Tribalists vs Ideologists. How do we better understand each other

[gaz love x]

It's very true, I'm not ever going to support another team but I do despair at how unenjoyable this team is to watch compared to those I grew up with. And it's not just that football's changing, I don't think the game has gotten any worse to watch in general (with the exception of the removal of third man up but that's another discussion). The sad truth is that I don't enjoy watching a Geelong game if we don't win. I should (and will) always want Geelong to win, but I should also be able to walk away from a loss and think that was a worthwhile way to spend two hours. Several games this season we won and felt like a waste of time (North, Carlton, Collingwood come to mind), barely a highlight to be found. There's no right or wrong way to support but that's my perspective.

 

[Cool Cat]

There appear to me to be two distinct types of Geelong supporters and they do not understand each other and therefore end up in giant fighting matches that result in them not understanding each others point of view. I have a feeling after last nights loss this will get worse and it will be a long summer on here.

And before I go through this I will put in the obvious caveat that this is an extreme simplification of a population that doesn't cover everyone and probably completely explains no one. But nonetheless these simplifications can be a usefull way understanding a population.

First of all there are the tribalists. These are the supporters who started following the team because they see themselves as belonging to the Geelong tribe. Usually because their other family members supported Geelong or they lived/moved to Geelong at some point in their lives. The tribalists follow the club unconditionally. through thick and thin. No matter what the club does they will continue to follow Geelong just as strongly as before. However, if in an alternative reality the tribalists family followed a different team instead or they never lived in Geelong but lived in another location instead the tribalists would probably support another football team just as strongly as they currently support Geelong. The reason they value Geelong is because its their tribe. If they were born into another tribe then they would be a tribalist for another club.

The second group is the ideologists. These supporters may also have started following Geelong because of their family or their location just like Tribalists but that's not the reason they follow Geelong so strongly. They follow the Geelong football club strongly because they see something special about the Geelong football club that makes them distinct from other teams. For many ideologists it was because of their attacking nature the club had for so many decades. But there are other reasons as well. It might be because the club never got unjust advantages like the big clubs, grew its young talent rather then raided other clubs talent pools, had rural values, could rise up against a better team when it got its momentum going (i.e. a team that could run on emotion which means they were always a shot). Geelong has had a lot more ideologist supporters then other clubs over the years because of the attacking nature they have employed. A lot of new supporters who didn't start with a tribe from an early age choose Geelong as their club of choice over the years because of these factors. Ideologists will not support the club unconditionally. This is because Geelong is special and if you take away what is special then Geelong is no longer Geelong to an ideologist. Some ideologists may always follow the club no matter what but the strength of that support will change depending on how the club evolves. And some ideologists have a tipping point when they will stop following the club altogether even though they might not know it. However, if in an alternative reality the ideologists had different family or lived in a different location then they probably wouldn't follow another team as strongly as Geelong. Or they may have found their way to supporting Geelong anyway. Unlike the tribalists. Geelong ideologists were only ever meant for Geelong.

Now why does this matter. Many of the ideologists have been wounded by the clubs approach to football over the past decade. They feel like Geelong is losing what has made them special (or has already lost it). The club has lost its attacking flare and become the club of control football. It has turned to stealing players from other clubs like the Carltons and Hawthorns of the past rather than recruit young kids and train them up. Geelong has lost the ability to rise up on emotion and momentum football and pile on goals in quick succession against anyone. For many ideologists the club right now looks like the clubs they used to hate. And this makes these supporters angry and sad as they see part of what they love drift away. Its not about the win loss record (although they are often positively correlated).

Tribalists confuse this loss of love or anger with bandwagonism or being spoiled. Tribalists feel Ideologists are not real supporters. Ideologists on the other hand don't understand why Tribalists aren't as upset by the change in the club. They also see Tribalists as not real supporters because what they love about Geelong doesn't appear to be loved by the Tribalists. I.e. the ideologists have come to the realisation that the tribalists don't see what was special and perhaps never did.

