National identity: how the man becomes the people

The citizens who most approximate the national or cultural stereotypes of their country or group are the ones most likely to be successful in that specific environment.

Disclaimer: This is merely a blatant and cheeky speculation on how the dominant national and cultural identity emerges in any given society.

---

Every nation-state or distinct cultural group is characterized by a dominant collective tendency that could be, in some sense, taken as its core character. This is no doubt reductive, but the reduction serves an illuminative function: it helps us penetrate the irreducible core of a real phenomenon, its most fundamental essence of sort. So that when we think of or encounter the phenomenon, what comes first to our approximating mind is its general meaning rather than its specific delineations. Our brain spontaneously selects for stereotypes consistently and faster than it does for normality and regular-ness. So that when we see a Lion what comes first to our mind is ‘danger’; when we see a blank screen, we automatically think of ‘moving pictures/images’; and when we see a key we think of a ‘lock/door/room’, etc. These automatic associations also say something about the functional essence of that specific object. For the Lion, it is to attack and kill; the ‘blank screen’, to display; and the ‘key’, to open/unlock. The function determines the behavior and the behavior the identity and the identity the stereotype. Humans are the only known biological species with multiple functions: biological, political, economic, social, and spiritual. All other organisms only serve two functions at best: biological and social. This is of course a testament to our superior intelligence as a species.

In other words, a thing is defined by its function more than its design which is why we don't have a different name for different designs of cars or keys or airplanes. Because they all serve the same function but perhaps with varying degree of efficiency and success. Likewise, humans, the cultural organism not the biological one, are defined by the values they promote and serve. These values come to set them apart from other groups of humans and come to define their cultural identity. From this cultural identity, their behaviors become discernible and meaningful even if disapproved of by other human groups. Because these cultural values are often stable (though they can also very easily undergo a radical change by artificially imposed means) so are the behaviors they stipulate. Hence the irresistible and often correct impulse to stereotype the external other.

To illustrate this idea further and to link it to the specific subject of this essay: if my foggy imagination is combined with my very limited media-based exposure (as I've never been outside Nigeria), I'd sketchily describe the USA as a spoilt entitled hedonist; Britain as an arrogant self-possessed aristocrat; Russia as a self-righteous superstitious idealist; China as a laid-back inventive and ambitious introvert (I think this applies to Japan as well but I'd add ‘repressed’ to the list of adjectives); India as a restless sexually repressed zealot. And finally, Nigeria, my own country, as a simpleminded impressionable wild child. Of course, these are broad anthropomorphized caricatures of a collective picture rather than of specific characters (and they may as well be absurd misrepresentations, but it won't detract from the larger point this speculative piece is about. You could as well extend the fun by replacing my characterizations with yours which would greatly interest me to know).

Every country or people commands a stereotype in the mind of an outsider and it matters less whether the stereotype is statistically verifiable or not, that is, it does not matter if it's significantly representative or not. Rather it is the idea/assumption behind the content of the stereotype that matters. Everything has an essence, and stereotypes and stereotyping are our most efficient means of capturing and communicating them at the broadest level.

---

Paul Graham wrote a brilliant piece titled Cities and Ambition. It is the sort of writing that does for cities what I’m here trying to do for nations: every aggregation of humans bonded by a shared environment exudes an intangible property that defines its collective character and consequently exerts as well as command influence upon those within its orbit. This influence is intangible because the defining property cannot be seen or pointed out, but just like the wind, it can be strongly felt and its impact visibly traced. Paul Graham says that the vibe you get when you're in NYC is “you should be richer”, in Silicon Valley, “you should be powerful”, and in Boston, “you should be smarter”.

“The surprising thing is how different these messages can be. New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer.
What I like about Boston (or rather Cambridge) is that the message there is: you should be smarter. You really should get around to reading all those books you've been meaning to.
When you ask what message a city sends, you sometimes get surprising answers. As much as they respect brains in Silicon Valley, the message the Valley sends is: you should be more powerful.”

Of course there are poor people in NYC, powerless people in Silicon Valley, and dumb people in Boston. But the core idea and message still stand out to anyone who has ever been to or read about these cities. These are enduring and powerful stereotypes about these cities that are incredibly reductive yet universally recognized to be realistic and practically meaningful. These stereotypes would go on to further shape each city by selecting for the kind of people who care about such things. If you're the kind of person who value scholarship and academic distinction, you'd probably privilege Boston over Los Angeles. And if you're someone who fancies celebrity culture, you'd likely prefer LA to DC.

