During some conflicts, the words people choose to use can tell us alot about how they view and understand the disagreement, and how they might begin to see ways to resolve it. Consider this exaggerated example to make the point: Two neighbors are in a dispute over damage done to a fence by a downed tree. In describing the conflict, one of the neighbors talks about how it had been a real “battle” to get his neighbor’s attention. When they did talk, it was like “lobbing grenades over the fence at each other” until his neighbor “dropped the bomb” that he did not intend to pay the costs of repairing the fence. In this case, the neighbor describes the conflict as warfare. 

The way we talk about a conflict shapes the way we perceive and react to it. The words and language used to describe a conflict do, in fact, construct an image in our minds of the clash itself. We actually construct our perception of a conflict from our narrative description of events. As the neighbor continues to react to the rivalry as war, he may begin to think less about repairing the damage to the fence and more about defeating his neighbor.

When we understand how the party in conflict is perceiving the encounter we can begin to enter into his perception by our choice of words. For example, we might ask how we can get “a ceasefire” so “talks can begin.” Another approach is to encourage the development of a “counterstory” that could lead to cooperative collaboration. For example, a counterstory to the tree-damaged fence could be a “weather disaster” that requires the parties to work together to “clean up the damage” and “get people’s lives back to normal.” 

Some studies of workplace bullying have shown how victims talk about their victimization. Some compare the bullying they experienced to a game or competition that was unfairly weighted in the bully’s favor, in which they were wounded or hurt. Others compare such bullying to a nightmare or torture and to being forced to accept a noxious substance. The perpetrators were characterized as dictators, royalty or evil demons. The victims described themselves as prisoners, children or heartbroken lovers who had lost a beloved job as a result of the tormenter.

On a societal level, think about our language to describe how we select political leaders—candidates who will “fight” for us in the “campaign” are “points” ahead and will be “victorious.” Thus, there can be counterstories even to the political process.

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.”