And this is where we are at. Tribalists don't see Ideologists as real supporters and Ideologists don't see Tribalists as real supporters. Ideologists are drifting away from the club as they feel the club lose what made it special to them in the first place. A number of supporters have drifted away from this board over the years and they appeared to me to be the ones that fit more into the ideologist category and these boards have been left with mostly Tribalists.

For many ideologists they would rather the club go back to its roots even if that means a number of poor performing years. Its better to be a Geelong struggling with a path to a future then to not be Geelong at all.

Now no one fits perfectly into these descriptions. They are simplified descriptions after all. But I do see many lean one way or the other. How do we better get along? Can we atleast understand our point of views or where they are coming from? Can tribalists understand the pain some supporters are going through is not just because of the results but is an existential threat to what they value about the club? They are not just non stop whingers.

Can we learn to be more like each other? Can Tribalists also think about what they love about the club that is distinct from others so we can share in what is special about Geelong? Can ideologists come to terms with the idea that there is value in tribe identity for no other reason then that is your tribe. I.e. Can they embrace unconditional support for geelong no matter where the club goes? As an ideologist this last concept is something I struggle with but I'm trying. All the data suggests belonging to tribes does make people happier and happiness is the meaning to life (or as close as we will get one). So there must be good in it. Plus no matter why we started following geelong we have become a family in some ways. And family stick together.

Anyway that's all I have. Hope people are recovering ok from last night. Regardless of who you are.

Go Geelong

very thoughtful post seeds, thanks for going to the effort.

I dislike ideologists generally, because they are dogmatic. But in this context I am clearly one of your ideologists (even though I will love the club and team until the bitter end). I don’t think being critical is a bad thing though. It’s vital.

 

[Spazz Cat]

What's the point of the thread then if your whole premise ("there appear to me to be two distinct types of Geelong supporters") is by your own admission completely negated by the fact that most people do not fit in to one category or the other?

Because plenty of people do. And that's ok.
You don't and that's ok too.

 

[Baudolino]

Because plenty of people do. And that's ok.
You don't and that's ok too.

I do think he raised some interesting ideas in his OP in terms of the philosophical question about whether attacking footy should be considered an indelible part of our club identity and whether it should be a non-negotiable game style expectation incumbent upon all Geelong coaches. Definitely a worthwhile conversation to have.

The part I find ridiculous ridiculous is the whole "tribalist vs. ideologist" framing. I don't think that adds anything to that conversation, as it's reductive and the labels don't apply to most people.

 

[Chinacats]

We are not Barcelona. It’s not a way of life philosophy that must be adhered to. Blight era was high scoring and we played ‘the beautiful game’ . However no cups. So Ayres came in. We got back the beautiful game in 2007-11 then Scott came in. It changes depending on the clubs list and the type of football the coach believes in. It’s not a philosophy of football type of club.
But I do like the line in our theme song ‘we play the game as it should be played’ . That we don’t do! And I hate it!

 

[Seeds]

What's the point of the thread then if your whole premise ("there appear to me to be two distinct types of Geelong supporters") is by your own admission completely negated by the fact that most people do not fit in to one category or the other?

because many lean one way or the other even if they arent the extreme. many in the middle also lean heavily one way on a certain aspect and heavily the other on another aspect.

i think posters who lean one way struggle to understand those who lean the other. I am one. And its only on reflection and using such extreme strawman concepts that i think we can better understand each other. We can also learn to follow the club the other way as well and this will bring us all closer together.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I do think he raised some interesting ideas in his OP in terms of the philosophical question about whether attacking footy should be considered an indelible part of our club identity and whether it should be a non-negotiable game style expectation incumbent upon all Geelong coaches. Definitely a worthwhile conversation to have.

The part I find ridiculous ridiculous is the whole "tribalist vs. ideologist" framing. I don't think that adds anything to that conversation, as it's reductive and the labels don't apply to most people.

The TvsI thing I found most interesting.
I always like threads about past players and the history of clubs the most.
I think because of a certain age demographic of our club who saw one very talented man and a coaching style that existed during his peak popularity we have more ideological supporters than all other clubs.
Doesn't mean those ideological supporters don't fit into many other camps.
And doesn’t mean they don't vary in their amount of ideology.
It does not have to be labelling.

