Development Note #6
Belonging and othering are deeply human tendencies—perhaps responsible for most wars and nearly all the ways groups have helped or harmed one another. It sounds almost absurd: could just two forces drive so much of human behavior? Yet they do.
The desire to belong makes group life possible. It gives rise to all kinds of collectives—good and bad, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive. But once groups form, something else can happen: those inside may see those outside as different, as others. From there, things can progress from simple observation to suspicion, exclusion, and even violence, depending on factors such as ethnicity, ideology, class, education, and bias. When we treat people differently simply because they seem different, that’s othering.
We humans have survived, in large measure, due to our ability to cooperate with those of our own species. Survival depended on trust and teamwork amongst those who belonged. Conflicts with outsiders—over resources, land, or safety—was perhaps a natural, if unfortunate, extension of our organization into groups.
Civilization has since transformed dramatically. In a relatively short time, we’ve gone from small tribal disputes to global threats of annihilation. Our social, cultural, and economic systems have grown vastly more complex, making patterns of belonging and othering tangled and reactive. Understanding how they impact our society becomes so challenging that we may want to avoid the subject altogether. That is unfortunate, because belonging and othering affect virtually everything we do.
Belonging
Cornell University defines belonging as “the feeling of security and support when there is a sense of acceptance, inclusion, and identity for a member of a certain group.” Belonging is, at its core, tribal—it’s what enables humans to come together, work together, and achieve extraordinary things. But belonging is also deeply personal. Feeling that we belong means knowing we’re heard, valued, and accepted for who we are. When that happens, we trust our group for support. Relationships strengthen, participation increases, and communities become more resilient.
Othering
Othering is treating individuals or groups as alien or inferior—often because of characteristics that differ from our own, such as race, culture, gender identity, or beliefs. Though “us vs. them” thinking is ancient, “othering” entered scholarly use only in the 1970s. It describes the deliberate distinction between “us,” the in-group, and “them,” the out-group. The results can range from mild prejudice to catastrophic harm.
None of us is immune. We may see ourselves as enlightened and self-aware, but if we mostly associate with people like ourselves, we may have already formed a group—even if we don’t recognize it. To outsiders, we may appear as part of a single, unified “them.” And once that perception exists, sides can form, each judging the other through imagination rather than understanding.
Connected
Throughout history, groups that recognize their uniqueness often come to distrust others. The needs to belong and to other are powerful enough that we have sometimes dehumanized individuals or even killed those we perceived as threats. Yet both tendencies exist for a reason: our innate ability to relate as groups, and the need to belong leads to the motivation for othering. Without the need to belong, there would be no groups; without groups, there would be no “others.”
Human beings are capable of overcoming our nature through reason. We can reflect on our instincts and learn to manage them. This starts with awareness of how we interpret our own thoughts and feelings. Fortunately, there are insightful resources that explore belonging and othering in depth:
- Belonging: The Science of Creating Connection and Bridging Divides, by Geoffrey L. Cohen
- Belonging without Othering: How We Save Ourselves and the World, by john a. powell and Stephen Menendian
- Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World, by Vivek H. Murthy, M.D.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
Psychologist Lee Ross coined the term fundamental attribution error (FAE) in 1977. It describes our tendency to attribute others’ actions to their character rather than to external circumstances. For instance, if someone runs a stop sign, we might call them “a reckless jerk” rather than consider that they might be temporarily distracted, having just received devastating news. Even close relationships fall into this trap—a spouse’s irritability might be misread as hostility, rather than fatigue after a long day.
FAE happens because we overemphasize internal traits and underestimate situational factors. We simplify complex lives into easy judgments. When we do this, we react to others as if they were defined only by their behavior, not by the full context of their humanity.
In this sense, FAE mirrors othering. Both are emotional reactions rooted in limited understanding. Othering generalizes groups; FAE personalizes blame. In both cases, we fail to see people as whole.
A More Perfect World
Imagine a world where belonging is strengthened and othering diminished. Conflicts might still arise, but without the sweeping group biases that fuel hatred and war. Negotiation could focus on shared interests rather than stereotypes.
Who or what could affect such changes in belonging and othering?
Political parties have largely failed to foster a universal sense of belonging. Businesses promote “community,” but usually to enhance customer loyalty. Faith groups often aspire to unity, yet they, too, struggle with division. Nonprofits may hold the greatest promise. Many already work to strengthen human connection. The National 4-H statement, for example, declares: “We see that every child has valuable strengths and real influence to improve the world around us.” This message of acceptance builds confidence and belonging from an early age.
Still, isolated efforts aren’t enough. Real progress would require collaboration among many organizations—a national coalition to promote belonging and reduce othering. Local communities have the local institutional framework to engage with new ideas. Development organizations have the necessary expertise to promote belonging. Collaboration between these groups could form the foundation—one that strengthens belonging, and reduces othering.