In-groups and out-groups
Reading time: 10 minutes
foto: Alexas_Fotos; edit: Erik Stout
Not a day goes by without two or more groups quarrelling (or worse) somewhere on the globe. The general tendency is that it should not be so. But is a world without conflict possible? Or even desirable? Where do conflict and hostility actually come from? And what does that mean for us as people living in the world? In this blogpost we follow the lines of thought from British American philosopher Alan Watts in answering these questions.
As soon as we gather for a social occasion, the first thing to be determined is what side of the track we’re on. For example, if there is agreement on capitalism as the right political movement, capitalists have been determined the ‘in-group’ consisting of insiders. The rest of the evening will subsequently be filled with talk and gossip about how the country would go to the dogs if the communists were to rise to political power. They represent the ‘out-group’ consisting of outsiders. Yet since everyone wants to be an insider, communists will therefore convince themselves that they are the true in-group and will regard the capitalists as the outsiders.
The human preference for an in-situation becomes visible in the Gestalt theory of perception, which states that our attention is captured by closed areas and/or moving objects as opposed to open areas and/or non-moving objects. Empty space (in a room or the air outside) we usually think of as ‘nothing’ and only becomes interesting to look at once there is ‘something’ to be seen in it, such as furniture, birds, planes, people, the moon and stars. All clearly delimited (and most of these also clearly moving) objects that are regarded as ’in‘ and therefore interesting and important, while the space in which they are located or move is considered ’out' and therefore uninteresting and unimportant. Without space, however, none of these objects can be perceived, just as a feature film needs a movie theatre or TV screen to be seen. Only in relation to the space in which objects are located can they be perceived and exist, just as a film can only be seen as soon as there is a relationship with a screen.
That relationship is what this blogpost is about, and in particular the relationship between seemingly opposing groups. The point is that no group can identify itself – or be – without the other. Pit a group of straightforward politicians against a group of free-thinking artists. Both groups consider themselves to be the in-group, with the former placing a high value on thrift, discipline and justice, while the latter advocates freedom of expression and self-examination. Chances are that here, too, both groups are convinced that the madness in the world is mainly due to the other group. But the politicians can only know who they are when faced with groups with a clearly different outlook on life, such as the artists. And that goes both ways; bohemians need squares to know who they are. In the same way, we can only feel to be the native of a particular country because other countries are not our country.
As part of a delimited in-group, we feel protected, loved and at home; the family being an eye-catching example. Demarcation by definition creates an inside and an outside, a fact we see everywhere in nature: our skin marks the division between our inside and outside, just as the bark of a tree makes the distinction between inside and outside of the tree. However, a demarcation is not a full separation. Our skin shows this beautifully: if the outside(!) temperature rises enough, moisture will move from our inside through the skin to our outside to dissipate heat. Conversely, certain oils and ointments can move through the skin from our outside to our inside. It would therefore be better to think of boundaries as connections between insides and outsides that allow both to cooperate and communicate with each other. An adequate word for this is symbiosis.
The word ‘symbiosis’ describes a form of cohabitation that benefits two organisms. Look at bees and flowers: they are different in appearance and live separately from each other but cannot live without each other. Without flowers there are no bees and without bees there are no flowers. Because of the relationship they have with each other, they can be considered as one organism.[1]
The same applies to men and women because they too cannot live without each other. A woman and a man are needed to make new people. We are a so-called female/male arrangement and despite the fact that we seem to exist individually and separately from each other, we can’t be without. The interdependence is clear and the relationship between the two groups constitutes the basic condition of everyone's identity. Through women do men know that they are men and vice versa. The relationship, in other words, is the connection between the groups. This same relationship/connection applies to groups that seem to be very different from and even hostile to each other.
What are the ground principles of hostility? The real basis is that the biological order consists of a reciprocal ‘eating society’. All living beings in this world can only exist by eating other living beings and the ‘hostility’ consists in the statement that no living being wants to be eaten. But that is a purely human chauvinistic point of view, because what we call ‘hostility’ is actually nothing more than symbiosis in which predatory and prey animals form an integral part of a healthy ecosystem by keeping each other's populations at reasonable levels. The same applies to vegetation that is kept at a reasonable level by herbivores.
The word ‘hostility ‘has to do with our fear of pain and death; anything that ’threatens' us with it is seen as hostile. That is why we find it difficult to see how a crocodile tears apart a zebra, how a human being is grabbed by a shark or how we treat livestock and lab animals in mega-stables, battery farms and laboratories. And that's rather silly because where we frantically try to avoid pain and death for ourselves, we seem to have no problem inflicting it on others (either from our own or other species).
Let's take a closer look at ourselves as a biological organism. We consist mostly of water and are a complex composition of water, proteins, minerals and fats. But the material we now consist of belonged to other beings before we got it, or became it. Those beings have died so that we can exist, just as our daily food consists of plants or animals that have died so that we can eat. Yet we seem to want to get out of the reciprocal eating society.
