Some people have very strong views about who ‘We’ are. They invoke ‘We’ as an identity badge that keeps them apart from various kinds of people who they would like to see excluded from their conception of ‘their’ school, business, neighbourhood, or country.
But what is it that matters so much to them in cutting off certain people?
It turns out that it’s a mixed bag of dreads and dislikes. Examples include things like shades of skin tone, facial features supposedly associated with ‘race’, country of birth, language spoken – even particular dialect or accent, one’s place of worship, religious affiliation, attachment to certain customs, or how one dresses.
However, does any of this make sense?
Is skin tone remotely reliable as a marker for who can be trusted? Have we not all received help from people who speak more than one language? Do we need more futile religious wars before we reach the familiar conclusion that we are better off living in peace regardless of obscure theological differences? Don’t customs change and become no less engaging? And why get wound up over headdresses when designated ‘hijabs’, while one can be so meekly deferential towards them when they appear as a nun’s wimple?
The people who cynically stoke obsessions with such irrelevant differences often fall back on the claim that they point to critical divergence in values. ‘We’ are supposed to have one set of admirable values, and these ‘others’ allegedly do not share them and should therefore be kept away. So, what are these values?
According to what may be termed the ‘Chauvinist’ conception of values, ‘good’ and ‘right’ are somehow derived exclusively from being ‘white’, subscribing to some anti-compassion religion that nonetheless claims to be ‘Christian’, despising other nations, holding that women should be subservient to men, deferential to ‘get rich quick’ gurus, outraged by any form of ‘unconventional’ sexuality, and inclined to glorify aggression. In reality, these are not widely shared values at all, though they are quite influential amongst many people who gravitate towards certain types of political party.
By contrast, the shared values we do regard as important, and would want others to exhibit are what may be called Values of Mutual Concern – these are the values embedded in the Golden Rule of doing to others as we would want others to treat us; the values that underpin solidarity and facilitate cooperation. In essence, as we would want to experience kindness, fair treatment, and adequate support when we are in need, we value the display of kindness, fair treatment, and adequate support whenever people are in need. If anyone has malicious intent or set on harmful behaviour, we would have to guard against them. But otherwise, we want to live and work with people who will be considerate and helpful to each other without picking over factors that have no bearing on their readiness to give and receive consideration and help.
Whatever organisation, neighbourhood, or country, we find ourselves in, WE on reflection are likely to see that far from wanting to be near people who would treat others with callous indifference or even vile aggression regardless of how considerate or helpful they might be, the ones we would prefer any day to be our colleagues, neighbours, compatriots are those who are disposed to deal with others respectfully, fairly, and reciprocally.
Hear any more about the importance of shared identity? Remember what kind of people WE truly want to be identified with.
