“Us versus Them” Thinking is Not Inevitable

Catherine Raeff

Apr 9

Identity doesn’t have to divide people. It can actually be a source of empathy and common ground.

I believe that much good can come from thinking systemically about identity. Systems thinking can help us promote empathic understanding and forge common ground. I am thus dismayed that identity has become a source of divisiveness in the world today. Divisiveness emerges when people of different identities understand themselves and others in terms of not only different, but also competing and opposing interests and goals. People start to identify themselves and others unidimensionally as if they were locked in an endless opposition. Doing this makes it see that forging common ground is simply incredible and elusive.

Fortunately, it does not have to be this way. It does not have to get divisive because identity is neither unidimensional nor static. Understanding identity multidimensionally and dynamically provides a basis for mutual empathic understanding and forging common ground.

Multidimensional and the Dynamic Construction of Identity

Multidimensional identity construction enables people to see areas of identity overlap with others. People can go beyond asking themselves “Who am I?” to asking each other “Who are You?” When people respond in terms of multiple dimensions, they may just find that they share some identity dimensions with others. People can see that one cannot simply identify someone else as unidimensionally or globally other than oneself. As people see similar identity dimensions, others become less alien and there is space to forge empathic understanding and common ground.

Potential for empathic understanding and forging common ground also lies in the dynamics of identity construction. As people see areas in where their identities overlap, they can RE-construct who they are in terms of common identity dimensions.

Identity development can also include identifying oneself as someone who thinks about others multidimensionally and dynamically – that is, as someone who strives to construct common ground. Instead of defining the self in opposition to others, one can define the self as someone who cooperates with others, seeks to promote diverse goals, and who seeks to treat people equally.

Shared Identity: Team Human Being

When people see identity similarity, they can go further and ask, “Who are WE?” To answer that question, we can CO-construct and develop new SHARED identities by articulating and defining ourselves in terms of a common good that is made up of common values, concerns, interests, and goals. Moreover, everyone—no matter their identities—can contribute to the common good. Doing so does not entail subordinating diverse identities. On the contrary, everyone can contribute to common goals in individualized ways.

Diverse individuals and groups can mutually support each other’s goals and interests while simultaneously pursuing a common good. It is not one or the other. Diversity and similarity can and do CO-occur because we are all unique blends of individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes. People are BOTH different and similar. People can identify both as both different and as similar to each other.

Understanding people as systems includes understanding any person as a sub-systemic part of the wider world that we all share. And that includes identifying oneself as a sub-systemic part of the wider world that we all share. It also includes identifying oneself in relation to others with whom one has direct and indirect contact. Defining oneself in relation to the wider world and in terms of valuing direct and indirect global connections could contribute to mutual empathic understanding and forging common ground. If people identify with the world and with others in general, they may be more inclined to engage with others and see others as similar in some ways. At the very least, they could see some merit in pursuing common goals to deal with worldwide issues—such as climate change or a pandemic.

I often have MSNBC on when I exercise on my indoor bicycle. One morning in August 2021, a Judge Clay Jenkins from Dallas County, Texas was a guest on Morning Joe, and he talked about how he and other county officials were requiring masks in schools and businesses in some Texas counties where infections and hospitalizations were rising, especially among children. He explained that it was a battle between humankind and the virus, not between Democrats and Republicans. He also hoped that the (Republican) Governor of Texas “would join our side,” namely the side of humankind. He recognized that if some people feel that they are on one “team,” they cannot wear a mask or get a vaccine. He pointed out that there are not “two teams,” just one: “Team Human Being,” and that the enemy is not each other. The enemy is the virus.

To me, it was a call to identify as a part of the system that is the wider world. Of course, this judge is not the only person who made this point. From pundits and politicians to Dr. Fauci, there were calls to understand that the pandemic is not an individual rights issue or a political identity issue; it is a public health and medical issue that affects everyone. And it affects everyone because we are all sub-systemic parts of one wider global system.