Of all predators, we are by far the most effective (or violent, depending on our perspective). No predator except us hunts both on land, and in water, and in the air. Moreover, we not only hunt living beings but also minerals and raw materials. And all without wanting to give anything valuable in return. We certainly do not want to give ourselves back as food, so we either pour ourselves in formaldehyde or burn in the crematorium. In both cases we withdraw ourselves from the circle of life. What we do give back are waste or other substances that can hardly, if at all, be processed or digested such as rust, plastic, chemicals, nuclear waste and acidifying or destructive gases such as many pesticides and insecticides.[2]
In this way we abandon everyone, including ourselves. Our aforementioned intensive animal husbandry, in which as much meat, dairy and eggs as possible should be produced as cheaply as possible, prevents us from establishing a personal connection with the animals simply because there are far too many of them (not to mention the sterile and unloving conditions in many laboratories). But if we live on certain species, it is necessary that we have love and respect for them. Every so-called primitive society had reverence for the animals they lived on, whether they were Buffalo for the Indians or prey for the Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert.[3]
If we don’t want to participate in a mutual eating society and only want to eat but not get eaten, then there’s a good chance we will exterminate ourselves because our food increasingly consists of mass-produced junk of which the quality is getting worse, because we do not have love and respect for the raw material. As an example, I heard yesterday from a Greek fellow student that her family in Greece is no longer allowed to use traditional seeds for the production of fruit and vegetables, even if it is for private use. The Greek government seems to have made a deal with a large multi-national seed company whereby it has become the legitimate "owner" of those seeds through bureaucratic constructions. The company is now known to sue small farmers and even private individuals if there is a suspicion of ‘stealing’ and the Greek police, according to my fellow student, cooperate with this through house visits, coercive orders and by handing out fines.
Two things become apparent. The first is that every in-group needs an ‘enemy’ out-group, because it is actually more of a friend than an enemy. A more or less equivalent out-group prunes our own group, so to speak, so that the population remains at a reasonable level. In addition, the out-group keeps our group sharp so that we don’t grow weak and therefore remain in good shape (with the additional advantage that we can grow healthy into our senior years).
The second is that we have forgotten the meaning of chivalry in wars, conflict situations and business. We can still see that principle in fighting sports and martial arts: boxers greet each other before and after the match and judokas bow as a sign that an opponent is honourable and should be respected. However, the person who plays an apparent video game in an office where a drone throws real bombs at real people has no emotional connection with them. In such instances a concept like chivalry is thrown out the window. This is not only unfortunate but also life-threatening for our species, because an important survival rule is to recognize that enemies, or outsiders, must be cherished (just as it is important for our survival that we love species we live off).
As soon as we realize that in-groups can never exist without out-groups and actually need each other, that marks the beginning of humanity. A situation of contained conflict then arises because we understand that our existence depends on the presence of the out-group. The world of sports is again a good example of this: A match won only becomes valuable for athletes when the opponents are at their best. The ’conflict‘ in sports is the competition and despite it being ’just' a game, this game gives fulfilment to billions of people. All realize only too well that there can be no worthwhile game without a strong opponent.
A conflict gets out of hand as soon as an in-group believes that they no longer need the out-group, because then the out-group can justifiably be wiped out. The multi-national seed company can serve as a model for in-groups who want to completely withdraw from the mutual eating society by only wanting to eat without giving anything valuable in return. Moreover, throughout history it becomes clear what monstrosities we can commit as soon as we are convinced that we no longer need a certain out-group.
Geopolitically, capitalists need communists and vice versa. Great nations play great political and military games and their leaders understand perfectly well how they work. They understand better than anyone how important a common enemy is for the unity of their own nation. It is logical that leaders of world powers try hard to outwardly pretend to be each other's greatest enemies. This is a significant part of their symbiosis. But we can count on the fact that they maintain excellent and even friendly communication among themselves, because through each other's presence they can play the ruler and great reliable leader at home. Of course there is often talk of nuclear threat, but the chance that it will become a reality is nil because with a nuclear war they will also be wiped out and with it their so beloved power game.
Besides, what good does it do us to worry about a nuclear conflict? If we notice anything at all, it will be very short. Yet if we stop worrying about what others do or say and instead start investigating what makes us happy and energized, propaganda (like the news) loses its grip on us and nuclear threat, or any social threat, melts away like snow before the sun.
In summary, social conflicts or conflicts between biologically different species are all a form of symbiosis. Once a certain group has decided that no competition is better than healthy competition, it is a harbinger of death. But if the interdependence between seemingly conflicting groups is seen through and recognized as necessary for balance, we become an inexhaustible source of life.
Jolly greetings,
Erik Stout
[1] that is the real lesson of the flowers and the bees!
[2] Rachel Carson published her ground-breaking book Silent Spring in 1962, which describes how the pesticide DDT was spread over agricultural and urban areas thanks to a strong lobby but without proper scientific research. A totally disturbed ecosystem was the result, and DDT is still found today in offspring of the first ones exposed to it in the 50s and 60s of the last century.
[3] In ’Affluence Without Abundance' James Suzman provides a unique insight into the lifestyle of the last hunter-gatherer tribes in the Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa.
Are you open?
Dear reader, since every human being has a unique outlook on life by default, we’d love to learn about your views of the world. You are therefore invited to either leave a comment underneath this article, or contact us if you’d like to share a philosophic and stimulating article via this website.