"Us" and "Them"
"Us" and "Them"
We live in a complex world. Daily we
are bombarded with information, misinformation, and disinformation. The
Dow is at 20,000, North Korea has nuclear arms, and one chocolate candy
is 385 calories. We have internet news, TV news, radio news,
newspapers, magazines, and more. Fake news. Real news. How do we deal
with this information overload? How do we navigate our daily lives? In
order to walk down the street, get in the car, and go to work, our
brains tune out certain stimuli and focus on others. Our brains
categorize things.
These categories include our self-image. How we see ourselves, who we are: race, religion, sex, and other variables. For example, I am female, 5 feet and four inches tall, and have brown hair. I am not male and I am not blond. This is my identity. However, I am now noticing that “identity” extends beyond gender, physique, and religion. Identity includes politics. Identity includes being a Republican or Democrat. The media calls this identity politics. As individuals identify with one party, the other party becomes what they are not. Social psychologists refer to this circle that includes “us” as the ingroup.
Members of the ingroup share core values. Perhaps we believe in conservation, recreational marijuana, and gender equality. As soon as we become an “us” there becomes a “them.” “Them” is the other, not “us.” The “us” are the good guys and the “them” are the other. We are polarized. The classification system or group really does not matter: Black-White, Arab-Jew, or Male-Female. It is the circle and grouping that defines “Us” and “Them.” The mere experience of being in a group promotes ingroup bias.
After World War II, social psychologists began to examine the phenomena leading to the war. The belief was that by understanding the causes of the war future atrocities could be avoided. Many of the principles they studied, such as ingroup bias, prejudice, stereotyping, violence, authoritarian personality, apply to our current political climate. Ingroup bias, for example, fosters stereotyping about outgoups. Jews are one example of an ingroup. Being part of an ingroup, especially when the ingroup is a minority can be a source of pride. Small threatened groups tend to be cohesive. People form their identities and get a sense of belonging from these groups. So ingroups have value. They serve a purpose. But, the simple process of being part of a group has negative consequences too.
“Ingroup” and “outgroup” belonging fosters stereotypes. I will refer to Jews because it is a group I am familiar with. Stereotypes of Jews abound: stingy, big noses, rich, brilliant. When my father served in WWII, he lived in the barracks with someone who had never seen a Jew. His fellow GI grew up thinking that Jews had horns and asked my father why he did not have horns. Similarly, Somali born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, said that she was raised to hate Jews. She had never known a Jew but she knew that she hated them. Later on, as an adult, when she met her first Jew, she was surprised. She liked this persona and could not understand what it was that she was supposed to hate.
Simply by classifying the other, we foster stereotypes and prejudice. We depersonalize and dehumanize others before we even know them. The Nazis thought of Jews as vermin, less than human. This allowed them to victimize and kill them. I am reminded of the scene from Schindler’s List where the commandant is shooting Jews for sport. They are not human being like him. They are the other, animals, vermin.
Many of the principles studied by social psychologists following WWII apply to our current political climate. One of them is ingroup bias. The process of grouping creates an “Us” and a “Them.” Ingroup bias leads to stereotypes, prejudice, and even violence. We are all guilty of this, both the left and the right. There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. We just disagree. So how can we move from an “Us-Them” relationship to an “I-Thou” relationship? One way is to make a friend with someone very different. I suggest taking “The Other” out to lunch and getting to know each other. I bet you will be surprised to find out you are not so very different.
These categories include our self-image. How we see ourselves, who we are: race, religion, sex, and other variables. For example, I am female, 5 feet and four inches tall, and have brown hair. I am not male and I am not blond. This is my identity. However, I am now noticing that “identity” extends beyond gender, physique, and religion. Identity includes politics. Identity includes being a Republican or Democrat. The media calls this identity politics. As individuals identify with one party, the other party becomes what they are not. Social psychologists refer to this circle that includes “us” as the ingroup.
Members of the ingroup share core values. Perhaps we believe in conservation, recreational marijuana, and gender equality. As soon as we become an “us” there becomes a “them.” “Them” is the other, not “us.” The “us” are the good guys and the “them” are the other. We are polarized. The classification system or group really does not matter: Black-White, Arab-Jew, or Male-Female. It is the circle and grouping that defines “Us” and “Them.” The mere experience of being in a group promotes ingroup bias.
After World War II, social psychologists began to examine the phenomena leading to the war. The belief was that by understanding the causes of the war future atrocities could be avoided. Many of the principles they studied, such as ingroup bias, prejudice, stereotyping, violence, authoritarian personality, apply to our current political climate. Ingroup bias, for example, fosters stereotyping about outgoups. Jews are one example of an ingroup. Being part of an ingroup, especially when the ingroup is a minority can be a source of pride. Small threatened groups tend to be cohesive. People form their identities and get a sense of belonging from these groups. So ingroups have value. They serve a purpose. But, the simple process of being part of a group has negative consequences too.
“Ingroup” and “outgroup” belonging fosters stereotypes. I will refer to Jews because it is a group I am familiar with. Stereotypes of Jews abound: stingy, big noses, rich, brilliant. When my father served in WWII, he lived in the barracks with someone who had never seen a Jew. His fellow GI grew up thinking that Jews had horns and asked my father why he did not have horns. Similarly, Somali born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, said that she was raised to hate Jews. She had never known a Jew but she knew that she hated them. Later on, as an adult, when she met her first Jew, she was surprised. She liked this persona and could not understand what it was that she was supposed to hate.
Simply by classifying the other, we foster stereotypes and prejudice. We depersonalize and dehumanize others before we even know them. The Nazis thought of Jews as vermin, less than human. This allowed them to victimize and kill them. I am reminded of the scene from Schindler’s List where the commandant is shooting Jews for sport. They are not human being like him. They are the other, animals, vermin.
Many of the principles studied by social psychologists following WWII apply to our current political climate. One of them is ingroup bias. The process of grouping creates an “Us” and a “Them.” Ingroup bias leads to stereotypes, prejudice, and even violence. We are all guilty of this, both the left and the right. There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. We just disagree. So how can we move from an “Us-Them” relationship to an “I-Thou” relationship? One way is to make a friend with someone very different. I suggest taking “The Other” out to lunch and getting to know each other. I bet you will be surprised to find out you are not so very different.
