Where the Tribe Ends & the Individual Begins

The role of the advocatus diaboli (Latin for “Devil’s Advocate”) was formally established in the Catholic Church during the canonization process (Delaney, 1980). The intention was to ensure rigorous scrutiny of candidates for sainthood by appointing someone to argue against canonization, highlighting flaws, inconsistencies, or potential exaggerations of virtue. This institutionalized skepticism was meant to safeguard against hasty or biased judgments.

Yet, even with such a moderator, groups could descend into adversarial argumentation. The Devil’s Advocate often reinforced a combative dynamic, where the goal was to win rather than to understand.

Instead of perpetuating adversarial debate, a more constructive position might be envisioned: the Angelic Inquirer. This figure would not argue for or against but would facilitate objective, Socratic questioning. The Angelic Inquirer’s task would be to guide participants toward clarity, encouraging dialogue that seeks truth, not merely self-serving victory. The “angel” would facilitate objectivity, introduce and facilitate questions that illuminate assumptions. The model would require and moderate the Socratic method, encouraging participants to articulate reasoning and confront contradictions. And, finally, insofar as possible, the angel would ensure a constructive tone that demands inquiry that does not descend into hostility.  in short, the angelic process would reframe discourse from adversarial combat to collaborative exploration.

One of the angel’s greatest challenges in dialogue is disentangling tribal identity—political, religious, or cultural—from personal identity. When individuals conflate group membership with selfhood, disagreement feels like a personal attack (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).  Considered in the light of identity, Socratic dialogue offers a pathway to disassociation. First, assumptions are questioned, asking why one holds a belief and whether it is contingent on group identity. Second, alternatives are explored by considering perspectives outside one’s tribe without immediate rejection. Third, reflective distancing is reinforced by indicating that identity is multifaceted and not reducible to group affiliation. By practicing these steps, individuals can cultivate resilience against polarization and rediscover their authentic selves beyond tribal boundaries.

To conclude, the Devil’s Advocate was designed to safeguard truth through opposition, but adversarial roles can entrench division. An Angelic Inquirer, by contrast, facilitates objective questioning by nurturing Socratic dialogue. In doing so, individuals can learn to disassociate tribal identity from personal identity, fostering a culture of inquiry that strengthens democracy and human flourishing. However, such learning is just as critical— perhaps more critical—an issue for our dysfunctional governmental officials. The recent and longest government shutdown in American history is attributable to our legislators’ total unwillingness to accept the reality of their situations and limitations of their power. They sought personal political advantage over the welfare of the nation. Perhaps, at minimum, we need an objective angelic advocate citizen to be present at every government session that addresses substantial issues.  The advocate would publish on the Internet a full report, quoting not only what was said, but also,  who said what, and when.

References

Delaney, J. J. (1980). Dictionary of saints. Doubleday.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.

Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Routledge.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.