 

[Seeds]

very thoughtful post seeds, thanks for going to the effort.

I dislike ideologists generally, because they are dogmatic. But in this context I am clearly one of your ideologists (even though I will love the club and team until the bitter end). I don’t think being critical is a bad thing though. It’s vital.

ideologists may not be the best term in this case. I just couldnt think of a better one.

Agree Criticism is vital. even when things go well as it helps us understand why things are going well And to help ensure they stay that way.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Another thing I find interesting is you would find most fans from a certain age group (after Ablett) would say G.Hocking is their favourite player.
Including myself.
But he was the biggest one way runner we've ever had, did not care about defensive structures or positioning in the slightest.
But we loved him the most. It's what we loved. Skill. Entertainment.

 

[Baudolino]

because many lean one way or the other even if they arent the extreme. many in the middle also lean heavily one way on a certain aspect and heavily the other on another aspect.

i think posters who lean one way struggle to understand those who lean the other. I am one. And its only on reflection and using such extreme strawman concepts that i think we can better understand each other. We can also learn to follow the club the other way as well and this will bring us all closer together.

Okay fair enough, this is more nuanced than I thought your OP appeared to be. The additional explanation improves your point.

 

[standupand]

Ridiculous post clearly designed to strawman people who disagree with the particular criticisms you have of the club.

Agreeing with particular choices the club have made that *you* think are wrong does not make someone "unconditionally supportive of the club". It just means that they agree with *those particular decisions*. You're erroneously conflating people happening to agree with club decisions that you think go against club identity with the idea that these people are unwilling to criticise the club.

Case in point: I am highly supportive of the club's recruitment policy of the past decade. I think it was both a) the right thing to do and b) mostly executed extremely well (with some notable exceptions of course). However, I am STRONGLY critical of our appalling finals record, and I attribute that mainly to the fact that Chris Scott's coaching, for whatever reason, breeds mentally weak players who cannot stand up under finals pressure. I also think the match committee have been cowardly over the last decade when it comes to their refusal to make tough but necessary decisions to drop senior players like Dahlhaus and Higgins, and this has resulted in an opportunity cost for the development of our youth.

I have many other criticisms of the club as well. I know that others you would include in the tribalist category of your reductive "tribalist vs. ideologist" framing have their own strong criticisms of the club too, but you just selectively choose to ignore these criticisms so that you can act like these posters only ever agree with what the club does.

I don't think being a tribalist means being more accepting of what the club does. A tribalist just cannot imagine having ever contemplated supporting any other team. Just like you cannot contemplate ever having had a different family. But doesn't the true ideologist necessarily have a limit or condition to their support? The club can theoretically stray from its roots. And maybe you think of jumping ship? Or maybe you just wonder: what if I'd chosen the bullies or the dons instead? I do agree with Seeds that the cats have more ideologists among their ranks than other clubs. Think of the pies. They are tribalism personified. One big family. Personally I think I am a tribalist too. I will celebrate a Geelong flag just as hard if we won playing a dour style as if we played free flowing stuff. But at the same time I do think we will win only when we understand who we are, and that includes learning to play the Geelong way.
Great post Seeds.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Ridiculous post clearly designed to strawman people who disagree with the particular criticisms you have of the club.

Agreeing with particular choices the club have made that *you* think are wrong does not make someone "unconditionally supportive of the club". It just means that they agree with *those particular decisions*. You're erroneously conflating people happening to agree with club decisions that you think go against club identity with the idea that these people are unwilling to criticise the club.

Case in point: I am highly supportive of the club's recruitment policy of the past decade. I think it was both a) the right thing to do and b) mostly executed extremely well (with some notable exceptions of course). However, I am STRONGLY critical of our appalling finals record, and I attribute that mainly to the fact that Chris Scott's coaching, for whatever reason, breeds mentally weak players who cannot stand up under finals pressure. I also think the match committee have been cowardly over the last decade when it comes to their refusal to make tough but necessary decisions to drop senior players like Dahlhaus and Higgins, and this has resulted in an opportunity cost for the development of our youth.

