Skip to main content

Different Creatures

Entertainment media depicts no real aloneness. Nobody in popular fiction is ever actually alone, as there's a tribe for everyone in a fantasy world. In the real world, permanent outcasts exist. Some people are judged ineligible for acceptance in any tribe.

It can't be that everyone you encounter occupies the center of your attention all the time. Think about what makes someone forgettable. What traits could someone have that would make you, consciously or otherwise, put them on the margins of your consideration?  I'm talking about benign inattention here. We decide how to direct our care based on identifiable factors. We don't try to attend to everyone. That would take more brain power than anybody has. We have to triage, so we only attend to those people who meet a set of criteria.

Within communities, criteria for inclusion usually overlap. Most groups share similar criteria for whom they will keep in their attention. If an individual doesn't meet any of the criteria imposed by any group, there is a risk that their entire community will marginalize them and that they will effectively disappear. This is sometimes described as falling through the cracks. Equitable inclusivity is a romantic myth dependent on the idea that criteria for inclusion are themselves inclusive, encompassing every possible iteration of a person, and that no one can ever fail completely to fit in. The reality is that total social failure is possible. It happens all the time, and the people it happens to may be so outside anyone's consideration that they are essentially invisible even to scientists who study society and psychology.

For these exiles, existence is pain. Everything they need is in the communities that they can't access. On the margins of concern, exiles have no recourse to petition their peers for support. In-groups resent outside demands on their attention because they only have so much attention to spare and it's all spoken for. In-group bias is useful for conserving attention. Energy spent on outsiders is energy that isn't spent on the in-group, and this puts the in-group at risk. Furthermore, from a purely animal perspective, an outsider may be weak, sick, or malicious, so engaging with them could be dangerous. Now, prejudice becomes a factor. Exiles become enemies when they complain.

There's a moral incentive to deny that any of this is going on. Most communities want to see themselves as welcoming. Inclusivity is considered good because we want to be included, so in-groups blame outsiders for deserving to be put on the outside. This makes group members feel like they're in the right and it makes non-members feel like good people who've been wronged. Tension is the inevitable result: us versus them. The outsiders suffer even more.  Now, they're not only desperately lonely, they're also not allowed to talk about it.  Denied the care of their peers, they're supposed to either find care somewhere else or just cease to exist.

Some exiles are able to find acceptance. Others remain on the outside their whole lives. A person may fail to meet any community's criteria for inclusion. Even cross-culturally, most communities prefer confidence, fitness, and success. An individual who appears to lack these traits, no matter where that person comes from or how they conduct their lives, may be overlooked by everyone. Many, if not all, in-groups are largely defined by who they oppose. An individual with no power to oppose anyone is unlikely to be considered for inclusion in any group.  I live in this obscurity. I feel unseen and unheard. I want to draw attention to the profound suffering of the clanless, but I'm without any hope now that we can ever become visible because of the way in which humans must curate their attention. It isn't in any human's nature to walk the social wastelands collecting castaways to nurture. Such an individual would make a castaway of themselves and, as such, would have no way to help anybody. Value judgments notwithstanding, this is the only way humans can structure their societies. Any more inclusive society would be a society of different creatures altogether.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Man Is Not Great: The Evolution of Anthropocentrism

Why do humans care whether their species is special? Why are they so invested in their specialness that they're uncomfortable with the idea that they aren't? Why is it a bitter pill to swallow that humans aren't uniquely important in the universe, that they aren't the intended end of evolution, and that their wondrous and diverse subjective experiences emerge from the same physical processes observable in "lower" animals? I think that the maladaptive human tendency to insist upon their specialness in the universe is an extension of an adaptive tendency to self-advocate in their tribes. Consider fear. The predisposition to turn around when you feel like something might be behind you is likely to save you when there really is something there. Most of the time, when you can't help but turn around on the dark basement steps, there's no threat. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s better to turn unnecessarily than to do nothing in a moment of danger. That...

The Mystery of Friendship

Friendship looks good on paper.  People appear to enjoy their friendships and to want, or at least to expect, to have friends.  I don't have this experience.  I don't want friends. It took me a long time to understand that I have no desire for friendship.  As a child I thought I had to seek friendships because everyone around me wanted them.  It was part of trying to pass; I know that now but I didn't then.  I wasn't aware that other people didn't have to try to be like each other.  How could I have been?  I had no basis for comparison besides myself so I assumed everyone was like me.  I thought I was neurotypical and this was conducive to my feelings of inferiority.  I didn't know why I was so bad at being like everyone else.  It was because they were being themselves and I wasn't.  But I wouldn't realize that until long after my formative years were over. I was a very confused child.  I had few friendships and I wasn...

The Meadow

 There is a cascade of questions: how can I live a good life? What is the value of goodness? What is the essence of value? We might assess our lives as either good or bad. We might say that good is better than bad, and that we should be good because being bad is the only alternative. But surely being neither good nor bad is an option. It must be possible to observe without assessing. This is what I want. I want to leave nothing in the world. Some will say that neutrality is simply in the bad category, and that we must want to live positive lives.  Let them say so, and let them condemn me if I live a life of non-participation. I have no interest in politics or society. I have no interest in justice or the common good. To some, saying this is the same as saying that I'm bad or that I'm at best contributing to the bad. Is appeasing critics to be my sole motivation for engaging with this evaluating system? Perhaps I should want to make the world better. But I don't believe ...