A tribe of tribes: Why the EU needs a stronger identity

Conservative nationalism is gathering force across Europe. Across the continent, parties promising to defend their country’s interests—often at the expense of liberal values—are gaining ground. From Belgium to Britain, Germany to France, they lead in the polls. In countries such as Italy, Hungary and Slovakia, they govern.

Part of these movements’ success lies not in policy detail but emotional intuition. As leading conservative thinker Yoram Hazony puts it, human beings do not merely wish to belong—they need to. In doing so, he draws on social psychologists such as Roy Baumeister, who go further. They argue the “need to belong” is a powerful and fundamental human motivation. It is not a political preference but an anthropological necessity, or as Hungarian novelist Áron Tamási once wrote, “We are on this earth to feel at home somewhere.”

In Hazony’s view, only the nation-state can meet this need in the modern world; it offers the emotional intimacy of community and the protective strength of sovereignty. The nation’s success lies in its scale, he argues: small enough for emotional attachment, large enough to be able to provide an identity against “outsiders”. The nation is the only collective “we” that can make hearts ache or eyes well up with tears of pride. It is a shared language, loyalty and collective memory. In his view, the nation is therefore not one identity among many—it overrides the rest. This is why Hazony’s nationalism works so well as a populist programme: it is intuitive, emotionally resonant, and clearly delineates the boundary between “us” and a hostile “them”.

The European project seems not just abstract, but anthropologically unsustainable. If the EU cannot offer a genuine sense of belonging, it cannot become a stable political community

From this perspective, Europe is having an identity crisis. The European project seems not just abstract, but anthropologically unsustainable. If the EU cannot offer a genuine sense of belonging, it cannot become a stable political community. Europe, too, needs an emotionally compelling “we”, which implies the existence of a “them”. The EU flag, anthem, Erasmus, or the euro cannot create identity on their own. A political community cannot thrive on symbols that fail to evoke emotion, memory or catharsis. As social psychology shows, collective identity is rarely built solely on joy, but is also forged through contrast and conflict. A shared story only becomes effective when it includes a sense of “us” who have been threatened, attacked or unified through joint effort—and a sense of “them”, who are outsiders and fundamentally different.

So far, the EU has been either unwilling or unable to define this dichotomy, partly for historical reasons. The European project was born from the horrors of the 20th century and taught to seek consensus, not confrontation. But also because it has never clearly articulated what it seeks to build a community around. The single market? The rule of law? The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? These are all essential values, but they do not create identity. They do not move hearts, generate loyalty or bring tears of emotion.

Meanwhile, populist and ethnonationalist forces offer precisely this: identity fused with fear, pride and anger. In contrast, the EU often appears a distant bureaucracy—regulating, financing, functioning, but failing to become a story people feel a part of. The real challenge is not in treaties or flags but in the daily lives of European citizens. Erasmus and the single market cannot create identity if the residents of a small Spanish town still feel no connection to a Swedish railway worker or a Czech family struggling to pay their bills. Until that changes, Europe will remain a technocratic construct, not a tribal identity experienced and shared in everyday life.

And yet, Europe now faces a historical opportunity. Paradoxically, no one has done more to enable the emergence of a truly “tribal Europe” than Vladimir Putin. His war, his puppet regimes, his hybrid sabotage campaigns across both digital and traditional domains present a clear and present danger—one that could, in the best case, foster a resilient “we” in Europe.

Putin—and, in a different register, the erratic Trump administration with its open disregard for established liberal norms—have inadvertently handed Europe a precious gift. As the liberal globalist era recedes, the actions of the Putins and Trumps, with all their brutal clarity, have drawn a sharp outline around the outgroup. In doing so, they offer a rare historical opportunity to redefine the ingroup.

As the old saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Social psychologists call this the common enemy effect—the phenomenon whereby fragmented or hesitant groups consolidate their bonds when faced with a shared threat. The more visible the adversary, the clearer the contours of belonging become. And with that, something powerful emerges: focus, purpose and a sense of a tribe.

The question is not whether Europe recognises this moment, but whether it can translate it into an identity. Political communities are not built solely through institutions or treaties. They are sustained through shared emotions and sharpened by contrast. It remains to be seen whether the EU can use today’s polycrisis to forge a new, emotionally grounded identity; a kind of European ingroup.

While barbaric populist forces work hard to dismantle the core values of the European project, they do so with total confidence, unapologetic bluntness and deep emotional appeal. Perhaps it is time for those defending Europe’s achievements to think just as boldly: to offer voters new forms of affective belonging and to tap into the political force hidden in the idea of tribal identity in service of the European future.

Such a redefinition is all the more desirable because a truly European tribe would, by its very nature, be pluralistic—a mosaic of overlapping identities, a tribe of tribes. Precisely this inclusive complexity could become Europe’s unique strategic advantage: a flexible, adaptive form of belonging capable of absorbing internal diversity while projecting coherence outward. In an era of rising geopolitical competition and intensifying global crises, such a structure might offer the emotional depth and political agility needed not only to survive, but to remain relevant.