Arguably, that is what we've seen happening throughout history - keeping the conceptual intuitive tribalism but significantly extending what the "tribe" means.
The basics of tribalism comes either from isolated tribes (generally under Dunbar's number) for hunter-gatherers or, later with agriculture, extended family units/clans - where you have both close blood relations and know each other.
Then we see city-states and various unions of many tribes (e.g. for nomadic steppe peoples) forming a much larger shared identity that is using the same behavior and loyalty principles, but you're much more distantly related and can't know everyone anymore.
And this starts a trend of the "larger tribe" intervening in the "smaller tribes" to prevent conflict with them and have individuals of different "subtribes" interact between tribes with a shared goal instead of defending the tribal identity; they start punishing raids and violence between the "subtribes", and form a larger shared identity based on culture, religion, etc.
Fast forward a few centuries and we see the great "religious tribes" unifying many decentralized rulers; and then we see the age of nationalism in 1800s which in many cases unified many smaller states with aggressive unification of their identities and elimination of dialects so that the "tribe that includes everyone" is stronger, but despite the suppression of "smaller tribes" IMHO it's quite clear that the peak nationalism was also very much a peak of tribalism attitudes.
In that regard, humanism is essentially nothing else than treating all humans as a single tribe, and it is an extension of the same trend and practice; we know that dissolving the smaller tribes in order the larger tribe stronger works and is possible as we have done that before; though, often the unification was facilitated and driven by external threats.