Categorization: The illusion of US versus THEM.

It is a human tendency to categorize things neatly in our minds. Food groups, politics, people…we try to organize thinking around these things into a clean way of viewing a complicated world.

This is how our brains are wired. Studies reveal that even at four months of age, infants form distinct categories for dogs and cats. This is doubly revealing because at such a young age the only visual information they have to go off of is silhouettes. As we grow up, it only gets more nuanced.

Imagine for a moment that we couldn’t form categories. This would mean that every time we encountered a brand-new object, we’d have to learn about it from scratch. The fact that we have categories means that whenever we encounter an apple, we don’t have to learn about it. We can quickly apply what we know about other apples and safely assume that this new apple is a piece of fruit that tastes sweet and is good for us.

This ability to categorize objects allows us to store an incredible amount of information in our brains. Psychologically speaking, this makes sense with regard to objects. However when this fundamental concept extends to the categorization of people, it has the potential to be a problematic source of conflict because it runs the risk of incorrect assumptions.

Putting people into neat categories can create situations where one’s perceived group is separate from others. This “othering” shows up in conflict time and time again, in a myriad of ways:

1. Dehumanization: Labeling a group as "other" often distances them from what’s considered the norm or in-group. This can lead to viewing them as less human or less deserving of empathy and respect.
2. US versus THEM mentality: Creating an "other" category reinforces an "us vs. them" dynamic, which fosters mistrust, fear, and hostility between groups.
3. Stereotyping: The "other" label often comes with oversimplified generalizations about an entire group, ignoring individual differences and promoting prejudice.
4. Lack of understanding: Categorizing people as "other" can discourage efforts to understand their perspectives, experiences, and cultures, leading to misunderstandings and conflict.
5. Power imbalances: Those who define the "other" often hold more social or political power, leading to discrimination and marginalization of out-groups.
6. Scapegoating: "Other" groups are sometimes blamed for problems, making them targets for unwarranted aggression or punitive policies.
7. Self-fulfilling prophecy: Treating a group as "other" can lead to their isolation or defensive behaviour, which may then be used to justify the initial othering.

To counter the risks of our categorization tendency, strive to view people as unique beings; acknowledging that their identities transcend simple group affiliations, whether religious, social, or cultural. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of human diversity.

Let’s consider a workplace example, where employees have adapted a view of their boss as "other" – someone separate from the rest of the team. Their boss, Sarah, is known for being reserved and formal in her interactions.

This might lead to the employees jumping to the following conclusions:

• ”She doesn’t care about us." They assume her reserved demeanor means she’s cold and uncaring, when in reality, she might be introverted or trying to maintain professional boundaries.
• “She’s only interested in profits, not people." Without understanding her pressures and responsibilities, they might assume her focus on results stems from greed rather than company obligations.
• “She’s never worked a day on the front lines." Employees might assume Sarah can’t relate to their challenges, ignoring the possibility that she worked her way up through similar roles.
• “She has a perfect life and doesn’t understand our struggles." They might imagine her life is problem-free, overlooking personal challenges she might face.
• “She’s plotting to cut our benefits." Without open communication, routine business reviews might be interpreted as schemes against the employees.

Perhaps some of these conclusions have merit, but also maybe not. Assumptions such as these often turn out to be inaccurate and get us into trouble, so it is wise to consider that our thoughts might not be fully true. Beginner’s mind is the concept of remembering that we can never know something with absolute certainty; a pause where we can suspend our viewpoint for a moment in order to better bear witness to what’s happening around us. Is Sarah the reductive version of herself we’ve made her out to be? Or is there more going on in her life beyond the brief interactions we have with her?

When you find yourself in conflict, take a moment to ask yourself: am I making an assumption about the other person or party? And what might be the other person’s perspective at this moment?

As much as we might wish life was simple, the relational nature of things means that reality is usually more akin to organized chaos. Although categorizing things is a fundamental cognitive skill that serves us well in many cases, it clearly also leads us to oversimplify human complexity by grouping people into rigid categories.

Don’t beat yourself up when catching yourself putting people into boxes – it’s what our brains are wired to do and we all do it. But also don’t let this be an excuse; when you can catch it, you can begin to engage with curiosity and de-escalate a tough situation.