What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity
From Islamist terror to feminist equal pay campaigns and the apparent Brexit hate crime epidemic, identity politics seems to be everywhere nowadays. This is not entirely an accident. The progressive liberal-left, which dominates our public life, has taken on the politics of race, gender, religion and sexuality as a key part of its own group identity - and has used its dominance to embed them into our state and society.In The Tribe, Ben Cobley guides us around the 'system of diversity' which has resulted, exploring the consequences of offering favour and protection to some people but not others based on things like skin colour and gender. He looks at how this system has almost totally captured the Labour Party and is spreading relentlessly around our other major institutions. He also looks at how it is capturing our language, appropriating key terms like 'equality', 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', while denying a voice to those who do not play along.The system of diversity makes a challenge to us submit, or risk exclusion from society itself.
346 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2018
9 people are currently reading
129 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 3, 2018
Read this after reading an article about it on Quillette. It is an analysis of the institutional machinery behind the creepy identitarianism that we now see all over the place, from the Guardian to higher education.
As such it is (or feels like) a long and dense read, as much of what Cobley is describing are abstract trends in thought, language and political orientations. It is not a primer or an 'identitarianism for beginners' - it assumes the reader is already aware of and worried about these trends on the left, and is attempting to provide some sort of technical explanation for how things got to be this way. This might be the book you would read when you'd finished Mark Lilla's 'Once and Future Liberal' and really want to get into the weeds.
Which is not a bad thing, though I can imagine that anyone who has spent a few years keeping a wary eye on the so-called 'regressive left', might be tempted to pass it on as a smoking gun to friends or relatives. "Look, see, this is what I'm always going on about!" I'm not sure this book would work for that purpose. I imagine my hard-left friends would probably see this book, with its complex diagrams explaining 'The System of Diversity' as an unhinged rant akin to the Unabomber's manifesto. Of course, it is because the world this book describes really is as convoluted and counter-intuitive as it is, that writing about it will make any writer sound like a wingnut.
I would be interested to hear a bit more about the author's background as well, as I picked up somewhere that he is a former Labour Party activist, though couldn't find out much more online - it would be intriguing to read how he came to see things this way. Thanks Ben for a great read - and for turning me on to David Goodhart, who I'm reading now.
As such it is (or feels like) a long and dense read, as much of what Cobley is describing are abstract trends in thought, language and political orientations. It is not a primer or an 'identitarianism for beginners' - it assumes the reader is already aware of and worried about these trends on the left, and is attempting to provide some sort of technical explanation for how things got to be this way. This might be the book you would read when you'd finished Mark Lilla's 'Once and Future Liberal' and really want to get into the weeds.
Which is not a bad thing, though I can imagine that anyone who has spent a few years keeping a wary eye on the so-called 'regressive left', might be tempted to pass it on as a smoking gun to friends or relatives. "Look, see, this is what I'm always going on about!" I'm not sure this book would work for that purpose. I imagine my hard-left friends would probably see this book, with its complex diagrams explaining 'The System of Diversity' as an unhinged rant akin to the Unabomber's manifesto. Of course, it is because the world this book describes really is as convoluted and counter-intuitive as it is, that writing about it will make any writer sound like a wingnut.
I would be interested to hear a bit more about the author's background as well, as I picked up somewhere that he is a former Labour Party activist, though couldn't find out much more online - it would be intriguing to read how he came to see things this way. Thanks Ben for a great read - and for turning me on to David Goodhart, who I'm reading now.
November 7, 2018
The book is a good example of what politics has become. It shows how ideas and language promoted by identity politics, victimhood culture and diversity have become so pervasive and accepted that a book reflecting these ideas is still seen as criticising them. This is NOT a critique of identity politics and diversity but a 'what about us' plea for an identity group that is seen as wrongly treated because they are not allowed the same claims, positive version of their identity and benefits other identities group apparently have.
The first thing this book does is to casually create an identity, the Liberal-Left identity. It seems supporting a common set of political opinions or principles is enough for an ’identity’ label, a fixed identity as all identities are essentially fixed. Also an easy label that reflects the current refusal, from both sides, to engage with ideas; from those who claim a particular identity for themselves with a ‘I don’t need to explain myself, my identity is such’ but also from those who simply put others in identity groups to dismiss them without engaging with particular ideas.
This casual creation of an identity also reflects the belief that politics has always been identity politics, showing an ahistorical understanding of the current trends today. Representational form of politics of the past was about convincing people that certain political ideas and policies supported their interests. Identity politics today is claiming that our identities, not our reason, determine our opinions, interests and the political platform we should be supporting.
System of diversity here. System of oppression in the other tribes. Both claim that a set of beliefs are embedded in the fabric of our society through the institutions (government, political parties, education...) and that we are acted upon by rules and regulations and manipulated by some hyperconscious individuals.
As I said, not a critique but a plea. The claim of systemic oppression, one of the main points argued by those who openly support identity politics is simply dismissed in the most ridiculous manner so that later in the book, we learn that actually, it is one of the unfavoured groups, the white British working class men, who are suffering the most. They suffer from existential threat while apparently the ‘positive version of group identity’ somehow protects women, black people and other minorities. This reminds me of the wrong claim, from the other side, that racism and white privilege protect and benefit white people.
