On The Need To Belong: Part III

Regarding the topic of "us vs. them," we have arrived at the fact that almost every time one uses the pronoun "us" rather than "I" instead, that person necessarily differentiates him/herself and those similar from the rest of the world, or even the rest of the universe. Of course, I have been constantly using "we" to describe some group of individuals, those who I am describing in this blog. I suppose "we" could refer to all human beings, or it could mean all who read this. I, in fact, do not know exactly to whom "we" refers, but I would like to think that it applies at least to all human beings. However, so long as humans are not alone in the universe as sentient creatures, it is likely that all beings capable of thought, consciousness, and awareness have at some point formulated the concept of "we," and have at some point gathered themselves into groups as well. Therefore, we see that it is not only difficult to escape the use of "we" or "us" in every day conversation, but that it is also difficult to even pinpoint where we can safely and objectively define the border between "us" and "them." In the most extreme case, "us" could refer to everything in the universe. In this case, simply by definition, there can be no "them" for the universe encompasses all of reality (disregarding a few theories of cosmology, for now). Ergo, perhaps this is the most "pure" use of "us." Unfortunately, for the present purposes of this argument, it is impractical to define "us" as the entire universe. Our main concern currently, however selfish it may seem, ought to be the preservation of humanity, so that humankind may progress even further in its understanding of itself and of the universe. Ergo, if we continue to assume that division and subjective biases are "bad things," then logically this argument arrives at the point that "we" should refer to all humans. Using "we" or "us" to describe a nation, sports team, school, or culture, sadly yet implicitly erects an invisible wall that slices through the very arena of humanity.

It may seem as though so far, these writings have seemed awfully pessimistic. However, this is far from my intention. Obviously there are times when behaving in groups does not lead to all out war. For example, in the United States, state borders divide up the country, yet it is infrequent that states actually go to war with each other (except of course during the civil war). Also, surely peewee soccer teams do not overtly hate each other with passion. The inherent problem, therefore, regards the subtleties of the changing mindset that occur as a person dons a label or joins a group (they are, of course, effectively the same thing). As we mature and grow up in society, we become used to the group mindset, and we regrettably learn to judge any situation we may happen upon first from our own group's perspective. Of course, as all groups are guilty of this same practice, clearly no particular perspective prevails. But still, we continue to view the universe primarily through the lens that we have always held pressed against our eye. Nearly no one considers another's opinion without his or her own opinion constantly in mind. When we learn in high school to write argumentation essays, we are told to do much research about the opposing side, so that we can write an objective paper. Ironically though, the purpose of gathering data from the opposing side is not to expose the truths or good ideas of the other side, but rather to poke holes in the other side's arguments, to find flaws in their reasoning. As humans, we are unique (among animals, at least) in our ability to simulate a situation from a perspective other than our own, to view it pretending to wear someone else's shoes. It is utterly sad, then, that so many of us hide away that ability in exchange for the incredible high we get in trying to prove our own opinions as right.