would suggest that it would make much more sense to read them in chronological order, rather than the reverse as I did!
To some degree, this work could easily function as a book-length introduction to the somewhat younger but sadly now also late Professor Benedict O'G. Anderson's masterpiece of scholarship, Imagined Communities: Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism, which was published roughly eight years later. Both men were extraordinarily brilliant scholars and fine writers, but Professor Isaacs generally wrote in a more straightforward, plain-spoken style. This was partially, no doubt, a result of his many years working as a journalist before returning to academia after the war, following the publication of his 1947 twin masterwork No Peace For Asia & New Cycle In Asia: Selected Documents on Major International Developments in the Far East, 1943-47. At the same time, though, Professor Isaacs made clear throughout this book that he intended it to be an entry level, but thoroughly new, investigation of the most basic components of human identity- from personal all the way to national, and including every sort of influence in between. Given that Professor Anderson's book looked at essentially the same question(s), but from a quite different perspective (largely historical, in that he attempted to trace, backward in time, the idea of "national identity" all the way to its historical origins), the two works seem to fit together quite well, though most likely that was an unintentional consequence of the particular path each of them were led down by their scholarly interests and curiosity.
In any case, I recommend highly both the present book and Professor Anderson's aforementioned book- though I would suggest that it would make much more sense to read them in chronological order, rather than the reverse as I did!
May 15, 2023
7/10
沒有同系列的《狂熱份子：群眾運動聖經》好看，但裡面有一些段落還不錯。
裡面點出的拋開原生國家去往其他國家失去的歸屬感像「被拋棄到無家的荒漠，無異於處身猛獸出沒的蠻荒」。這是我感同身受，和朋友曾經討論過的一點。有好有壞。我在向前衝，但是沒有根的孤獨會伴隨我。
沒有同系列的《狂熱份子：群眾運動聖經》好看，但裡面有一些段落還不錯。
裡面點出的拋開原生國家去往其他國家失去的歸屬感像「被拋棄到無家的荒漠，無異於處身猛獸出沒的蠻荒」。這是我感同身受，和朋友曾經討論過的一點。有好有壞。我在向前衝，但是沒有根的孤獨會伴隨我。
November 4, 2024
挑了每章里讲中国的部分翻了翻，还是对其他国家的历史了解的太少了
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews