On a broad level, societies with a conquer/subjugation bent must create the "us' and "them" model. One might say it is a peculiar byproduct of greed and competition for resources. Certainly when one holds the means of production and one does not, there is disparity. More importantly, or so it is said, it enables the person with the means of production to create surplus which creates wealth. There are then the "have" and the "have nots". When we compete this way, we seem to have modeled this society that is more concerned with status which creates all sort of categories of people.
It is, I suppose; one reason for why it exists in the first place;
to create an Other; which implied an existence of "Us", like you said.
However in a way, the concept of 'other' does exist in different dimensions except possession and resources; social, community; no matter what the belief system, political ideology, or aggressiveness are; there was always the 'Other' within a community; under any disguises.
I actually began to ponder;
In the end and at the beginning, what is it for?
Is it as you said; greed? Disparity?
To create competition?
To protect the status quo?
To gather and focus the support and effort of the community towards one big enemy?
To tighten the community? Creating an invisible link of 'protection' against an enemy; invisible or not, imaginary or real?
On an interpersonal level. How would you define yourself if not for the Other? We are born of the Other but connected. Is it not our purpose as infants to separate ourselves from a helpless state of connection? Have you ever seen an infant discover their foot? To see them understand that this "our' foot and not connected to anybody else? This is mine and that is yours. It is the balance of the connection and the separation that is difficult master. It is the constant comparison to the Other that will blind you to the truth of yourself as an indivdual. That it IS your foot on the path, not the Other's foot.
This, I agreed.
At least the ideas that psychologists have postulated does sounds like this Otherness is something natural, if not celebrated.
It is when the Otherness is twisted, turned into some sort of evil; of wickedness to judge, to banish, to fight...that it gets problematic.
I wonder, what would happen if this concept of Otherness disappears.
Will world peace come, when people came in understanding of each other; where everyone is part of "Us", instead of "Them"?
Or will we become a hive mind instead; parts of a whole?
I think it is just a normal part of being a social creature. We seek to define and organize. To understand where we belong. Like anything it has it's good points and it's bad. I know who I am and where I come from-I have my tribal identity. There are less than 5000 Quinaults in the world--we are a "them" to you and you are a "them" to us. Just because it separates us from you, doesn't mean it has to divide us.
Very, very true.
You've offered a truly great and understanding opinions on Othering; yes, it happens, but it doesn't mean it's -always- bad.
It's nice to be reminded of that.
(Or was it me who sees only the bad examples?)
Actually, you can't define something without opposition...