Yes, there is denigration of the white working class by some of the political and cultural elites but this does not mean protection or benefits for members of other groups. The elites do benefit from the current trends as they can be seen to connect with people through identity gatekeepers who also benefit by gaining political and social power for themselves. The terrible consequences for most of us is what make me strongly oppose these current trends, not the demand to pity vulnerable white working class men the same way the Liberal-Left demand us to pity vulnerable women and minorities. Entering the competition for victimhood will result in nothing else than more divisions, hatred and resentment.
This existential threat is claimed to be due to the lack of support from the political elites but also the actions of some of the preferred groups: immigrants resulting from apparently mass immigration to the UK and more particularly Muslim immigrants. To make this argument, constant blurring of the lines between Muslims, Muslim identity, immigrants, Islam, Islamism and especially the divisive consequences of the multicultural policies promoted by the government for the last few decades is used in the book. Multicultural policies that demand that each culture be protected and kept alive ended up creating parallel communities. Now, the existence of these parallel communities is blamed on the supposedly natural tendencies of immigrants to separate from the native population.
Having already dismissed the claim of oppression and basically refusing to deal with what underlies identity politics and the belief in diversity as a value, the book can then organise identity groups into favoured and unfavoured or preferred and not preferred. The underlying rational behind the victimhood Olympics (claim of oppression) is simply dismissed and replaced by a belief that it is about preferring a group over another.
To push the plea, the author goes so far as to claim that the elites preferred migrants because of similarity between them: they apparently both travel the world and that leads to the absurd claim that public debates and those supporting identity politics and diversity are (quote) ‘dominated by a judgmental rationalism that takes little or no account of personal experience’! The problem of identity politics is actually that it is the opposite: personal experiences and emotionalism have primacy over reason. This leads to current cries to ‘stay in your lane’ and that only women can talk about women issues or only black people about racism. But to push the plea, the book is arguing that they do not consider personal experiences enough because the experiences of white British people suffering from existential threat is not considered by the elites who seem to support immigrants. The claims of being ‘citizen of the world’ from the cosmopolitan crowd that tries to bypass the will of British people is translated here, in this book, into a supposed preference for immigrants by some individuals with a certain identity.
This is not criticising the fact that diversity is now seen as value, as inherently good but a critique of diversity as a fact of life because of the concern for an existential threat. There is a difference between diversity as a fact of life that acknowledges that all kinds of people with different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions live together in one place and diversity promoted as a value that leads to seeing people as categories and demands that each categories be represented, accepted and protected.
The demand for the white British men to be allowed positive version of their identities, be allowed more identity representation and for the identity group be treated on an equal footing with other identity groups is certainly not challenging the extremely divisive identity politics. This is in fact accepting the current situation and accommodating to it. This acceptance of the situation is what the other ‘tribes’ do too. Anti-racist activists supporting identity politics and demanding diversity accept our racial divisions and are reviving racial thinking to claim benefits for their own individual positions. This needs to be strongly challenged, not imitated.
The first thing this book does is to casually create an identity, the Liberal-Left identity. It seems supporting a common set of political opinions or principles is enough for an ’identity’ label, a fixed identity as all identities are essentially fixed. Also an easy label that reflects the current refusal, from both sides, to engage with ideas; from those who claim a particular identity for themselves with a ‘I don’t need to explain myself, my identity is such’ but also from those who simply put others in identity groups to dismiss them without engaging with particular ideas.
This casual creation of an identity also reflects the belief that politics has always been identity politics, showing an ahistorical understanding of the current trends today. Representational form of politics of the past was about convincing people that certain political ideas and policies supported their interests. Identity politics today is claiming that our identities, not our reason, determine our opinions, interests and the political platform we should be supporting.
System of diversity here. System of oppression in the other tribes. Both claim that a set of beliefs are embedded in the fabric of our society through the institutions (government, political parties, education...) and that we are acted upon by rules and regulations and manipulated by some hyperconscious individuals.
As I said, not a critique but a plea. The claim of systemic oppression, one of the main points argued by those who openly support identity politics is simply dismissed in the most ridiculous manner so that later in the book, we learn that actually, it is one of the unfavoured groups, the white British working class men, who are suffering the most. They suffer from existential threat while apparently the ‘positive version of group identity’ somehow protects women, black people and other minorities. This reminds me of the wrong claim, from the other side, that racism and white privilege protect and benefit white people.
Yes, there is denigration of the white working class by some of the political and cultural elites but this does not mean protection or benefits for members of other groups. The elites do benefit from the current trends as they can be seen to connect with people through identity gatekeepers who also benefit by gaining political and social power for themselves. The terrible consequences for most of us is what make me strongly oppose these current trends, not the demand to pity vulnerable white working class men the same way the Liberal-Left demand us to pity vulnerable women and minorities. Entering the competition for victimhood will result in nothing else than more divisions, hatred and resentment.
