The appeal of othering — why divisive rhetoric works
Not for the first time, I am struck by the almost maleficent attraction people seem to have towards extremist divisiveness. While it’s well within human nature to pick sides (it’s why football is so successful), more and more of our media outlets have taken on a toxic, divisive rhetoric that is poisoning our lives, and alienating our neighbors. What’s worse, we’re lapping it up, and demanding more.
In the past, there were some culturally recognized “taboo” topics that people steered away from, precisely because they knew they might stir conflict. The two major ones, of course, being politics and religion. Fast-forward to 2023, our society seems to have abandoned the concept of taboo, and embraced wholeheartedly such subjects, yet it’s not (as you may think) in an effort to de-stigmatize and create open conversations.
We chase these previously avoided “hot topics” in a permanent, obsessive invitation for conflict and division.
Pro-Trump or against, pro-vax or anti-, pro-Ukraine or with Russia, pro-Israel, or standing with Palestine, time and again, we fall into these extremely polarising subjects and use them as an opportunity to “purge” our friends list.
You hold a different opinion from mine? Then die. I want nothing to do with you.
Little does it matter that you yourself knew nothing about said topic a week ago. Now, you’ve been given a cause. Now, you are the cause, and everyone who identifies with a different cause must be the enemy. The other.
Defining our enemy so we can define our selves
One obvious explanation that I see for this obsessive, overly-needy attachment to various social or political causes is a dwindling, insecure sense of self.
It does not take a genius to realize that our educational system discourages youths from building an identity, not when they could be focusing on practical, employable skills.
A strong sense of identity involves a good deal more critical thinking, which in turn, isn’t a highly sought-after trait, not amongst politicians, church leaders, or corporate employers. Not truly. Yes, a certain degree of critical thinking is encouraged by all, but just as long as it operates within a given perimeter. Typically, one that serves them.
People, as a mass, are generally discouraged from defining a personal identity. Who am I? What do I like? I don’t know, but I try to double tap the most popular reels on my feed each day — does that count?
Not being, as I am, taken by extremes, I don’t think social media is “the spawn of Satan”, though I do believe it encourages group thinking, and deepens this loss of personal identity.
Lacking time, money (hello, recession), and the encouragement or initiative to pursue personal interests, to read, and broaden our intellectual horizons, we greedily latch onto any and every “worthy” cause that our toxic media feeds us.
While it’s perfectly reasonable to hold any of the above pro/against positions, one needs to examine one’s track record to understand if they are truly genuine opinions, or examples of mass adoption.
Sadly, a lot of the most vociferous pro/against zealots seem to change their “worthy cause” with the seasons, and are “purging” their friends based on a new core belief every year.
To me, that bespeaks a poor sense of identity, and that is extremely dangerous. People who don’t know who they are make for ideal victims for skilled manipulators. And of those, the world is full.
Why so fragile?
And by that, I mean our sense of self.
Well, because defining who you are is a life-long process, and typically involves more than just being a good person. That’s a good core starter, but it by no means defines an entire identity.
The way I see it, you ought to work in gradually larger circles.
The first circle pertains to you, and you alone.
Who am I? What do I like? What do I believe? Why do I like/believe these things?
In order to define a strong set of values and beliefs, one needs an education. An understanding of history, politics, science, and psychology, at the very least. Add to that literature and philosophy, for nuance, and you’re looking at a lot of introspection, a lot of reading — most of us don’t have time (nor patience) to define our first circle.
So we skip to the next one. The close friends and family circle, which is dictated by blood, and typically, by circumstance. Many of us consider old school acquaintances or work mates our closest friends, on account of them being there so long. But having a poor sense of personal identity and values, it’s unlikely that this group will be one that mirrors our values and identity, that understands, that helps us grow. Snag #2.
The third and subsequent circles are concerned with people we’re less close with. Acquaintances, coworkers, people at our church, in our building, and so forth.
