So many of our troubles come from our insistence that there is an us and a them. ‘Us’ – the people who share something important with us. ‘Them’ – the ones who don’t.
Us – the managers of this organisation. Them – everyone else.
Us – my company. Them – the competition.
Us – the people already living in my country. Them – everyone else.
Us – those who agree with me. Them – those that don’t.
Once we have an us and a them, we have reasons to be fearful, distrustful, suspicious, defensive. After all they might try to take what we have.
Where we draw the boundary between us and them is, in many ways, arbitrary. It depends entirely upon what we take ourselves to hold in common with others, and what not. At its smallest, us is a category of one, the person who inhabits my own body. Now everyone else is them, potentially out to get me. Many people live this way. We could draw the boundary at family, at community, at nationhood. But us could also be as big as all of humanity (all that shares a human body) – or indeed all life (all that shares the mysterious quality we call life) – and then there is nobody and nothing to be them.
The smaller us is, the bigger our fear, mistrust, and apprehension of others. The bigger us is, the more of the world we feel bound to take care of.
It’s ironic that at a time in history when there is more material abundance available than ever before, we seem so committed to shrinking us in a way that shrinks our care for the world.
The last 200 years have given us unprecedented technology, science, and understanding of what it is to be a human being. We are more and more appreciating the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things. I wonder what would happen if instead of shrinking the world we used that understanding to grow our sense of us, and in doing so grew our capacity and responsibility to take care of things.