Likewise, every nation has her dominant character which is the sum of her parts. The dominant national character (the active culture) changes in response to time and in relation to geopolitical forces, but the core collective tendencies always seem to remain stable. It is similar to individual personality in that it has both dynamic and stable aspects distributed in varying proportion in different individuals. Some personalities are constituted in such a way that makes them good at accommodating new and foreign elements while others are more or less resistant to such external influences. We may disagree on the specific characteristic traits that define the highest number of a nation's population, but not on the fact that a people who have lived in the same environment, unified by a common ancestry, a common tradition, a common rule of law, and a common language, tend to manifest some common sentiments and common tendencies relative to peoples of other nations or societies.

For example, if you were to pick a representative Nigerian at random, he/she is very likely to be more or less unruly (a disregard for decorum, rule, and order), unprincipled (a contempt for that which is formulaic, rigid, stable, in other words, a lack of regard for the systematic), merry-loving (an appetite for lavish ceremonies and display of opulence), superstitious and religious (a belief in influences and phenomena outside and beyond the self and the physical realm), traditionist (a strong sentiment and attachment to old ways of thinking and doing), and anti-merit (resentment and hostility towards that which is independent, outstanding, and scientific). There are some small distinctions among the three dominant tribes (the Hausa/Fulanis, the Yorubas, and the Igbos) where these national stereotypes are concerned, but they're not significant enough to differentiate at the national level of observation. For instance, the Yorubas are the most notorious for merriment; the Hausa/Fulanis the most religious; and the Igbos the most unruly (in the sense that they're historically known to be relatively more difficult to lead and organize).

These characterizations matter a great deal even if they're difficult to operationalize. In his recent review of Joseph Henrich’s book The Weirdest People In The World, Rob Henderson wrote:

“Overall, countries with greater patience, behavioral consistency across social interactions, trust of strangers, adherence to impartial norms, and concern with intentions, have higher GDP, more economic productivity, less corruption, and greater rates of innovation.”

In fact, Henrich’s book appeared to be nothing more than an attempt to lend empirical credence to this sort of stereotyping (cultural profiling) in order to make sense of why people from geographically and culturally distinct parts of the world are different not just in average collective tendencies but also in living outcomes such as economic and political successes.

---

Any educated Nigerian would deny any of the character traits described earlier in themselves; but as we already know in the science of self-report, what people say about themselves always has a bias towards the positive (the well-known social desirability effect). The most influential traits in any entity are those which it is least aware of, because they bear the greatest amount of power to determine its behavior and movement without the moderating effect of awareness. That which we don't know about we cannot control but often controls us. Also, these average collective tendencies in most Nigerians (and any other national groups) are less about what an individual is, and more about what his cultural environment and realities demand for optimal survival (socially, economically, mentally, and even physically). The most thriving Nigerians (in Nigeria) are not necessarily the most educated, the most enlightened, the most principled, or the most honest (and these types abounds in Nigeria but as a rule they are constantly seeking for escape, and we’ll know why shortly); the most successful Nigerians are more often than not those who naturally possess these national tendencies in the highest relative amount. In other words, they tend to be unruly, superstitious/religious, traditional, unprincipled, merry-loving, and anti-merit.

To use myself as a low-resolution example, I have an individual nature that is risk-averse, laid-back, introverted, anti-tradition, anti-superstition, agnostic, moderately principled, very individualistic, moderately intellectual, and somewhat orderly. In other words, the very antithesis of what the average Nigerian identity and cultural environment demands. But I have adapted in subtle ways over the years (not so easily or successfully), such that I am able to function better in this society in spite of my personality (some are not so lucky). In other words, an external observer may see in me in certain contexts behaviors that may, for instance, be defined as "unruly" and "unprincipled".

I once had to put aside my disdain and overcome my disinclination for unruly and aggressive behavior when I had to fight my way into the only available public Bus on a very rainy night. The options were: go dirty or get left behind. I went utterly dirty and was proud of myself afterwards. The greatest victim of the Nigerian cultural milieu are girls and women with my kind of sensibility, and I won’t be surprised if data shows that more women than men harbor intention to migrate out of Nigeria. As to actual migration figure by gender, more men still leave than women largely because of lack of easy means to achieve it rather than for lack of desire. Already, we know that among the most educated and younger demographic, more women choose to migrate.¹

The national attributes my nature has, however, stubbornly remained impermeable to are those of superstitiousness, traditionalism, merry-making, and anti-meritocracy. And to the extent that my personality has remained impervious to these national traits, I have been unable to optimize my practical advantage in Nigeria. The result is a daily reality of psychosocial struggle and a psychological condition of alienation from the national identity. One doing what is only barely enough to exist within this politico-cultural space without ever the promise of becoming assimilated or fully thriving.

Paul Graham asks in his essay: “how much does it matter what message a city sends?” And I now ask the same: how much does it matter what character a nation cultivates and projects? His answer cannot be bettered in its poignant instructiveness:

“Empirically, the answer seems to be: a lot. You might think that if you had enough strength of mind to do great things, you'd be able to transcend your environment. Where you live should make at most a couple percent difference. But if you look at the historical evidence, it seems to matter more than that. Most people who did great things were clumped together in a few places where that sort of thing was done at the time.”