Here’s where we start to get anxious. Why?
One — A worrying absence of tribe
On top of our dubious sense of self, we’ve come to exist in a grand homogenous pool of strangers. In the past, our community was defined by various affiliations, religious, tribal and so on. Humans developed to exist in fairly small, united tribes. These tribes offered protection, loyalty, safety, and a core sense of belonging now painfully absent from our modern lives.
Which perhaps explains this tendency to gravitate toward group thinking. We walk through life in search of our tribe, and while it’s possible to identify and keep it, that again (as above) takes effort. Introspection. In order to recognize your tribe, you must first learn to recognize yourself. And sadly, many of us don’t take the time, so we reach for makeshift tribes, instead.
As teenagers, we’ll gravitate to simply defined tribes. You like Metallica, too? Cool. We’re best mates now.
Easy. Though, when we grow a little older, we come to recognize that a mutual interest in Metallica alone does not a tribe make.
As adults, we repeat this experiment with seemingly more worthy causes. Instead of Metallica, we use politics, and one’s stance of certain trending social topics, because those make us feel like “men and women of the world”. They feel intellectual, and many of them are worthy causes, so what better way to identify our tribe?
A core aspect of my own identified tribe is a reverence for life. What opinion you hold on the Covid-19 vaccine, the Ukraine war, or the Gaza situation is secondary. As long as you’d see one “side” die and suffer, you do not share this aspect of my tribe, and so we are not tribe.
But we need to take the time to understand ourselves, so we can go forth with a strong understanding of our core tribal needs and beliefs. Otherwise, we’ll keep attracting faux tribesmen who may end up betraying us in the night, and leaving us for the wolves.
Two — Drowning in a sea of others
Another issue that I see, relating to tribe, is in our technologically-enhanced society, we are become one tribe. In previous eras, we were defined by a narrow group of people.
There was our tribe, the perhaps friendly neighboring tribe, the enemies in the other valley over…and that was it. Our brains could work with that. Now, our brains are forced to swim in this vast ocean of eight billion people, to whom we (nearly) all have access, thanks to the Internet, all the time.
For our brains, largely still tribesman brains, used to interacting with a small, finite group of people, this is madness. It’s confusing. It’s anxiety-inducing. So we seek out ways to cope in an ocean of strangers.
Suddenly faced with an endless stream of strange new people, we must reach for the first and nearest available identifiers.
You might be a good person. But I don’t have the time, or the calm right now to identify that for myself. So I will screen you based on these (often) random denominators, and see if you’re tribe, or not.
I’ve long been of the opinion that we are more alike than we are different. We have more in common, than we don’t. And I think, in realizing that this human tribe of ours is eight billion strong, there is tremendous, liberating power. But I think we’re afraid of it. I think other people are afraid of it, in particular, so they really encourage this social division.
Being tribe with someone doesn’t mean you share every belief, every concept, every idea, every desire. That is being self with someone. And isn’t it interesting that we demand this mirror-like reciprocity from our “friends”? Almost like we’re searching for ourselves in other people.
Once you’ve acquired a strong understanding of who you are, who someone else is, what they think on a certain matter, what they desire, doesn’t threaten your identity anymore, and so you stop demanding that they see things the same way. Obviously, this won’t mean being friends with absolutely everyone. It will merely allow you to see people for what they are, and to (hopefully) sort friends based on core values and their souls, not on seasonal affiliations.
Thank you for reading! I’m fairly scatterbrained, and this was one of the many random subjects that pique my interest.
I recently put out my first book (the first in a fantasy trilogy), and am working on the next two. So there’s a chance I’ll be talking about that, sometimes, as well as many other random topics.
So if you’re someone who enjoys that kinda writing, well, why not subscribe? It’s free. And I’m desperate. So there, honesty.
P.S.: This isn’t an invitation to tell me why “your cause” is better than Joe’s cause. I won’t be engaging that kind of commentary. :)
