The Danger of “the Other”
We are witnessing the fallout from at least four years on increasing divisiveness in our country. With results of the 2020 general election not yet finalized and accepted, the intensity of the polarization remains all too apparent. We know that the heat of polarization has been inflamed, so that “different” became “unrecognizable,” and this, in turn, became “unacceptable” or even “intolerable.” Is this suspiciousness and rejection of “the other” avoidable?
In some ways, the sobering and alarming answer is, “no.” For more, see Why We’re Polarized by Ezra Klein.
A hard-wired feature of our brains is to rapidly detect what is familiar (hence, safe) and what is alien or foreign (hence, potentially dangerous). The ability to rapidly assess familiarity and difference has been essential to our survival for tens of thousands of years. The sad truth is that this brain-based perception is easily hijacked by messages that equate “different” with “bad” or “dangerous.”
For example, think about how rapidly your view of a person you know well changes when you learn they hold dear to a view that is quite different than your own, be their view on guns, abortion, immigration, LGBTQ rights, and their political party voting history, All that has really transpired is that you have acquired new information about them. But, the new information is impregnated with values relating to what is acceptable and what is not in “the other,” and this quickly (and often unconsciously) relegates them to the role of a “good” or “bad” person. The possibility that they are a good person who merely holds different views from your own becomes hard to sustain.
To briefly return to the question I posed earlier: Is rejection of the other avoidable? The good news is that despite the inescapable tendency of the brain to continuously make dichotomous categorizations, such as in-group and out-group, and potential friend or potential foe, curiosity, intention, awareness, and information are able to temper the intensity of our response, despite us having perceived the other to be different in ways that initially arouse caution.
Common Denominators
Where is the evidence that the negative perception of “otherness” can be overcome? Here are several contemporary examples: The Tham Luang rescue in June and July 2018, where 12 children from a soccer club were rescued from certain death by a team of Navy Seals and Thai military personnel after being trapped by rising seas in a cave they were exploring; the 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia that took the lives of a quarter million people under the force of a 9.2 Richter Scale earthquake that struck deep in the Indian Ocean; the 2010 Haitian earthquake that devastated this poor island nation, claimed nearly the same number of lives, and that prompted a dear friend of mine to begin making multiple trips each year to the island to train Haitian healthcare professionals to improve their ability to care for their citizens; or the Apollo 13 mission to the moon in April 1970, that successfully returned three astronauts trapped by an explosion in their space capsule to a safe splashdown back on earth.
It is true that in each of these cases, there still was an “other” with which to contend, typically nature. Regardless, in response to these events, people’s ability to recognize the underlying common denominators of our shared humanity triumphed over the various distinctions and differences that could easily have to led a “it’s not my problem” conclusion. In response to those events, large parts of the world “came together” and were, at least for a while, all connected and all one diverse people on one small planet.
More to the point, national or global disasters are not a prerequisite for orienting toward what we share vs. what separates us. Staying connected to one another, despite our differences, is an everyday, person-to-person choice and a habit we can all cultivate. For example, we are capable of choosing to cultivate compassion. The root meaning of compassion is that we recognize and share in the suffering of the other. This implies that all of us struggle, that struggle is an inescapable, if unpredictable part of life, and that a simple twist of fate may be all that determines when we or the other encounter adversity. It is through our compassion that we express empathy to one another about our common experiences rather than form skirmish lines that pit us against one another.
Why Seek Solidarity
Compassion and empathy can lead to our acting with a sense of solidarity. Solidarity involves the intertwining of interests and responsibilities. Solidarity transcends ideas and beliefs. It is action-based. It entails working toward common goals. Research studies into the nature of solidarity and compassion on health has also yielded interesting results. The essence of the research is that:
Empathy, which allows us to feel what the other feels, also exposes us to the harmful effects of what the other is feeling (e.g., fear, sadness, anger, loneliness, etc.). Over time, this can lead to negative health consequences for the empathic party.
Compassion for the other acts as a protective buffer against the negative health risks of raw and unfiltered empathy. In short, while empathy connects us to the other, it is compassion for the other that enables us to stay connected to each other.
Taken together, compassion and empathy are good, but it is when they are combined with a sense of responsibility for the other that their power to heal is activated. Seeing beyond differences and toward common interests, despite those differences, is the path through which compassion and empathy fuel action-based solidarity.
Acting with solidarity and compassion toward the other has been shown to activate the brain’s pleasure centers, to function as a mood stabilizer, to improve immune health and increase our resistance to illness, is an antidote to loneliness and isolation, and may lengthen life and health expectancy.
A Response for Our Times
Whether on a national and global scale or the more humble scale of community and our intimate relationships, we are living in times that have emphasized divisions and the pursuit of personal interests. Allowing these trends to strengthen means we fan the destructive flames of fear, isolation, xenophobia, and internecine conflicts. As hard as it is, choosing to cultivate a path of solidarity infused with compassion, empathy, and shared responsibility for one another, on the other hand, aligns our individual strengths in pursuit of goals that are well beyond what any one of else could ever hope to achieve on our own.
My question for you is this: Are you working toward divisiveness or solidarity of purpose? Our shared fate rests on our response.