This is the reason why it is not surprising that most technological innovations and ideological evolutions almost always originate from a particular axis of the world - the West. And people have instinctively acquired Graham’s wisdom which stipulates that it is easier to seek an environment that actively promotes and encourages some things (such as technological innovations and ideological expressions) to happen than to try to surmount the obstacles in an environment that discourages or actively opposes those things. It is the reason why the US and the West in general (including Scandinavia) are the ultimate migration destination for the people of the world.

Again, quoting from Graham’s article (and the whole piece is worth reading and rereading):

“No matter how determined you are, it's hard not to be influenced by the people around you. It's not so much that you do whatever a city expects of you, but that you get discouraged when no one around you cares about the same things you do.”

---

But how does this social adaptation of the individual psyche to the national psyche happen? How does common tendencies emerge among an otherwise diverse population in any given sociopolitical space? This is a brief speculation on how this comes to be.

I’ll answer these questions by way of some fundamental axioms:

Axiom 1: The environment selects.

This is the well-known principle of natural selection by which evolution works its magic. How does this work? There are different kinds of environment everywhere you look, and there are environments within environment. We often don't know precisely why or how environments emerge and differentiate, but we know that variation, hence diversity, is the natural rule. Each distinct environment has a set of unique features that limit the kind of organisms, operations or behaviors they can optimally support. To succeed in any given environment, one must take into account its unique features while using it as the basis for assembling one's behavioral arsenal (the sum total of psychosocial habits and vocational skills needed to achieve and maximize one's goal in a given environment) on the one hand, and for selectively cultivating one's behavioral potentials on the other hand. Invariably, a failure to achieve this alignment of self-development with environmental properties (both the limiting and the advantageous ones) often results in repeated failure, existential frustration, psychological exhaustion, and, in the worst-case scenario, existential death (the paralysis of the will to apply oneself and to thrive).

Axiom 2: Humans also select their environment.

This is the contra of the first axiom. It is the axiom that underlies the migratory instinct in every living species capable of movement. This is a very smart design on nature's part. There are many instances in which environmental conditions change so much that they become unbearable for the greatest majority of its biomass. In this extreme situation, the evolution selects for those capable of migration (either temporarily or permanently). But this axiom is also true in another less extreme sense. Most environments rarely change to such a degree that would warrant mass migration. If anything, most environments tend to remain relatively unchanged for a long period before suddenly undergoing a drastic change within a short space of time. So, for the most part, most people won't experience purely environmentally induced pressure to migrate in their lifetime.

However, even in the most stable environment, there'd be individuals who are more or less mismatched with that particular environment for one reason or the other, and to varying degrees. These individuals are usually too different in ways that the environment cannot satisfactorily accommodate or support. Hence the best solution will be for such deviants to seek a more compatible environment (either within the existing one or outside it). An example would be a gay person living in Uganda (where same-sex intercourse could attract the death penalty) or a brilliant and restless mind domiciled in Nigeria where there’s often a sharp disconnect between ambition and opportunity for realizing it (sorry, but true. So true that people are truly perplexed, even critical, when you have no active intention of moving. This is a story for another day).²

Axiom 3: Humans optimize their survival by adapting to their environment.

Axiom three recognizes the cost of migration. It is too damn risky and costly, sometimes more so than staying put and simply slugging it out with the harsh environmental realities. And this is exactly what most animals, including humans, do. In fact, it is this preference (to stay and fight for survival) that ensures the force of natural selection continues to put the greatest pressure on species evolution. If you aren't going to leave in search of a greener pasture, then you've got to somehow make the withering pasture green enough to support your survival. And this, in addition to natural adaptation, requires innovation and ingenuity. This can happen at a collective or at an individual level. For example, a people who occupies an arid environment creates a system of irrigation to ensure uninterrupted food production. But such people also evolve a bodily physiology that help them survive with minimum need for hydration. Also, an individual who lives in a violent society learns to survive by either becoming violent or befriending those who are. Thus, if the environment is harsh and suboptimal in one vital domain of survival, and the option of migration or relocation (axiom 2) has been ruled out, then axiom 3 kicks into full gear.

Axiom 4: Some humans possess greater than average natural fitness for every given environment.

