Othering: The Politics of "Us" and "Them"

Every society draws lines. The question is always: what kind of lines, drawn how, and for what purpose? Othering is what happens when those lines are drawn not merely to distinguish but to diminish — when difference becomes deficiency, and "them" becomes a category that doesn't quite deserve the protections and considerations we extend to "us." It's one of the oldest mechanisms of social control, and one of the most consequential cognitive habits we carry.

Defining Othering

The concept was popularised by the postcolonial theorist Edward Said in his 1978 work Orientalism, though the philosophical roots reach back further. Said observed that Western scholarship and culture had systematically constructed "the Orient" as a monolithic, exotic, irrational counterpart to the rational, civilised West — an "Other" that justified colonial domination by defining the colonised as fundamentally different from (and inferior to) the coloniser.

Since Said, the term has been taken up across sociology, psychology, and political theory. At its core, othering describes a cluster of practices by which:

• A group is defined primarily by its difference from a dominant or in-group norm
• That difference is treated as essential, fixed, and morally significant
• The "othered" group is excluded — symbolically, socially, legally, or physically — from the protections and entitlements of full membership in the community

The Psychology of In-Group and Out-Group

Social psychologist Henri Tajfel's Social Identity Theory (1979) provides the cognitive baseline. Tajfel demonstrated, through his "minimal group experiments," that people form group loyalties and discriminate in favour of their in-group even when the groups are formed arbitrarily — by coin flip, by preference for abstract art, by any trivial criterion. The mere act of categorisation generates preferential treatment of in-group members and disadvantageous treatment of out-group members.

This is the raw material that othering works with. The tendency to favour "us" over "them" appears to be a default feature of human social cognition — and political, religious, and nationalist movements have learned to exploit it with remarkable precision.

What distinguishes mere group loyalty from othering is the degree of dehumanisation. In-group preference is universal; the elevation of in-group status to the point where out-group members are treated as subhuman, dangerous, or morally contaminated is where the mechanism becomes destructive.

Mechanisms of Othering

Labelling and Stereotyping

The first move in othering is almost always linguistic. An out-group is given a name — an identity marker — that bundles a complex, varied population into a single, undifferentiated category. Smears and Name-Calling are the bluntest instruments: "vermin," "cockroaches," "parasites" — language used against Jewish people in Nazi Germany, against Tutsis in Rwanda before the genocide, against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. Less extreme but structurally identical: "illegals" for undocumented migrants, "benefits scroungers" for welfare recipients, "elites" for educated professionals.

Threat Attribution

Othering typically involves attributing existential or moral threat to the out-group. The "Other" is not merely different; they are dangerous. They want to replace us, contaminate us, take what is ours. This attribution is the critical escalation: it converts discomfort with difference into a justification for pre-emptive action.

Fearmongering is the political amplifier here: politicians and media amplify the perceived threat of the out-group, making defensive responses feel not just rational but morally required.

Moral Exclusion

Social psychologist Susan Opotow coined the term "moral exclusion" to describe what happens when out-groups are placed outside the scope of justice. When people are morally excluded, normal rules of fairness, care, and reciprocity don't apply to them. This is the psychological mechanism that allows ordinary, non-sadistic people to support policies that would be obviously monstrous if applied to their in-group: detention without trial, family separation, denial of medical care.

Othering in Politics

Contemporary politics offers a sustained laboratory. The rise of nationalist movements across Europe and the United States in the 2010s and 2020s provides multiple case studies in deliberate othering — the construction of internal and external "Others" (migrants, Muslims, cosmopolitan elites, "globalists") whose presence or influence is presented as an existential threat to the national body.

The rhetoric is consistent across contexts: the out-group is simultaneously inferior (backward, lazy, criminal) and disproportionately powerful (controlling media, banks, political institutions). This contradiction — the inferior enemy who somehow threatens to destroy us — is a structural feature of othering rhetoric, noted by Umberto Eco in his analysis of proto-fascism.

But othering is not the exclusive property of the right. Left-wing othering of "the rich," "the 1%," "tech bros," or "conservatives" uses structurally similar mechanisms: the out-group is defined as morally contaminated, their concerns dismissed, their humanity reduced to their group membership. The degree of harm differs enormously across contexts; the cognitive pattern is recognisable across the spectrum.

Everyday Othering

Outside of politics, othering appears wherever social hierarchies exist: in workplaces (the "difficult" department, the "out-of-touch" management), in families (the black sheep, the prodigal), in schools (the nerd, the jock), in neighbourhoods (the newcomers, the old-timers). These smaller-scale instances rarely generate the catastrophic consequences of nationalist othering, but they follow the same pattern: the reduction of complex individuals to categorical representatives of a threatening difference.

The philosopher Simone de Beauvoir identified a profound instance of othering in gender relations: in her analysis, "woman" has historically been constructed as the essential Other to a masculine default norm — defined not by her own characteristics but by her difference from the assumed universal.

The Continuum from Othering to Atrocity

Gregory Stanton, founder of Genocide Watch, identified "symbolisation" and "dehumanisation" — both forms of othering — as early stages in his Ten Stages of Genocide. The historical record is consistent: mass atrocities are always preceded by sustained propaganda campaigns that establish the target group as Other, as threat, as less than fully human.

This doesn't mean that every instance of in-group/out-group thinking leads to genocide. But it does mean that the "harmless" forms of othering in everyday political discourse are not categorically different from their extreme endpoints — only separated by degree, by institutional constraint, and by the willingness of societies to recognise and resist the pattern.

How to Recognise and Resist Othering

• Individualise. When you find yourself thinking of a group as a monolithic "them," look for the internal variation you're suppressing. Every generalisation conceals the individuals that don't fit.
• Follow the threat attribution. When a politician or media source emphasises how dangerous a particular group is, ask: what evidence supports that characterisation? Who benefits from this fear?
• Notice the asymmetry. Othering often involves double standards — behaviour that's acceptable in the in-group is presented as threatening or immoral in the out-group. Name the asymmetry when you see it.
• Contact theory. Gordon Allport's research showed that positive inter-group contact — under conditions of equality, cooperation, and institutional support — reduces prejudice. Exposure to the humanity of "the Other" is a structural antidote to othering.

Sources & Further Reading

• Said, Edward. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978.
• Tajfel, Henri & Turner, John. "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict." In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 1979.
• Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley, 1954.
• Powell, john a. "Us vs Them: The Sinister Techniques of 'Othering.'" The Guardian, 2017.
• Stanton, Gregory H. "The Ten Stages of Genocide." Genocide Watch, 1996.
• Wikipedia: Othering