TRIBALISM AS A SOURCE OF COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: A STUDY OF ABIRIBA COMMUNITY IN ABIA STATE

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

There has been a growing concern about the breakdown in communication systems that appear to stem from tribalism. This section therefore reviews existing literature, research and documented materials on the subject matter under the following sub-headings; theoretical framework, conceptual review as well as an empirical review.

2.1 Theoretical framework

The theories utilized in the research to create an adequate framework include; the model of collective identity, the theory of cognitive dissonance as well as David Berlo’s communication model.

2.1.2 The model of collective identitys

In attempting to describe tribalism, a close look is taken at the commonality that exists among individuals in a society that institutes a sense of singularity through which social roles are defined in achieving a collective set of goals. This concept of individuality and identity appears to have interested social psychologists who focused on how social identities originate from a sense of identity.

Collective identity is the shared sense of belonging to a group as described by Melucci in 1989in his model of collective identity based on studies of the theory of social movements in the 1980s. The model was based on the writings by Touraine and Pizzorno (1983) which specifically related to their ideas on social movements and collective action respectively. According to the model collective identity is an interactive and shared characterization produced by several interacting individuals who are concerned with the orientation of their action as well as the field of opportunities and constraints in which their action takes place. The theory attempted to bridge the gap between social movements and collective identity in explaining how such movements (that is collective actions) motivate a shared identity among members of a social institution by introducing an intermediate process, in which individuals recognize that they share certain orientations in common and on that basis decide to act together as a single cohesive unit in a process that is negotiated over time with three parts which include: cognitive definition (the formulation of a cognitive framework concerning goals, means and environment of action), active relationship (the activation of relationships among participants), and emotional investments (emotional recognition between individuals).

The theory of collective identity is a useful analytical tool in explaining social movements. It addresses not only the processes within the system of the collective actor such as leadership models, ideologies, or communication methods, but also external relations with allies and competitors which all shape the collective actor but goes on to provide a better understanding in the development of modern collective action, distinct from formal organizations, amidst the rapid development of the field of social science research. In addition, it makes collective groups as systematic collectives and not entities of ideology or defined simple value sets that could antagonize or glorify certain groups.

2.1.3 The theory of cognitive dissonance

Tribalism appears to be fundamentally generated by a sense of singularity which influences and is influenced by a certain set of values, beliefs and conventions that seem to govern attitudes and behaviour which tend to alienate other forms of dispositions and actions that are foreign. The reason for this may be explained by the fact that members who are integrated into a sense of singularity tend to embrace all forms of information that is in consonance with their value and belief systems while consciously rejecting other forms which are in dissonance to such systems. The theory of cognitive dissonance there appears to explain the breakdown in communication as a result of tribalism.

As a model of human perception, one of which influences communication, it appears to be one of the most significant and influential theories in the history of social psychology which is evidenced in the fact that after over five years of its introduction, Brehm and Cohen (1962) reviewed over fifty studies conducted within the framework the theory introduced by Festinger in 1957.

The central proposition of Festinger’s theory is that if a person holds two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another, he will experience the pressure of an aversive motivational state called cognitive dissonance, a pressure which he will seek to remove, among other ways, by altering one of the two dissonant cognitions (Bem, 1967).

In analyzing the details of the theory, it is essential to define the basic concepts. A cognition (also called a cognitive element) may be broadly defined as any belief, opinion, attitude, perception, or piece of knowledge about anything or persons, objects, issues, as well as of oneself (Aronson, 2004). Littlejohn and Foss (2005) define a cognition system as "a complex, interacting set of beliefs, attitudes, and values that affect and are affected by behavior" (p. 81). Dissonance may be described as an imbalance in the cognitive system of an individual or a group of individuals that seem to display a cohesive identity; it is an aversive mental state (i.e. a state in which the mind repels an idea, belief, thought etc.). Festinger (1957) considered the need to avoid dissonance to be just as basic as the need for safety or the need to satisfy hunger (Griffin, 2006).

According to Littlejohn & Foss (2005); there are three (3) possible relations that exist between any two rational elements;the first type of relationship is irrelevance(neither affects the other); the second is consonant (a relationship among two sets of rational ideas considered as consistent with each other); the third kind is dissonant (where two ideas are considered inconsistent). Two elements are said to be in a dissonant relation if the opposite of one element follows from the other. The degree of dissonance experienced is a function of two factors which include: the relative proportions of consonant as well as dissonant elements and the importance of the elements or issue (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005).

2.1.4 David Berlo’s SMCR communication model

Communication breakdown may not be quite understood without first establishing what communication is. The phenomenon could be illustrated by an adequate model one of which includes Berlo’sin 1960. The basic assumption of the model is that in communication the sender and receiver must share a common communication identity in order to share meaning adequately (Ndimele and Innocent, 2006). The model indicates that for the communication to occur the participants must share the same level of skills,  knowledge, attitude, social system and culture without which understanding is not possible. Berlo (1960) illustrates this process:

 

The communication background of the interlocutors must be a one-on-one correspondence in order to be effective according to Berlo (1960); the correspondence is necessary because the utilization of communication codes which may be described as culture bound and context driven may be misrepresented by either party if they do not share the same background.

Tribalism may be rooted in such a phenomenon, as members who share a similar identity appear to be driven by that background in communication while seeming to alienate any foreign content that is not in consonance with their value and belief systems

The researcher argues against this conceptualization on the basis that communicators do not have to share the same communication skills, attitudes, knowledge, social system and culture to be able to share meaning effectively as there are technologies that serve as ancillaries to the communication process which allow the transmission and reception of messages.

2.2 Conceptual Review

2.2.1 Tribalism

Social organizations are typified by the presence of numerous highly cohesive sub-groups which are built on a common platform, therefore, such elements as occupation, professional association, function, value and belief systems, social norms, language etc.result in the formation of highly cohesive sub-groups within the larger organizationthat affords a number of benefits both for the individual as well as the group. At an individual level being a member of such a group may allow the construction ofsocial identities which is an ingredient in achievingsocial competence, emotional well-being and higher morale; at an organizational level, highly cohesive groups encourage the transfer of tacit knowledge through socialization,social mobilization amonggroup members as well as a system ofsocial support (DeCremer and Leonardelli, 2003). However, the formation of these socio-culturally cohesive groups are likely to result in a greater possibility ofconflict with other sub-groups who may differ in some respect resulting in negative effects such as the emergence of inter-group conflict (Murphy, 2009).

It appears that humans have an innate need to belong to a social organization whose identity may be relatively described as larger and more significant. Maslow (1971) described this need to belong as part of the motivationalhierarchy in social development. Baumeister and Leary (1995) asserted that people have a desire to form and maintain relationships with others. This implies that the formation of sub-groups is a function of human desire which avoids a feeling of isolation as well as simultaneously breeds a feeling of social security necessary to exist in the larger organization of individuals. The presence of such highly cohesive groups may be termed tribes. A tribe, according to the 7^th edition of the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary is therefore a group, class or association of people who share a socio-cultural, technological or some other idea that may be resident in an identifiable geographical location and led directly or indirectly by a body of individuals within the group. The implication is that tribes exist on the basis of some shared element; it is such an element that appears to drive the communication process among the individuals involved in such a unit while also capable of alienating or selectively filtering away any information in dissonance with its underlying commonality.Schien (1996) described tribes in terms of three cultures; the operatorculture, the engineering culture and the executive culture;the operator culture involves a system of human interaction, communication, trust, teamwork and innovation to complete tasks efficiently and to solve the problemsrelated to unexpected events. Operators are the people who interact with the tools necessary to bring about the necessary change and development within the tribe; the engineering culture involves the design of systems aiding the development of technology as well asan attempt to understand how such technology should be used; the executiveculture involves those who are involved with administering the affairs of the tribe.

Tribalism, in view of this, can be defined as being part of a group based on similarities of culture, ethnicity, religion or experience (Horsman & Marshall, 1994) as people have tended, through history, to consistently engage in allianceswhich seem to share cultural belief, value or practice in order to protect such elements (Wegner, 2000). The formation of such social units appear to be based on an implied or well-articulated social contract which is based on the urge to protect the beliefs, values as well as conventions of such a working unit. Chen and Kanfer (2006) statethat a working team involves dynamic, adaptive interactions, where each member typically has a set role; the degree of interdependence within such teams or groups is likely to provide some reinforcement on the individual’s sense of identity which influences the capacity to develop the attitudes, behaviour and skills required to fulfill a social role. Van Maanen andBarley (1984) define the sense of tribalism asa sense ofalliance with an aim to drawa unique identity from a common element or entity; who share with one another a set of values, norms and perspectives that govern social relationships.