The environment is equal for all its inhabitants but not all are equally fitted for the environment. This is the quintessential natural inequality: it lies not in the environment but in the natural and historical variation that exists among its inhabitants. Hence, those who draw the best genetic and birth lottery would do best in a given environment. Some individuals wouldn't even have to try too hard to thrive in their environment, while some possess the right set of skills, traits, or familial endowment needed to thrive, and yet some struggle a great deal achieving congruence with their environment. It's in this sense that the competition for qualitative survival is rigged by random unintelligent natural (and man-made) forces. Some advantages are natural, hence, universal and cross-cultural, e.g. the advantages of beauty, of strength, of intelligence, and of sound health. Some are artificial and historical, e.g. wealth and nobility, but these are also universally advantageous in any society. The best societies always seek to redress any inequality due to environmental factors (eg lack of access to socioeconomic goods) by minimizing or eliminating it. But the inequality which is due to inherent individual variation and provenance would still remain, and this no one can nor should do anything about.

Axiom 5: The natural environment is no longer as influential as man-made environments.

But just as survival is no longer about how long but how well we live, the 'environment' is also increasingly less about natural and more about man-made external conditions, that is, natural versus sociopolitical environment. The greatest threats to qualitative survival are now more related to things caused or affected by humans (e.g. road accidents, war) than things instigated by forces of nature (e.g. infectious diseases). Our quality and quantity of life are now far more threatened by lifestyle choices and luxuries than by natural disasters. This means that man, rather than nature, is the highest immediate threat to man's survival. Having conquered and reined in nature, man must also be checked. There are collective actions, beliefs, and habits that in the long run undermine the drive toward qualitative improvement in both collective and individual lifestyle. In Nigeria, these would include unruliness, disdain for the rule of law, disorderliness, brazen corruption in public institutions, and disregard for merit. The last, especially, is vital as it kind of feeds back into all the other ills that undermine the quality of the social order.

Axiom 6: Some humans have to strain to achieve fitness (these are more prone to environment-induced stress).

No matter how improved an environment becomes, whether natural or sociopolitical, some not-insignificant number of persons would still struggle very hard to function. In fact, these individuals would often struggle to function in any given environment because the key element isn't in the environment but within these individuals.

Some Implications Emerging From These Axioms

The easiest and most efficient way to organically change people's behavior and orientation is by redesigning their immediate and relevant external environment, natural, physical, social, and political. One can start with the question: what sort of environment would necessitate the adoption of the kind of attitude, behavior, and outcome we want to see people manifest? The downside is that this approach is relatively value-free and can equally be successfully employed by one who wishes to hold society captive and enslaved. But it'll always be less controversial and less risky to attempt to change the environment than to attempt to directly change people. This is because there's no law or technique that can be applied in uniformly changing people. If the environment is optimum, the least capable among its occupants would also optimize their potential. The only type of humans that thrive in a suboptimal/extreme environment are the extremely fit ones. And they thrive even better in a better environment. This is why an equalized environment can still never equalize achievement or outcome. Barring placing an embargo on opportunities for extremely fit people, inequality will continue to be the natural outcome in even the most equitable environment.

Addendum: About two weeks after the initial publication of this post, I came across Matt Lakeman’s remarkable and indepth ‘Notes on Nigeria’. A product of his 12-day sojourn there. In the comments section, I came across an interesting comment by a former diplomat from a European country. Here's what she said about Nigeria:

“It used to occur to me that (Nigeria) society was configured in such a way as to make the most aggressive and objectionable individuals successful and able to negotiate their day, and to the rest who may be more mild mannered, tough luck. It’s also spectacularly ostentatious. I am not enough of a writer to sum this up to even my own satisfaction, but imagine the most wwwwooooooowwwwwwww OUT THERE extroverts you have ever known – that’s Nigeria. Or at least that’s urban Nigeria.”

I thought to highlight this comment in order to buttress my own observation that Nigeria has a character and it is a wild one and only those whose personality or upbringing align with this national character can succeed effortlessly. Also, interestingly, as miserably decadent and irresponsible Nigeria is, you'd be hard-pressed to find a people still more passionate about defending their country's tattered reputation than Nigerians. Nigerians will defend a known convicted Nigerian criminal than allow a foreigner piss on his bonafide son or daughter. Matt Lakeman experienced this first hand in the comment section of his post. In fact, he commented that the post was on course to become the “most viewed of anything I've ever written” and also “the most polarizing”. The comments section exploded beyond the numbers you'd typically see on a Matt Lakeman's writings. I read the whole 77 comments (as at 8th of April) and I can say that about half of them are militantly oppositional, about 1/4th laudatory, and another quarter somewhere in-between. Nigeria is by a wide margin a country of unreflective loudmouths which her politicians excellently typify.

1. According to a study conducted by ANLTP/TIM in 2018, the profile of migrant women from Nigeria transiting through Niger en route to Algeria and Libya was young (18-30 years old) and educated (at the level of secondary or university education)

2. There is a popular local term for this migratory fever known as Japa Syndrome, ‘Japa’ being a colloquialism for migration to a decidedly better destination. But the term, which originates from the Yoruba language, literally connotes “escape with alacrity”.