Common Problem as a unifying "Common Enemy"
From my comments in the conversation following my post Perfectionism is In the Details:
Humans work on an "us" and "them" basis. As I said in a recent comment on a post that seems to have disappeared, I believe this to be "hardwired" into our systems, whereas WHO QUALIFIES as "us" and "not-us" (and therefore "them") is both socialized and ( Read more... )
Well, this time, it is my original writing, too.
The posts you have most taken issue with have been where I
have quoted others... who I thought made interesting points,
but not my own points. I can be interested in a perspective
that I do not altogether share... and enjoy the ensuing
conversation, as well.
The basic concept of "us" and "them" is pre-programmed in our mind, and is therefore unchangable. But the factors that define the borders between "us" and "them" are not static. They change all the time, and a lot faster than you think.
Yes: it is "hardwired" vs. socialized, contextual and situational "software".
Take, for example, sibling rivalry. Within the context of the
family, a brother or sister may well be seen as the "other"
or "not-us." But leave the family, and all family members are
part of "us." This may take the overt form of "Nobody else
gets to pick on my sister but me," but I think it is the shift
in context that makes the former rival someone to be protected.
On the flip side, former comrades or "us"-mates may become rivals
when they enter a context where they are in competition for the
same job or partner, because they want someone to view only one
of them as an "us" and the others as "them"s, whether that is as
"management types" vs. "those who need to be managed" or "the guy
I want to be coupled with" vs. "guys I think of as friends" as
some examples...
So ironically, in the Netherlands, muslim fundamentalist helped a great deal with gay emancipation.
Fascinating! And makes total sense... Wouldn't want to be seen
as agreeing with those icky Muslim fundamentalists...
I wonder what factors qualify our borders between "us" and "them".
It is an interesting thing to try and watch. And to do so is
to realize that we actually have multiple levels of "us"ness in
our lives -- as many levels as proper nouns and adjectives with
which we identify: gender, family name, employer, city, region,
marital status, parental status, religious status, sexual orientation,
country, political orientation, attitudes towards everything from
eating meat to premarital sex to the death penalty...
For each of these, there is an "us"ness.
For each "us" there is, by definition, a "not-us" -- usually a "them."
And, usually, "us" is right, and therefore better than, "them."
Sigh.
Usually. But not always. Sometimes there is internalized inferiority.
And sometimes, people can let a difference be, just be, without
having one be better than the other.
I don't know how much is human "nature" and how much is
Madison Avenue (advertising) that has the grass always seem greener
on the other side of the fence, the hair always seem better on the
other side of the curl, the breasts always seem better on the other
side of the D cup... OK, maybe not ALWAYS... :o)
[CONTINUED]
Reply
There are a number of obvious reasons for me to qualify you as "them"; you are a woman while I am a man, you live on the wrong side of the ocean, you have another etnical and religious background, and you are religious while I am an atheist.
Woman, check.
OTHER side of the ocean, check.
Different religious upbringing, check.
Religious, ch-- ah-bu-da-WHA??
Um, hold up there.
I strive to be a "good person" but I don't think I
qualify as religious. I am interested in religion,
and curious about those who are religious, but in
any traditional sense, I am closer to an atheist.
I consider myself to be more of a Jungian Pagan
than anything else -- I believe that the archetypes
have power, yet most of that power, if not all, comes
from the nature of human nature. I think that being
human goes beyond the individual. But I don't give
much credence to any unified, benevolent, omniscient,
omni-powerful being that is actually tracking what is
going on here on a day-by-day basis... just doesn't
make sense. If there is such a being, S/He is on a
break right now; that "seventh day" is a long one, and
S/He is still resting!!
No, all religion is a tool, and like most tools, it has been
fashioned into its current state by man, and it can be
used for good or for ill. That's where I stand, at least.
I do feel, however, that there are a lot of steps between
strict atheism and strict monotheism. Why does the lack of
a GOD in the omni-senses listed above mean that individual
human consciousness is the top level? And just what is it
that is suggesting that? Don't we have a conflict of interest
there?
No, I think there can be something "bigger" than individual
awareness without jumping to the creator god of the old and
new testaments... but enough about that here.
Yet I don't see you as one of "them". To me, you are an "us". That is why you are on my friends' list.
Well, thank you. That is very sweet. And certainly, we both
belong to the "us" of LJ users!! I'm glad I have continued to
qualify to be on your friends list. How did I initially get through
your "us"-ness filter?
Whatever the case, I'm glad I did.
Here's to internationality!
K.
Reply
Leave a comment