It is frequently assumed that tribalism and in-group favoritism, or “in-group–out-group bias,” is a basic human trait, there are however several reasons to question the extent to which such bias resulted in violent conflict between our early human ancestors. In his recent book Humankind a Hopeful History Dutch historian Rutger Bregman argues that based on the available evidence, prior to the age of permanent settlements, agriculture, surplus, and the concomitant social stratification, violent conflict between human groups encountering one another was rare. Determining the degree of violence between hunter gatherer groups with accuracy, however, is fraught with difficulty due to insufficient evidence, and disagreement among experts.
What does, seem reasonable to infer is that when groups of early humans encountered each other there was probably intense curiosity and excitement. The value of two groups exchanging knowledge and information, trading tools, commodities and adornments, along with the opportunity for mating with new and different partners was probably what most defined such encounters. There might have been periods of intense resource scarcity when one group’s access to an alienable resource (a resource which could be taken) would result in conflict but evidence suggests that such events were infrequent.
Rather than assuming that the natural response to meeting people who were different was fear and aggression, it is more likely that early humans generally enjoyed and benefited from the novelty of such experiences. Evermore intense tribalism and in-group favoritism seems to have arisen with the acquisition of surplus and the emergence of an elite class deploying divisive narratives to redirect popular grievance.
While today many people do hate and fear those they consider to be the out-group, there is no reason to assume that such reactions are basic to our human nature. And today, seecular pop culture is redrawing the lines of traditional in-group out-group divisions. Few grandchildren of immigrants feel more connected to their grandparent’s cultural identity than to the pop culture of their peers.