COMMUNICATING WITH THEM

The study of “othering” focuses on how we identify others and the consequences of that labeling.

Originally the studies analyzed the era of Western exploration and colonization. For example, Captain Cook labeled the people he encountered in Hawai’i as “savages,” “not civilized,” “not developed,” and “not Western.” In contemporary times, women were described in terms of “not men” and those in the LGBTQ community were described in terms of “not heterosexual.”

The process of othering tends to define the differences from the perceived positives we view in ourselves. There are many negative consequences of othering, including considering those that are different as “less than” and not recognizing people’s good attributes. The “others” themselves experience negative effects when they are forced one way or another to accept this alternative version of themselves.

Rudyard Kipling said it many years ago in his poem “We and They:”

               “All nice people, like us, are We

               And everyone else is They:” 

The concept of othering applies equally well to groups and individuals in conflict. Motorists can have strong views of cyclists defining them as “others” in ways that reaffirm their own “rightness” and the “selfish” demands of cyclists. Covid vaccinated individuals can have strong views of people who refuse vaccination defining them as “others” lacking in personal and social consciousness. Members of political parties can view and speak of members across the aisle in othering language. For example, a 2019 study presented Republicans and Democrats with moral violations committed by individuals identified by each political party. The study showed that Democrats were more lenient on other Democrats and Republicans were more lenient on other Republicans. The difference was who was the “other” and who was the “us.” 

What can happen if we stop thinking of others as “them”? Kevin Dutton, author of the new book “Black and White Thinking” tells the story of Winston Churchill who happened to see a guest about to steal a valuable silver saltshaker from the dinner table. Of the many things Churchill could have done, he picked up the matching pepper shaker and slipped it inside his coat pocket and walked over to the other guest, set the pepper shaker on the table and whispered, “I think they’ve seen us. We’d better put them back.”

 Rather than making the guest a “them,” Churchill made the guest and himself a “we” and the rest of the guests the “them.” Churchill demonstrated what those who study conflict would advise: help people find the “we” and let go of the “they.”