I have many other criticisms of the club as well. I know that others you would include in the tribalist category of your reductive "tribalist vs. ideologist" framing have their own strong criticisms of the club too, but you just selectively choose to ignore these criticisms so that you can act like these posters only ever agree with what the club does.

i got to the beginning of "ideologists" and one sentence in before i laughed and skipped over it and gave a laugh icon. its an insanely embarrassing typical seeds post no different to the rest of his bashing trying to disguise it as some philosophical mannerism that has just failed to cloth itself. same old same old just a different attempt at it.

just merge it into the CS thread and move on

 

[Pollywaffle]

I'm a tribeologist.
Will always support the Cats, but I hate the way we play ATM and the glib corporatised face of the club.

 

[Micksy]

Well thought out post.

Should be stickied.

Post of the year winner right here.

 

[SkittleCats]

Now why does this matter. Many of the ideologists have been wounded by the clubs approach to football over the past decade. They feel like Geelong is losing what has made them special (or has already lost it). The club has lost its attacking flare and become the club of control football. It has turned to stealing players from other clubs like the Carltons and Hawthorns of the past rather than recruit young kids and train them up. Geelong has lost the ability to rise up on emotion and momentum football and pile on goals in quick succession against anyone. For many ideologists the club right now looks like the clubs they used to hate. And this makes these supporters angry and sad as they see part of what they love drift away. Its not about the win loss record (although they are often positively correlated).

I agree with a lot of what you said here but i've bolded the bit that i want to discuss. In modern football, if you dont use all the weapons in your arsenal youd be dead. What would Melbourne be without Lever, May and Brown? What would Richmond have been without Lynch, Houli, Prestia and even Caddy for a year there? What would we have been without Ottens and Mooney in 07 and 09? You have to use Free Agency and Trades in modern football, ignoring them to develop from within is a pathway to tragedy. Even if we were to pull the trigger on a rebuild now, it would still involve us bringing in Free Agents and trading for talent.

If we did a survey of tribalists vs ideologists i would imagine that the ideologues would probably skew older, the types that saw us build in the late 90's and early 00's and think that we can do it again at the drop of a hate. All while ignoring the extenuating circumstances of those drafts like the father sons we picked up. Building like that wont happen again. And it cant given how easy it is for players today to move clubs and the constraints of the salary cap. Ideologists are the types that ignore reality, both in the football world and outside of it, they elevate only that which supports their view of the world and how things should be and ignore the evidence and reason that contradicts that world view. Acquiring talent via means other than the draft is not why we lost to Melbourne by nearly 100 points last night.

Going after Jezza, Dangerfield and Stanley (to name a few) was not a mistake, it was necessary. The idea that you could take a handful of picks to each draft and build is good in theory, but in practice is full of risk. That's not to say that we should ignore the draft, we shouldnt and we dont. But it has to be balanced with the other methods of player acquisition in modern football.

But how we play with the talent we have is a separate issue and one i agree with ideologists on. Id rather see us attack the ball and move with speed and purpose like we used too rather than the slow methodical football that other teams have found a way to dismantle.

 

[Cool Cat]

ideologists may not be the best term in this case. I just couldnt think of a better one.

Agree Criticism is vital. even when things go well as it helps us understand why things are going well And to help ensure they stay that way.

Maybe idealist would be better?

 

[you pick one]

Another thing I find interesting is you would find most fans from a certain age group (after Ablett) would say G.Hocking is their favourite player.
Including myself.
But he was the biggest one way runner we've ever had, did not care about defensive structures or positioning in the slightest.
But we loved him the most. It's what we loved. Skill. Entertainment.

Hocking was see ball get ball always found at the bottom of the pack,hard to defend from under there.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Hocking was see ball get ball always found at the bottom of the pack,hard to defend from under there.

Exactly he just wanted to play. He wasn't even looking at his opponent unless he wanted to hit them.

 

[you pick one]

Exactly he just wanted to play. He wasn't even looking at his opponent unless he wanted to hit them.

Made me laugh so true.