2.2.3 Communication breakdown

To understand the notion and significance of communication breakdown, it is necessary to understand what communication is. The term communication has undergone a series of definitions and re-definitions as scholars of the subject do not appear to accredit a general consensus to any particular description of the phenomenon although it appears to be denoted as a consistent aspect of human nature.

Crystal (1997) defines communication as a two-way (bi-directional) process involving the transmission and reception of information between a source and a receiver who use an interpretable signaling system, language, to share meaning as well as to elicit a response. Ndimele and Innocent (2006) suggest that communication is a process of sharing meanings between a source and a receiver (i.e. an individual or a group of individuals). Hybels and Weaver (1989) are of the opinion that communication is a transaction that involves three important principles; the first is that, participation in a communication exchange is continuous and simultaneous; secondly, every piece of communication must have a past, present and future; thirdly, participants in a communication exchange play certain roles which are in most cases established by the relational conventions of the society as well as the relationship itself. These definitions appear to highlight certain elements that are involved in the process of communication which include according to Ndimele and Innocent (2006); the sender (who is the initiator of the communication process; usually referred to as the source, communicator or encoder); the encodingprocess (which involves all the mental and behavioural processes involved in substantiating the intention of the sender into concrete signs and symbols which communicate meaning through a coding system); the message (the product of the encoding process intended to cause some change in the mind or behaviour of the receiver); the medium (which is also referred to as the channel or communication vehicle. It is the means through which the message moves from the sender to the receiver): the receiver (who is the target of the communication process; also referred to as the destination or decoder): the decoding process (this involves all the physical, mental and technological processes involved in identifying and interpreting the codes that constitute the message in order to adequately derive the meaning intended by the sender); feedback (the response of the receiver to the message; this element is important as it allows the sender determine if the receiver has reached the necessary level of understanding required to instigate the change or if the message needs to be further modified to achieve such an effect); noise (interference or disruptions in the process of communication that limits the possibility of understanding the message). These elements appear to work interpedently in order achieve effective communication which isessential in any situation where people exist; thereforea breakdown can significantly impair the process of communication.

Communication breakdown occurs when interlocutors within a communication activity are unable to share meaning effectively as a result of the presence of noise which negatively impacts the process, altering the movement and perception of information (Scholander, 2008). Noise as described in the works of Ndimele and Innocent (2006) indicate that there are factors that likely impede the process of communication to such an extent that there is an adverse effect on fidelity (which according to Ndimele (1997) is an equilibrium between message sent and message received). Participants in the process therefore are unable to achieve encoding/decoding equilibrium which appears to affect the transmission and reception of the message. Therefore, noise as any interference distorting the ability of interlocutors to adequately represent meaning; communication breakdown is a consequence of this distortion. According to Ndimele and Innocent (2006) noise could be categorized into: semantic (referred to as linguistic noise which results from misunderstanding the linguistic codes employed by the sender in the encoding process. Language displays both denotative (i.e. overt meanings) as well as connotative or implied meanings not overtly represented in communication; without a strong grasp on the language parameters, the interlocutor is likely to misrepresent meaning which results in a breakdown in the process according to Kreidler in 1998); mechanical (otherwise known as channel noisewhich results from the mechanical faults involved in a mediated form of communication; electrical or mechanical errors in the channel is likely to leave interlocutors with a distorted form of meaning); environmental (refers to a type of noise that originates from beyond the immediate communication which appears past the control of the interlocutors); psychological(are internal psychological inhibitions that create an imbalance in the psyche of the interlocutor which results in a breakdown).

According to Dickson-Carr (2005) the breakdown in communication process could be attributed to certain factors which include: conflicting communication styles (the style of communication employed by interlocutors depend on the context of communication, the subject on which the process is centered, the socio-cultural, economic and political background of the interlocutors etc.): different frame of reference (this is the mental structure that influence how interlocutors interprete information; a dissonance in the referential frame would therefore likely lead to a breakdown in communication): personal barriers (the idiosyncratic or personal qualities of an individual that influences how they transmit and interprete information).