Us versus Them Is NOT Inevitable

A few years ago, I gave a presentation to a group of psychologists about identity. I made many of the points that I am making here. I advanced the idea that promoting empathic understanding and forging common ground among diverse individuals and groups is possible. I talk about the need to understand both ourselves and each other using multiple dimensions of identity.  It seemed to go over well. There was a lively and positive discussion about advancing the cause.

But then, someone in the back of the room called out that what I was saying was all very nice, but ultimately it is unlikely that people will ever see themselves and others in terms of common values, goals, or identity dimensions. That’s just not how people are.  He said that it is just too hard to get people to think beyond their own unidimensional identity groups. He expressed his belief that it is simply inevitable that people identify themselves and others in “us versus them” terms, and that doing so actually promotes individual wellbeing. He said, “I’m sorry, but that’s just how people are. We are hardwired that way.”

I wanted to scream, but I smiled politely as he spoke as I thought about how to respond.

First, it may be hard, but that does not mean it is impossible. Just because an undertaking is difficult (and complex!), it does not mean that we should abandon it, or worse, not even start it. Such defeatist thinking is an easy way out of even trying to address the complex challenges of today’s divisiveness and conflict among identity groups.

Second, appeals to “hardwiring” are problematic. Actually, such appeals really get my goat. Appeals to hardwiring problematic because they are not systems based. Instead, they assume that phenomena are static rather than dynamic. They are also unidimensional because they assume that there is a single cause of any particular human act. To claim that some aspect of human functioning is hardwired means that it is taken to be caused by genetically preset and permanent features of the human brain. It implies that the brain is the single, rock bottom cause of human functioning. When applied to identity, it connotes finality and promotes a static view of people and identity. People are understood in terms of permanent characteristics that are biologically given and neurologically set.

Certainly, a human brain is central to all human functioning, including human identity construction. I am not denying the importance of the brain. However, it is not the whole story. Identity, like human functioning itself, is constituted by multiple, interrelated, and dynamic individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes.

In contrast to the idea of “hardwiring”, neuroscience today emphasizes neural plasticity and flexibility. It is now understood that neural connections in the brain are not necessarily set in stone (just as stones are not set in stone). Rather (and in keeping with a systems perspective), the brain is flexible and dynamic, and neural connections can and do change throughout the lifespan. I am thus immediately skeptical of static ways of talking about the brain and of linking such claims about the brain to identity construction. Or to any mode of human functioning for that matter.

Third, yes, some studies in psychology show that identifying with a particular group is associated with wellbeing because it promotes a sense of belonging.  Seeing one’s group excel promotes individual self-esteem. However, identifying with a group does not have to entail denigrating other groups. One group’s success does not have to come at the expense of another. The audience at the presentation really responded to this issue. People started talking at the same time and numerous side conversations started. They said they respected different groups. Someone said, “I’m not competing with other groups.” Someone else said that she was not raised to look down on others. They were saying that it does not have to be “us versus them.” It could be “us and them,” or “us with them,” or maybe even “we.”

It doesn’t have to be “us versus them.” That is surely not the only way to promote well-being through social identity. Thinking about identity in terms of “us versus them” also really got my goat because I think that it too reflects a unidimensional and static view of identity. As such, it overlooks the complexities of identity multidimensionality and dynamics. So, of course I got agitated. Us versus them thinking is unidimensional rather than multidimensional because it implies that people identify themselves primarily in terms of one group and one set of qualities that are inherently opposed to other groups. It is static rather than dynamic because it implies that people permanently belong to one particular group that stands permanently in opposition to another permanent group.

But this is not true. Research shows that people define themselves using many different and overlapping qualities and dimensions. Identities change and develop.  And so once again, we come back to where we started, namely thinking systemically about the complexities of identity construction. We come back to thinking about identity as a system made up of multiple, interrelated, and dynamic parts. How useful and consequential that is!

Multidimensional identity construction enables people to see areas of identity overlap with others. People can go beyond asking themselves “Who am I?” to asking each other “Who are You?” When people respond in terms of multiple dimensions, they may just find that they share some identity dimensions with others. People can see that one cannot simply identify someone else as unidimensionally or globally other than oneself. As people see similar identity dimensions, others become less alien and there is space to forge empathic understanding and common ground.