This existential threat is claimed to be due to the lack of support from the political elites but also the actions of some of the preferred groups: immigrants resulting from apparently mass immigration to the UK and more particularly Muslim immigrants. To make this argument, constant blurring of the lines between Muslims, Muslim identity, immigrants, Islam, Islamism and especially the divisive consequences of the multicultural policies promoted by the government for the last few decades is used in the book. Multicultural policies that demand that each culture be protected and kept alive ended up creating parallel communities. Now, the existence of these parallel communities is blamed on the supposedly natural tendencies of immigrants to separate from the native population.
Having already dismissed the claim of oppression and basically refusing to deal with what underlies identity politics and the belief in diversity as a value, the book can then organise identity groups into favoured and unfavoured or preferred and not preferred. The underlying rational behind the victimhood Olympics (claim of oppression) is simply dismissed and replaced by a belief that it is about preferring a group over another.
To push the plea, the author goes so far as to claim that the elites preferred migrants because of similarity between them: they apparently both travel the world and that leads to the absurd claim that public debates and those supporting identity politics and diversity are (quote) ‘dominated by a judgmental rationalism that takes little or no account of personal experience’! The problem of identity politics is actually that it is the opposite: personal experiences and emotionalism have primacy over reason. This leads to current cries to ‘stay in your lane’ and that only women can talk about women issues or only black people about racism. But to push the plea, the book is arguing that they do not consider personal experiences enough because the experiences of white British people suffering from existential threat is not considered by the elites who seem to support immigrants. The claims of being ‘citizen of the world’ from the cosmopolitan crowd that tries to bypass the will of British people is translated here, in this book, into a supposed preference for immigrants by some individuals with a certain identity.
This is not criticising the fact that diversity is now seen as value, as inherently good but a critique of diversity as a fact of life because of the concern for an existential threat. There is a difference between diversity as a fact of life that acknowledges that all kinds of people with different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions live together in one place and diversity promoted as a value that leads to seeing people as categories and demands that each categories be represented, accepted and protected.
The demand for the white British men to be allowed positive version of their identities, be allowed more identity representation and for the identity group be treated on an equal footing with other identity groups is certainly not challenging the extremely divisive identity politics. This is in fact accepting the current situation and accommodating to it. This acceptance of the situation is what the other ‘tribes’ do too. Anti-racist activists supporting identity politics and demanding diversity accept our racial divisions and are reviving racial thinking to claim benefits for their own individual positions. This needs to be strongly challenged, not imitated.
April 24, 2019
A brave polemic against the current orthodoxy.
This book is a careful analysis of the existing state of public bureaucratic presumption in Britain. The author brings his formidable intellectual weapon to bear on the diversity based presumptions of liberal middle class society.
He describes how the well-intentioned management and political folk have proceeded from seeking to ameliorate the injustices perpetrated to some racial, religious and sexuality groups to a rigid system which privileges the approved minorities while rejecting others, in particular white male heterosexual working class. This “diversity” agenda explains much of the howling contemptuous rage from the remainer camp following the 2016 referendum result. If we seek to understand and heal the rifts in British society then we need to know how they have arisen. This book goes a long way to explain these matters.
This book is a careful analysis of the existing state of public bureaucratic presumption in Britain. The author brings his formidable intellectual weapon to bear on the diversity based presumptions of liberal middle class society.
He describes how the well-intentioned management and political folk have proceeded from seeking to ameliorate the injustices perpetrated to some racial, religious and sexuality groups to a rigid system which privileges the approved minorities while rejecting others, in particular white male heterosexual working class. This “diversity” agenda explains much of the howling contemptuous rage from the remainer camp following the 2016 referendum result. If we seek to understand and heal the rifts in British society then we need to know how they have arisen. This book goes a long way to explain these matters.
March 9, 2020
I found out about the writer, because as a left wing remainer, i was interested in reasons for left wingers supporting brexit. The writer is an interesting and measured presence on twitter. Politics can be disheartening and bewildering nowadays, and if you're wondering why the labour party nowadays is such a mess, this gives some of the explanations. It exposes how the talk about diversity and equality is often just a means for corrupt political channels.
In the "culture war" i m more or less a "plague on both your houses" observer. Some of the criticism of contemporary anti-racism and "wokeness" has its own murky agenda. This book doesn't, or at least the only agenda i could detect would be a genuine desire for justice and logic.
Everyone wants to understand modern british politics should read this book.
In the "culture war" i m more or less a "plague on both your houses" observer. Some of the criticism of contemporary anti-racism and "wokeness" has its own murky agenda. This book doesn't, or at least the only agenda i could detect would be a genuine desire for justice and logic.
Everyone wants to understand modern british politics should read this book.
July 31, 2023
This is my second time reading this book and given the last few years in politics it seems to have aged well...sadly. As a former Labour activist Ben Cobley is well worth listening to as the changes have taken place and while there have been some benefits the negatives seem rather larger to the detriment of Labours traditional working class voters.
August 3, 2019
If your the type of person who grits their teeth votes when voting left. Because of the politically correct thought police that goes with any left leaning government. This book is for you — an explanation of how the left who once represented the workers got hijacked.
July 7, 2025
Overall, a methodical analysis of the pitfalls of identity politics. Recommended. If I get time later, which is doubtful, I might attempt a longer review.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews