Groups and "Others"...

I find it disturbingly paradoxical to talk about  "the other"," the Other" or "Othering". Why?


Groups form their identities by various distinctives. These are cultural differences, which define values. The problem comes when values conflict with another "group", which they inevitably will. Focusing on these differences and using them as forms of "entitlement" does not help those of a minority race to "overcome". But, it enables an entitlement mentality. Ethnic identities are a biological fact, but we don't have to promote the idea that their social status deserves special treatment! This is a nonesstialist position.

I read recently where the Academy has gone from "the other" to "the Other" to "Othering". It seems to me that "the other" is a particular individual that is different from you. "The Other" is another group, whether  defined by differences of interest or values, or a "people group", while "othering" is an action taken toward "the other", and/or "The Other". Discrimination is about distinguishing, while "othering" is looking at commonalities. Both are useful, but must be understood within the proper "frame.

Groups are dangerous to individuation, as they do pressure individuals to conform to certain standards, or values. While this is good for children, it can be deadly for adults. Deindividuation has illustrated how group behavior all too easily becomes "herd mentality" and "mob behavior". Mobs create unrest and undermine the ability to think critically for oneself. It is peer pressure, plain and simple. Such "group think" is the group's "protection", security or defense against "foreign bodies" and is useful to maintain their survival. But, "group think" can also provide a cover for oppressive government or abusive dictators to defend their "territory". In these cases, propaganda can be used to manipulate and marginalize those that ask questions, or think "outside the box". Social conformity, in these cases, create a society where oppression rules over creativity, and individuation.

An identity is formed by  one's values, which must be underwritten by liberty, not paternalistic government, that "tells you what those values MUST be", in areas that really do not make a difference in societal flourishing. Otherwise, the individual is left without the ability to choose his vocation, or compete for a particular job. Americans have valued this form of individual liberty. While it is true that not everyone has the same capacity to perform every job, it is also true that there is a wide variety of jobs or interests that should be open to the individual in a free society.

In America, the States determine many social norms or values, such as abortion, gay marriage, legal ages for marriage, and other such "standards". These "standards" are the "cultural norm" for a particular local culture. But, at the national level, diplomacy is always negotiation of differences between or among different interests, cultural values, or standards of behavior. And these are determined by international law. It does become problematic when certain cultures do not allow liberty of conscience to the individual, as to religious conviction/claims. These cultures have been given "special priviledge" or exception, to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, which is disturbing to the nonessentialist. The West has paid a high costs in tolerating "intolerance".

Both postmodernity and multiculturalism are anti-thetical to rationality. Rationality is the only way or means of finding a place for "law and order". Otherwise, laws will be conflicting and confusing, because they will defend a particular culture, while discriminating against other cultures....or individual values.. An exclusivist culture defends a particular Tradition, while an individualist defends biological propensity/genetic identity. It is probably that both social conditioning AND genetic identity make for the uniqueness of individuals across the globe. And reason, not tradition, is the only way to understand those differences.

I am only beginning to think through these issues, so I can form my own opinion, and not be led by a paternalistic "authority", that limits my ability to come to my own conclusions.

Context Is Important to Identity

Rules/laws define and bring clarity and this is important for any society. Today, though, these rules or the laws in our Constitution are being dismissed because of higher, more alturistic goals. But, such thinking leaves little room for identification factors or for justice. Justice, in this context, means respect for the society that is defined by such rules and protection for the members/citizens of such a context. Justice is defined by protecting and upholding the "rule of law'.

Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.

On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?

What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.

I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state?  And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.

So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?

Neither Nature or Nurture, or Universals

The individual should not be determined by Church or State, nor should the individual be determined by nature or nuruture....

Although we live in contexts which do limit us, and all individuals have distinct natural giftings, these cannot be determined in any specific outcome in free societies. There are various "outcomes" in which the individual may use their certain giftings.

Those that want to prescribe a universal value are determinists and will use power to undermine liberty. And these do so with impunity of conscience because their value is absolute, or ultimate. Aren't there various ways of understanding universals?

Children are impacted by their family or origin, but the "impact" does not have to be permanant. All humans have the capactity to enlarge their understandings, or to re-orient themselves to healthier ways of viewing the world or themselves.

