Dr. Wendy Jones in her Psychology Today article "Us versus Them, or Not Our Kind," (11/6/2018) says in her introduction:
I'm going to change direction to address the psychology of what we can call "othering," the viewing of various groups as different and inferior on the part of those who identify with the mainstream. Targets might include queers (including gays and lesbians), African-Americans, Jews, women, Latinos/as--choose your minority. Such attitudes are ultimately responsible for the unacceptable violence that plagues the United States...
She gets right to the heart of the problem. That "othering" is a determination of difference and inferiority that leads to violence.
In their article: The Problem of Othering: Towards
Inclusiveness and Belonging (2017), John Powell and Stephen Menedian define
it as follows:
"Othering" is a term that not only encompasses the many expressions of prejudice on the basis of group identities, but we argue that it provides a clarifying frame that reveals a set of common processes and conditions that propagate group-based inequality and marginality... across any of the full range of human differences based on group identities....[including], religion, sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (class), disability, sexual orientation, and skin tone...
Dr. Jones says the "amygdala" --a part of the brain dealing with fear and aggression--processes information about facial recognition, gender, social race, ethnicity, and economic status. She claims it will activate only for those of their own kind.
However, Powell and Menedian take a more nuanced approach. They concede that recent research in the "mind sciences...reveal processes" which show that we may in fact be "hardwired to make categorical distinctions." And this because our decision-making requires that we "simplify" incoming data in order to be able to act. This means we often make decisions on less than perfect information.
But they also conclude that:
Although "human beings are cognitively programmed to form conceptual categories and use them to classify the people they encounter," the content, definition, and meaning of those categories is not automatic. In other words, although human beings have a natural tendency to make categorical distinctions, the categories themselves and meanings associated with those categories are socially constructed rather than natural. Our environments and social contexts, which include families, community leaders, and friends, tell us which distinctions matter....they impart social meanings...
To summarize this: we have a bio-based "categorical" system which helps us process, digest and act on information. But it is not limited to biology. Social norms and meanings become part of the biological content. How we interact, speak and behave, become part of our cognitive equipment.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
