Does every grouping of people lend itself towards identifying and excluding outgroups? Is the denigration of an outgroup inevitable? Is it ever desireable? Is an identity based on opposition to an outgroup more politically potent than an identity based on shared values? Realistically, what should an enlightened society do about othering?
It’s not inevitable. Only those other people do it, and they’re deplorable.
Seriously though, since it seems to be so pervasive, it probably had some survival value in our evolutionary history.
The key word there, of course, being “had”
From what I’ve seen working in schools:
Everyone wants to be in the in crowd, but you can’t have an in crowd unless there’s an out crowd. So somewhere along the line certain people get “assigned” to the out crowd. I put “assigned” in quote marks, because I don’t think it’s necessarily a deliberate selection, it just kind of happens. The sad thing is, any attempts by kids in the out crowd to try to fit in are treated as trying to butt in where they aren’t wanted.
The definitive study was the Robber’s Cave experiment in which they divided 5th grade boy campers into two groups at random and then had them compete against each other. There was mutual hatred between the two groups, stereotypes, and actual physical violence. There were able to solve the problem of group antipathy by making the groups work together toward a common goal.
Tribalism is hard wired into humanity but it does not need to be destructive. The first step is not to make groups compete against each other, or to see things as zero sum. Secondly emphasize a bigger identity rather than the group identity. For example, the armed forces have some of the best results for group relations in the country. They emphasize that when you get through boot camp you are more than just a member of a group, you are a soldier, sailor, or marine. Then they teach interdependence and that they cannot succeed without each other. As a result in 1999 85% of military personnel surveyed said they had friends of a different race. Contrast this with colleges where they give certain students special consideration in admission and financial aid, then they segregate the students by race and teach them that all of their problems are the fault of other races. This results in self-segregation being a growing problem on campus.
Well, yes and no. If you are implying that it no longer has any survival value, I don’t know that we know that. And, come the Zombie Apocalypse (or something along those lines), we may need it again even if we don’t need it now. It may have some value for some population now and be neutral or negative for others. I would not try and second guess Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.
I’m not implying it. I’m saying it outright.
OK. Care to share with us your evidence or the research that has been done to prove it?
Do you know what else has no survival value in today’s world? Eating a diet full of fat, sugar and salt and leading a sedentary lifestyle. In our evolutionary history this kind of behavior would help you avoid death from starvation. In modern society it just makes you obese.
Just because something isn’t good for our modern environment doesn’t mean we are going to stop doing it. We are mostly biological robots acting on our programming.
Seriously? There are many, many people and groups in the world right now who are aggressively othering other populations, and it doesn’t negatively impact their survival and ability to reproduce one bit and in many cases actively helps it. (For one little-heard of example, I hear some dude used aggressive othering and got his tiny hands on a fairly prestigious role as a result.) Yes, being on the wrong side of the othering doesn’t help you much, but that’s not the problem of the people doing the othering.
Don’t take this as me saying that othering is good. Instead take me as saying that not all things that are bad for a society are bad for all individuals in it, and also take me as saying “has survival value” doesn’t necessarily mean “good”.
I am a member of several special interest internet forums. Bird dogs, primitive bow building, philosophy, writing, bird watching etc. The groups are very diverse in everyway you can imagine but we all have a common interest.
I can see where not othering could put a serious damper on any number of activities and social cultures by the group with the preference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a chosen culture as long as you don’t impede on anyone else to enjoy theirs.
So what is the end result of the Left’s anti-othering?
Everyone is exactly the cookie-cutter same?
It was a philosophical statement, not a statement of scientific fact. And see below about how I may have misinterpreted the scope of what you meant by “survival”
I agree completely.
I wasn’t talking about individual survival. Othering is now detrimental to the continued survival of the human species as a whole, and has been since, oh, 1945-ish
I read “has survival value” as for humans as a whole. Of course, it’s obvious it’s advantageous for individuals.
Sure, it’s the Left that want everyone to be the same. It’s the other hand that embraces diversity, multiculturalism, gender diversity, minority rights,and all that. Suuure…
I have friends in the military that found it very difficult to understand systemic prejudice during our conversations. It was like running into a brick wall until my husband pointed out that they live in a system that is about as close to a true meritocracy as you can get. In a life or death situation you can’t afford to have arbitrary divisions. Maybe we can learn something from them.
BTW, I’ve never in my life seen a college administration segregate students by race. I saw a lot of self-segregation.
Not at all. The result is anti-othering in and of itself.
Be whatever you want, just be sure you agree with our positions, or else you’re a racist.
–Inclusive mob on campus
My personal fave is the “Deep State”. It’s the outgroup of those rural, uneducated, alt-right targeted Infowars idiots who, while they won the election, can’t cope with the fact that their candidate is actually a sociopathic cunt. To them, to you, to me, to everyone.
But their narrative is that they’re the plucky, unheard, untappe majority of Real Americans fighting against a tide of evil under the guise of government. Except now the government is them. And life is still shit, even moreso that Trump is being all Trump about things. But they can’t recuse him, on account of he’s their avatar ; plus they’ve always defined themselves in opposition with the federal government. And so they have to invent a shadow cadre that’s preventing Trump from being the “real” Trump who’d do all he’s told them he’d do, and shower them with entitlements and shit. Instead of, you know, making away with their medicare while the nearest hospital has them forcibly interned for profit while Obamacare lasts.
A non-existent outgroup is truly best of all, because it’s always there and you can use it for everything. It’s like Goldstein - a symbol, not a reality, than can be invoked to explain or justify every damn thing. I used to think “Muslim terrorists” was the apex of that, but the “Deep State” is leagues better, from a Nazi point of view. Muslim terrorists can’t undermine national institutions, you see. But the DS ? It can mean “chuck the constitution”, if you want it to.
Right, the racists, misogynists and xenophobes just want to hold their opinions, quiet-like. It’s not like they’re legislating to effect their twisted wills…no, they’re just being.:rolleyes:
When the position is “don’t be a racist”, then disagreeing with that opinion (and acting on it) does indeed make you a racist.
Look, it’s pretty simple. If you don’t want to be called a racist, don’t be one.