Just as we are impacted by our familial envirounments, we are impacted by our physical environment. But, to say that humans are only submissive, compliant "outcomes" of such, is short of true. Humans are resposive to their environments, but aren't prescribed as to how or what they will respond to.

The human mind is a mystery in some sense. Though we respond to stimuli, do we always take the same actions? If the human brain were only a computor then it could be assumed that humans are little more than robots to various stimuli. Don't humans all have various ways of processing information and putting that information together? Isn't finishing a dissertation adding a "new dimension" of understanding and knowledge to the human race? How, then does new information come about, if humans all process their information in the same way?

Innatedness or Environmentalism?

Last post I was pondering the question of democracy and justice. It seems to me that there is a "conflict" of views in the issues of social justice and democracy on a more basic level, innatedness and environment.

The conservative, who believes in self responsibility and limited government also believes that man can develop innately because of his God-given nature. While those that believe in social justice also believe that human nature will develop, these also believe that proper environment is also necessary for human nature to develop appropriately.

Is the human gifted above the animal kingdom to develop irrespective of environment? Or is environment mandantory for a proper development?

Is a democratic form of government all that humans needs for proper development, or are social structures such as family, community and Church also necessary? Do individuals develop because they are rational animals, or because they are social animals? Isn't it both?

The individual and society has also bred many debates philosophically. Interesting debates as these are the substance of our public policies.

Life Forms

This morning while having breakfast with my husband, we talked about what made human life different from other forms of life, or could we make that distinction.

Scientists understand life's interdependence. It views life from a wholistic viewpoint. This is why there is so much concern over the environment. Without environment, then 'life' cannot function properly.

This is also the case in human contexts. Without the proper environment, life cannot function properly. Life is squashed, squelched, and squandered.

But, is there something greater than the equality of life forms? Is human life no different from biological systems?

The irreducible complexity of the world and the human being is beyond human ability to understand. I wonder if we will ever be able to understand everything about the world and life.

Life is truly a mystery. In this sense, life goes beyond the material realm. Life points beyond itself, as a design. But, what kind of design is the question. That is what philosophers these days are quandering over.

I just hope they don't reduce life, otherwise, we are headed for quanity over quality and that would be a disservice to mankind.

Obama's State

It is pretty well established by those that believe that "big government" is not the "way to go", that Obama wants an "Obama State".

Obama wants to expand the energy program without even having the technology developed, so that we will not be dependent on foreign sources, as well as protect the environment. There is certainly nothing wrong with the reasons, but the policy needs to be clearly thought out, without seeming urgency, which this adminstration seems to be doing with every public policy that comes up "for grabs".

In Congressional hearings, Al Gore, said that it would cost the taxpayer about 30cents a day for this energy program, to which Newt Gingrich replied that the figures were misguided and misleading. Even if the figures are correct, we are talking about $400 per year for a family of 4!

Not only is the energy bill being negotiated, but healthcare is of urgent importance. Obama wants a plan like Europe's. This universal healthcare is not known to give the best most efficient care. A friend of mine has a sister in Germany, and my husband's family lives in the Netherlands. Both have had to wait to get medical care that was necessary. Why? Because when people do not have to pay, then they are more likely to take advantage of that with more doctors visits, that would have probably been delayed had they had to pay out of their own pockets!

Why is there such urgency to "take care of the major portions of our economy? Is Obama afraid, that his popularity will go down and he won't be able to get his policies implemented?

Or is he afraid that by the next election, the Republicans will hold more strength of numbers, because the American people will vote with their feet?

It seems that some of the GM plants that are having to "cut back" are being politicized. The Republican states are the ones chosen, as the "cut backs" will be unpopular, and then the Republican Congressmen will be blamed...and Obama will maintain a Democratic majority to carry out his revolutionary agenda!

I find it hard to think that we will be able to recover some of the lost ground! It angered me to hear them tout how much it was costing us in future generations to not address the environmental issues! AND THE STIMULUS BILL WAS NOT GOING TO EFFECT THE NEXT GENERATION IN ANY NEGATIVE SENSE!! That is lunacy!

I wonder what we can do and wish my husband and I were still in D.C. so we could be better informed and involved in making a difference for the sake of our country.