When in English we refer to “another” something, we imply that it is one of a group of things. “Another car in traffic” , “Another person at the party”. “Another tree in the forest”, etc. “Another” implies inherent
belonging, even if arbitrary.
Labeling someone as just another person in the room leaves out any distinguishing features that might set them apart from the rest of the group, and while that ignores the fact that everyone is unique, it’s really the point. Seeing past the aspects that make someone stand out in a crowd and just including them as one of many is the root of inclusivity. Seeing the forest through the trees, as it were, is what we are trying to impress.
The saying that one cannot “see the forest through the trees” means that one is focusing too much on the details to see the larger picture. That doesn’t diminish the importance of the individual trees in the value of the forest, it just means that the value of the forest as a whole is more than the sum of its parts. We wouldn’t say, “That’s a fine forest, except for those cherry trees, they make such a mess.” Would we? Every tree in the forest contributes to the health and balance of the whole just like every person in a community – when treated as a true member of the community-contributes to the value and health of that community.
This week
So this week we will be talking about the different ways that we actively and passively Other people, how our peers and neighbors Other us, what effect that has on community both broadly and narrowly, and what we can do to shift our thinking. In small groups, you’ll have the opportunity to open up in a safe space to really understand different perspectives and to grow your empathy. This community is strong because of our diversity and approach to various people and cultures. Reconciliation is at the heart of why ROM was started, and we can’t reconcile with someone until we have empathy toward them. Othering blocks empathy, and thus is counter to reconciliation.
What does it mean to be “the other”?
We’ve all felt the sting of being excluded in a community, whether it was in middle school or the office. It could have been because we were new, or we weren’t as smart as the in-crowd, or maybe it was because of the way we looked, or the way we worshipped, or the way we pronounced certain words.
It comes naturally to separate that which doesn’t belong. Remember those childhood games where you chose the object that wasn’t like the others?
Those taught us the essence of what it is to exclude. But historically, exclusionary behavior is the story of society. Before there were borders, people tended to stay with small groups or villages that looked alike, thought alike and behaved alike. Sure, if you acted out to an extreme, or behaved contrary to what was accepted, you could have been banished from the group, but very seldom were there natural additions to the community from outside.
Think about marriages between villages a hundred years ago. If the outside half of the match weren’t vetted thoroughly, there would be a scandal (I’m sure everyone can think of a good example. What if a Catholic married a Protestant, a Shiite married a Sunni, Buddhist and Hindu, Politically Left and Right… All of these matches go against the norm in a small community. Larger, more cosmopolitan communities like you might see in developed cities, states, or generally secular countries rarely make an issue out of such contrasts, but that wasn’t always true.
When a community — whether a village, a church, or a social media page — singles out a person or group as wrong or excludes it based on ideology, lifestyle, or other defining factor, they make those people “The Other”.
Rarely do you hear someone using the phrase “the other” in conversation or political speech, but they’ll say things like “Those people…”, “Those illegals…”, “Aliens…” or other terms used in a derogative manner. This is based on misunderstanding, ignorance and fear. People are labeled “the other” when they are perceived as an enemy, either to physical or ideological safety.