2.2.4 Tribalism and communication breakdown

The concept of tribes, as a sense of homogeneous identity in modern usage is wrong according to Obadina (2008)who suggests that the term belongs to 19^thcentury colonialism in Africa in which anthropologists believed that all African people lived in tribes(which described the primitive stage in human social development);thus, traditionally, the term had a derogatory connotation as it implies the primitiveness of a group in comparisonto the advancement of another group. Secondly,the concept of the term tribeexplained the social stratum with which a person identified as distinct from other social strata such as the village community, the clan, and the lineage. A tribe was described as the gathering of more clans and sub-clans (a clan being a “family tree of male descendants); a village community consisted ofdifferent clans or lineages. Tribes often developed political loyalties to rulers elsewhere, and connections through trade and secret societies to people in other villages and towns. Therefore, a tribe was not seen as a homogeneous identity. The modern use of the term amongpeopleusually suggests an appeal for "an end to tribalism"in referring to the struggles for power in utilizing ethnic andlanguage ties as a means to aggregate power and authority (Wiley, 1981). The present day frame of reference of the term tribe refers to the incidence of ethnicity which is appears to be a misrepresentation of the historical origin of the word.

Communication is an unavoidable and irreversible process; therefore communicatorsseem to attemptto avoid miscommunication as well asincomplete communication to avoid a breakdown which has been described as a product of tribalism.Individuals within a tribe are likely to be extensively influenced by the communication culture of the tribe that they appear to immediately reject any kind of communication that is not in consonance with the culture of the social unit. Noise therefore in this respect may be seen as moving beyond the difference the codes or the semantics of divergent languages but may be more psychological as the mind of the tribe driven individual is trained to immediately accept and protect what is familiar while discarding foreign content.  As explained by Dickson-Carr (2005)conflicting communication styles,different frame ofreferencesandpersonal barriersare all features of tribal members that may accumulate to the breakdown of communication.

2.2.5 Empirical Review

In a research on the sources of tribal (ethnic) identification in Africa by Bannon, Miguel, and Posner in 2004 at the University of California, Los Angeles which aimed at analyzing the factors that influence the identities of social-sub units which may possibly affect communication process. Thefindings are consistent with theoretical claims advanced by Collier (2001) and Bates (2000) regarding the relationship between tribal (ethnic) diversity, communication and politics. They argue that tribal rivalries are likely to be hushed in highly diverse societies, since no single ethnic group is strong enough to attain power on its own therefore cooperation and communication appears to be at its peak with little or no hindrance (communication breakdown). At very low levels of diversity, tribalism (ethnicity) will also not be prominent for the simple reason that everyone is a member of the same group. But as diversity increases from very lower levels to the middle of the range, ethnicity will become more and more prominent, as minority groups begin to challenge the dominant ethnic group for power and very obvious in a situation where two more or less equally sized groups are competing for power. Communication breakdown among tribes is more prominent among unequal groups as the struggle for political power.

A second central finding of our analysis is that the prominence of (tribalism) ethnicity is closely related to the intensity of political competition of the country in question. The interpretation of the electoral proximity coefficient is that, all else equal, a respondent in a country that is holding an election at the time of the survey will be almost 30 percentage points more likely to identify him or herself in terms of his tribe than a respondent in a country whose election took place a year ago, or whose election is scheduled to take place a year hence. The consequence is that people have become more tribalistic in their social approach to communication which has resulted in a breakdown

REFERENCES

Aronson, E. (2004). The social animal (9th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena: APsychological Review.

Dickson-Carr, C (2005). Strategies to overcoming communication breakdown. Tallahassee: Power-Ed Solutions Inc. 

Festinger, L. and J.M. Carlsmith.(1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Kreidler, C.W. (1998). Introducing English Semantics. London and New York: Routledge

Littlejohn, S. W. andK.A Foss.(2005).Theories of human communication (8^thed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth

Murphy, G. (2009). Building Bridges and Solving Rubiks Cubes: Tribalism In Engineering And Technical Environments for Integrated Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM). Queensland:  Queensland University of Technology Press.

Scholander, R. M. (2001). The Role of Trust In Communication Breakdowns In Disaster Situations.

Wiley, D. (1981). Using “Tribe” and “Tribalism” Categories To Misunderstand African Societies.  African Studies Center:  University of Pennsylvania Press.