 

[Cataholic]

Exactly he just wanted to play. He wasn't even looking at his opponent unless he wanted to hit them.

Was a hard, tough player......and would probably be suspended for weeks on end if he were playing now.

 

[Seeds]

Loved the skill, speed. As a supporter, the 2007 GF is my highlight. Football with sheer abandon.

Watching the ball movement in the backline in that grand final is a thing of beauty. Such speed and daring.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Watching the ball movement in the backline in that grand final is a thing of beauty. Such speed and daring.

Its developing a young team of players year in year out and honing their skills, and their team skills. Two steps forward, one step back, and then finally, it all comes together. Thats what 2007 was, I reckon.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

I agree with a lot of what you said here but i've bolded the bit that i want to discuss. In modern football, if you dont use all the weapons in your arsenal youd be dead. What would Melbourne be without Lever, May and Brown? What would Richmond have been without Lynch, Houli, Prestia and even Caddy for a year there? What would we have been without Ottens and Mooney in 07 and 09? You have to use Free Agency and Trades in modern football, ignoring them to develop from within is a pathway to tragedy. Even if we were to pull the trigger on a rebuild now, it would still involve us bringing in Free Agents and trading for talent.

If we did a survey of tribalists vs ideologists i would imagine that the ideologues would probably skew older, the types that saw us build in the late 90's and early 00's and think that we can do it again at the drop of a hate. All while ignoring the extenuating circumstances of those drafts like the father sons we picked up. Building like that wont happen again. And it cant given how easy it is for players today to move clubs and the constraints of the salary cap. Ideologists are the types that ignore reality, both in the football world and outside of it, they elevate only that which supports their view of the world and how things should be and ignore the evidence and reason that contradicts that world view. Acquiring talent via means other than the draft is not why we lost to Melbourne by nearly 100 points last night.

Going after Jezza, Dangerfield and Stanley (to name a few) was not a mistake, it was necessary. The idea that you could take a handful of picks to each draft and build is good in theory, but in practice is full of risk. That's not to say that we should ignore the draft, we shouldnt and we dont. But it has to be balanced with the other methods of player acquisition in modern football.

But how we play with the talent we have is a separate issue and one i agree with ideologists on. Id rather see us attack the ball and move with speed and purpose like we used too rather than the slow methodical football that other teams have found a way to dismantle.

Where it works is where the club is getting in players as the final important pieces to the jigsaw. Where it doesn't is where they are trying to build a core with those imports. Our bad choices weren't guys like Cameron. More like some of the lesser lights, actually. jmo

 

[CatToTheFuture]

There appear to me to be two distinct types of Geelong supporters and they do not understand each other and therefore end up in giant fighting matches that result in them not understanding each others point of view. I have a feeling after last nights loss this will get worse and it will be a long summer on here.

And before I go through this I will put in the obvious caveat that this is an extreme simplification of a population that doesn't cover everyone and probably completely explains no one. But nonetheless these simplifications can be a usefull way understanding a population.

First of all there are the tribalists. These are the supporters who started following the team because they see themselves as belonging to the Geelong tribe. Usually because their other family members supported Geelong or they lived/moved to Geelong at some point in their lives. The tribalists follow the club unconditionally. through thick and thin. No matter what the club does they will continue to follow Geelong just as strongly as before. However, if in an alternative reality the tribalists family followed a different team instead or they never lived in Geelong but lived in another location instead the tribalists would probably support another football team just as strongly as they currently support Geelong. The reason they value Geelong is because its their tribe. If they were born into another tribe then they would be a tribalist for another club.

