Bret Weinstein agrees.
For the uninitiated, Bret Weinstein is a biology professor at Evergreen State College in Washington. His refusal to participate in this years school tradition called the Day of Absence resulted in dozens of students disrupting his class, accusing him of racism and calling for his resignation. Campus police told him they could not guarantee his safety and he was escorted off campus.
In previous years the Day of Absence involved faculty and students of color meeting off campus in symbolic protest. This year, student groups asked white faculty and students to meet off campus. Prof. Weinstein disagreed with this move, arguing that a group of people deciding to remove themselves from a shared space was morally defensible whereas directing another group of people to vacate that space was not.
So, if ingroup/outgroup behavior is an essential feature of humanity, can it be more effectively managed in an enlightened society? What are we to do with it? Do we contain it? Do we use it? Do all citizens get to use it? FWIW, I’m hanging my hat on ubiquitous DNA editing or “finding” space aliens. Whenever I game this out in my head I’m wracked with dissonance and remorse.
Hmm. Tricky. My guesses, based on a lot of history study and direct observation:
1.“Does every grouping of people lend itself towards identifying and excluding outgroups?”
No. Only when each grouping is assigned unequal valuation. I have seen no support for a claim that there NEEDS to be an “outgroup.”
- “Is the denigration of an outgroup inevitable?”
Once there is one, yes of course. By definition of the term outgroup. --“This is the silly question.”-- (Raisuli, The Wind And The Lion 1975.)
If there isn’t one, then no.
- “Is it ever desireable?”
Desirable to whom? The answer is “yes,” if someone desires it. “No,” if no one does.
There is no OBJECTIVE answer to this question, because it is not an objective question to begin with.
- “Is an identity based on opposition to an outgroup more politically potent than an identity based on shared values?”
It depends on how you define “potent,” and it depends on exactly how good a job of each is done. We’ve recently witnessed in the US, that it is more “politically potent” to run a campaign based on sloppy antagonism, if the people being antagonized are horribly incompetently led, by people who have done absolutely nothing to create a sense of shared values among their erstwhile supporters. But we’ve not seen any test comparison where both groups were competently led.
- " Realistically, what should an enlightened society do about othering?"
Well, not meaning to be snarky or “clever” about it, but a truly enlightened society would not have to deal with othering, because they would not have indulged in it to begin with.
However, as the mention of the Robbers Cave experiment said, once “othering” has occurred, it is quite possible to counter it and build a united society. It’s just very difficult and painstaking work, requiring a LOT of wise leadership, a lot of patience, a lot of time, and more than anything else, no reversion to “othering” by the people trying to eliminate it.
No, I don't have any links, or authoritative support of experts. Just many years of reading and observing, as I said. I have never seen a group set out to create unity, and follow through on it competently. Every single attempt, from right or left, from one gender or another, from one nation state or another, has invariably been subverted by people who wanted to use the "movement," (or whatever you want to call it) to gain personal advantages or wealth or status.
See “History of Christianity” for examples.
You may look like we do
Talk like we do
But you know how it is,
You’re not one of us.
Does every grouping of people lend itself towards identifying and excluding outgroups?
Identifying the group or subgroup, pretty much so yes. And by effect identifying those who not part of that group and therefore by definition are “outgroup.” We tend to want to be parts of teams and teams are valued in comparison to other teams. Cubs vs Mets. National League vs American League. One will care more about ones family and fictive kinships … and that more means unavoidably that there are those who you care less about.
Is the denigration of an outgroup inevitable? Is it ever desireable?
That depends on the meaning of “denigration.” Saying “The Cubs are the best!” is in fact saying that no one else is as good … is that denigrating them. Caring more about the welfare of your kinship (real or fictive) means caring not as much (less) about others … denigration? Actively attaching negative rather than less positive valance though? Not inevitable and rarely desirable. Sometime though it is. It is desirable to attach negative valance to Nazi skinheads, for example.
Is an identity based on opposition to an outgroup more politically potent than an identity based on shared values?
Depends on the specifics. It does appeal to the basics of human nature.
Realistically, what should an enlightened society do about othering?
Accept its reality and attempt to minimize the salience of the othering. Make it more at the level of the latke vs hamentaschen debates. There are differences that we can if anything celebrate and have fun with.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as another line of that song says;
How can we be in
If there is no outside