The Other: The Marginalization of Difference

1. The Other: The Marginalization of Difference the social process of becoming or being relegated to the fringe of society

2. The Other in Philosophy • Derived from and developed by the work of various philosophers, including Hegel, Derrida, De Beauvoir, Sartre, Lacan, Lévinas, Said, and Foucault • Has been applied by them to various contexts • A philosophical conceptthat is now used in many disciplines

3. The Other is defined primarily as “not me,” defined by their difference • At the same time, “me”/”the self” is defined by not being Other • This can be enacted on an individual basis, but it is generally defined by group membership (I’ll explain this with examples in a moment)

4. The group sees itself as the norm and judges those who do not meet that norm (that is, who are different in any way) as the Other • Thus the Other is one who is perceived by the group as being different in some fundamental way, not belonging • Any stranger can become the Other • The Other is generally seen as lacking essential characteristics and therefore being inferior to the norm • They are treated accordingly, often given less legal rights, poorer social treatment, and often conceived of as less intelligent, less moral, less human

5. The Other is often defined by being of a different: • race (black vs. white) • nationality (Iranian vs. Canadian) • religion (Catholic vs. Protestant) • social class (lower vs. upper-middle) • political ideology (communist vs. capitalist) • sexual orientation (homosexual vs. heterosexual) • origin (immigrant vs. native-born) • gender (trans vs. cis-male) • physical ability/status (amputee vs. not) • mental ability/health status (schizophrenic vs. not) Species (Non-human vs. human animals) Body type (“Overweight” vs. “Ideal”/Skinny) Health Status (Diseased vs. Healthy)

6. So aren’t all people just Others to each other? Why does it make a difference? If a certain group is Other to my group, aren’t I just Other to their group? Doesn’t it just balance out? • The Other is defined by the group that has more power • This is not necessarily higher numbers (i.e. African slaves in North America) • The Other often internalizes their own Otherness, often without realizing it (i.e. someone who is homosexual may define themselves – consciously or not – as being different, having something wrong with them, may wish they could make it go away, wish they could be part of the Norm group)

7. So the Other often defines themselves as being less powerful, less important, less intelligent, less moral, less human • They often overlap • The major difference is that the Other is defined by their membership in a particular group, one which they are (often) unable to change • The outcast is an outcast personally, they could potentially be re-integrated, the Other, and all people like her/him, are generally stuck in that position unless there is a radical re-structuring of social power Ok, so what’s the difference between the Other and an outsider or social outcast?

8. The group that defines the Other may be an entire country/society/empire, or it may occur on a smaller scale within a particular community, neighbourhood, even school • Othering (note that it is used as a verb because an Other is not natural, the Other is created by a society) is crucial to national identity, which is defined by who does and does not belong, and who can and cannot come in to a country/become a citizen • It is particularly used in Imperialism in order to justify attempts to civilize and exploit “inferior” populations "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

9. The unequal relationship implicit in Imperialism depends on this subordination of this Other group of peoples from which resources and land can be taken • Generally this is done by highlighting their “weakness,” making the moral responsibility of the stronger Selfto educate, convert, or civilize depending on the identity of the Other – or sometimes just to destroy • Othering also strengthensthe identity of the Self as better, stronger, smarter, etc.

10. The Other is often perceived as being inherently dangerous, a threat to Normal society • We are often encouraged to see through the eyes of the Norm/the Self in literature and media and so to accept the definition of the Other without questioning, even if we are included in that category • Women often perceive themselves (and other women) as sexual objects for men’s pleasure, or as being naturally inclined to cook and clean, because this is the dominant view we are presented with • People who are considered overweight may view themselves (and others in that category) as being unhealthy, lazy, unattractive, etc.

11. The Other often ends up being blamed for social problems, is often the scapegoat • The Other generally has less credibility than a member of the Norm group, and is more subject to stereotypes • So consider…who would be an Other in Salem?