The second group is the ideologists. These supporters may also have started following Geelong because of their family or their location just like Tribalists but that's not the reason they follow Geelong so strongly. They follow the Geelong football club strongly because they see something special about the Geelong football club that makes them distinct from other teams. For many ideologists it was because of their attacking nature the club had for so many decades. But there are other reasons as well. It might be because the club never got unjust advantages like the big clubs, grew its young talent rather then raided other clubs talent pools, had rural values, could rise up against a better team when it got its momentum going (i.e. a team that could run on emotion which means they were always a shot). Geelong has had a lot more ideologist supporters then other clubs over the years because of the attacking nature they have employed. A lot of new supporters who didn't start with a tribe from an early age choose Geelong as their club of choice over the years because of these factors. Ideologists will not support the club unconditionally. This is because Geelong is special and if you take away what is special then Geelong is no longer Geelong to an ideologist. Some ideologists may always follow the club no matter what but the strength of that support will change depending on how the club evolves. And some ideologists have a tipping point when they will stop following the club altogether even though they might not know it. However, if in an alternative reality the ideologists had different family or lived in a different location then they probably wouldn't follow another team as strongly as Geelong. Or they may have found their way to supporting Geelong anyway. Unlike the tribalists. Geelong ideologists were only ever meant for Geelong.

Now why does this matter. Many of the ideologists have been wounded by the clubs approach to football over the past decade. They feel like Geelong is losing what has made them special (or has already lost it). The club has lost its attacking flare and become the club of control football. It has turned to stealing players from other clubs like the Carltons and Hawthorns of the past rather than recruit young kids and train them up. Geelong has lost the ability to rise up on emotion and momentum football and pile on goals in quick succession against anyone. For many ideologists the club right now looks like the clubs they used to hate. And this makes these supporters angry and sad as they see part of what they love drift away. Its not about the win loss record (although they are often positively correlated).

Tribalists confuse this loss of love or anger with bandwagonism or being spoiled. Tribalists feel Ideologists are not real supporters. Ideologists on the other hand don't understand why Tribalists aren't as upset by the change in the club. They also see Tribalists as not real supporters because what they love about Geelong doesn't appear to be loved by the Tribalists. I.e. the ideologists have come to the realisation that the tribalists don't see what was special and perhaps never did.

And this is where we are at. Tribalists don't see Ideologists as real supporters and Ideologists don't see Tribalists as real supporters. Ideologists are drifting away from the club as they feel the club lose what made it special to them in the first place. A number of supporters have drifted away from this board over the years and they appeared to me to be the ones that fit more into the ideologist category and these boards have been left with mostly Tribalists.

For many ideologists they would rather the club go back to its roots even if that means a number of poor performing years. Its better to be a Geelong struggling with a path to a future then to not be Geelong at all.

Now no one fits perfectly into these descriptions. They are simplified descriptions after all. But I do see many lean one way or the other. How do we better get along? Can we atleast understand our point of views or where they are coming from? Can tribalists understand the pain some supporters are going through is not just because of the results but is an existential threat to what they value about the club? They are not just non stop whingers.

Can we learn to be more like each other? Can Tribalists also think about what they love about the club that is distinct from others so we can share in what is special about Geelong? Can ideologists come to terms with the idea that there is value in tribe identity for no other reason then that is your tribe. I.e. Can they embrace unconditional support for geelong no matter where the club goes? As an ideologist this last concept is something I struggle with but I'm trying. All the data suggests belonging to tribes does make people happier and happiness is the meaning to life (or as close as we will get one). So there must be good in it. Plus no matter why we started following geelong we have become a family in some ways. And family stick together.

Anyway that's all I have. Hope people are recovering ok from last night. Regardless of who you are.

Go Geelong

Thanks Seeds. I don't think anyone can accuse you of not being a passionate supporter and lover of the GFC and I appreciate having you around even if sometimes that doesn't show.

I will say though that ideology can be pretty counter productive. Continually trying to generate ideal outcomes can blind you to practical realities that set you back even further. I would also categorise myself as an "ideologist" per your definition but I'm probably too young to idealise footy from the 80s and 90s and instead idealise planning, strategy, and leadership in a highly dynamic environment.

If it ever doesn't seem like it, just know that despite any disagreement I have with you, I still think your opinions are valid.

 

[someday-somehow]

What's the point of the thread then if your whole premise ("there appear to me to be two distinct types of Geelong supporters") is by your own admission completely negated by the fact that most people do not fit in to one category or the other?

If I didn't know you better I would think you were being deliberately antagonistic. Come to think of it I don't know you at all.