This week I have been discouraged... and angry; largely due to the supercilious separation between us and them.
Observations:
Us - Are Us. Them - are them.
Us - Look alike. Them - look different.
Us - Act alike. Them - act different.
Us - Think alike. Them - think different.
Us - Believe the same. Them - believe different.
Us - Know the Truth. Them - are wrong.
Us - Agree. Them - don't agree with Us.
This all seems rather simplistic, but it remains at the crux of numerous disagreements and misunderstandings, and creates unnecessary and baseless contempt and hostility.
It is interesting that human nature dictates a fear of that which is different or unknown (thus creating an us and a them), yet to survive we feel we must find some spirit of cooperation. So we handle both instincts (fear and survival) by dividing the world into an us and a them. And by doing so, we miss out on so much.
Two contrasting examples:
- Nine years ago, I went through Hurricane Katrina. In the immediate aftermath the intense spirit of cooperation was more meaningful and effective than any I have ever experienced. There was no 'us and them'. After about a week though (in some contexts, just 3 or 4 days), once the multi-tentacled government had taken charge, implementing heavy-handed bureaucracy and in some areas a military police-state, we returned to our familiar roles of us and/or them.
- This week while walking home from work I observed a car (in the left hand turn lane at a stop light) pulled in front of the broad white line and the pad that triggers the light to change. As I was approaching the intersection I watched the light cycle twice, but with no one behind her, the woman in the car kept sitting. As I crossed in front of her I saw the frustration and confusion on her face, not knowing what was wrong with the light. She was a nicely dressed Caucasian lady in her 50's or 60's. I felt her pain, stopped, and motioned her to roll down her window. I thought if I explained, it would not only help her now but also in the future. The cross street was busy, and this is in a relatively safe town of about 100,000. I am a middle-aged white guy wearing a tie, it is a bright sunny day at 2 in the afternoon, and when I approached her, her look of alarm soon turned to fear and/or anger as she frantically shook her head 'NO' and reached for her purse. I quickly backed away, and did not wait to see what she was reaching for. I was one of 'them'. Her fear of 'us' (apparently anyone she did not know) was so great she could not think rationally; and the prevalence of 'us and them' is so pervasive that to make this point I feel both compelled and ashamed to explain (again) that we were both white and middle-aged and nicely dressed and... and part of (my interpretation of) us.
In this second example, some may think 'you can't be too careful' and believe she did act rationally, but I do not believe one can think, act, or react rationally in the throes of frantic fear; and we are some times too quick to fear. And with this thought, I am now asking myself a hard question - Would I have felt her pain and/or approached her if she had not been white and middle-aged and nicely dressed? I want to believe that I am different than her and I do believe that my fear is not as deep and my concept of 'Us' is more expansive (the deeper the fear, the more narrow the 'us-inclusive' parameters), but how many times in a week do I still instinctively gravitate toward 'Us' and avoid those who are different - those who are scary? The fact is, regardless of the breadth of my parameters or the depth of my fear, I have created borders to keep scary people out.
Perhaps, in a small minority of the cases (I believe 10% or less), scary people should be less scary; yet a large majority of these perceived threats I believe not only do not pose a danger but actually create an opportunity for mutual learning and growth. So what are we really afraid of? A denigration / deterioration of 'Us' as a result of tearing down walls and broadening horizons? Based on observations, we apparently do believe this. We believe it would be weak to evolve compassionately; we believe it would create vulnerabilities to realize that one who is a part of 'us' in one context is a part of 'them' in a different context; we would not feel safe or secure if we admitted the fact that everyone is different than 'me', therefore the only true 'us' is a party of one; and so with this strong, instinctive foundation in place, we believe our integrity would be compromised if we violate the sanctity of Us by living as if Us Are Them and Them Are Us. So we make the decision to stay strong... and divisive... and stagnant...
Long Live Us!