Midweek Meander Around the Issue of 'Othering'.

I experienced some synchronicity a few days ago. Synchronicity was once explained by Carl Jung as being “meaningful coincidence”. A Quora friend had recommended to a questioner a very good piece by John Powell, from The Guardian:

Us vs them: the sinister techniques of ‘Othering’ – and how to avoid them.

I decided to read the piece. 'Othering' wasn't part of my everyday vocabulary. Snips from the piece will follow in a mo. Synchronicity occurred that same day when, towards the end of a slow trek, evening by evening, through a streamed sci-fi series (Amazon Prime), Electric Dreams, based on short stories by Philip K. Dick, we reached an episode titled "Kill All Others". There's a review of the episode HERE.

My nutshell synopsis: Philbert Noyce is a quality-control factory worker of the future, one of three in a vast factory powered by robots which needs just 3 humans when it once needed 3,000. Noyce is a decent guy, dislikes the hate speech being offered up by the single presidential candidate on offer - it appears there is in place a one-party political system. What we, in 2019 might consider to be hate speech is always capped by a catch phrase, also used frequently on billboards :
"Kill All Others".
'Others' were anyone who dared not to toe the line in respect of government edicts and approved opinions. No critical thinking allowed!

'Othering'.
That experience of synchronicity persuaded me to start scribbling! Following are snips from the aforementioned piece, plus one other article available on line. These helped to clarify, for myself, various aspects of 'othering'. Perhaps any stray passer-by might find them of interest too.

From John Powell's piece, linked above:

Humans can only process a limited amount of change in a short period of time without experiencing anxiety. It’s a natural human reaction – but how we respond to that anxiety is social. When societies experience big and rapid change, a frequent response is for people to narrowly define who qualifies as a full member of society – a process I call “Othering”. An alternative response is seeing the change in demographics as positive, and regarding the apparent other as enhancing our life and who we are. This is what I refer to as “belonging and bridging”.

Othering is not about liking or disliking someone. It is based on the conscious or unconscious assumption that a certain identified group poses a threat to the favoured group. It is largely driven by politicians and the media, as opposed to personal contact. Overwhelmingly, people don’t “know” those that they are Othering.

So while today’s global anxiety has been precipitated by globalisation, technology and a changing economy, demographics play a crucial role in the process of Othering. The attributes of who gets defined as Other differ from place to place, and can be based upon race, religion, nationality or language. It is not these attributes themselves that are the problem, of course, but how they are made salient, and how they are manipulated.

I am therefore particularly concerned with how Othering shows up in today’s power structures: how it is used to divide and dehumanise groups, and capture and reshape government and institutions. For society’s leaders and culture play an oversized role in helping us make sense of change – and so greatly affect our responses to anxiety...........

People don’t just figure out on their own that collectively they need to be afraid of another group. Leadership plays a critical role. Often people who have been living with one another for years are made to feel suddenly that those differences have become threatening..

So how do we respond to our collective anxiety today? Either we “bridge”, reaching across to other groups and towards our inherent, shared humanity and connection, while recognising that we have differences; or we “break”, pulling away from other groups and making it easier to tell and believe false stories of “us vs them”, then supporting practices that dehumanise the “them”......

If we are to combat the rising tide of extremism across the globe, we must actively create bridges across difference, and resist strategic exploitation of our collective anxiety. For when we bridge, we not only open up to others, we also open up to change in ourselves – and actively participate in co-creating a society to which we can all belong.

The opposite of Othering is not “saming”, it is belonging. And belonging does not insist that we are all the same. It means we recognise and celebrate our differences, in a society where “we the people” includes all the people.

From: Otherness 101 - What is Othering?

This psychological tactic may have had its uses in our tribal past. Group cohesion was crucially important in the early days of human civilisation, and required strong demarcation between our allies and our enemies. To thrive, we needed to be part of a close-knit tribe who’d look out for us, in exchange for knowing that we’d help to look out for them in kind. People in your tribe, who live in the same community as you, are more likely to be closely related to you and consequently share your genes. As a result, there’s a powerful evolutionary drive to identify in some way with a tribe of people who are “like you”, and to feel a stronger connection and allegiance to them than to anyone else. Today, this tribe might not be a local and insular community you grew up with, but can be, for instance, fellow supporters of a sports team or political party.

But there’s no doubt that grouping people into certain stereotyped classes, who we then treat differently based on the classes we’ve sorted them into, is a deeply rooted aspect of human nature. Intergroup bias is a well established psychological trait.

Poem by ― Kamand Kojouri (Goodreads)

“They want us to be afraid.
They want us to be afraid of leaving our homes.
They want us to barricade our doors
and hide our children.
Their aim is to make us fear life itself!
They want us to hate.
They want us to hate 'the other'.
They want us to practice aggression
and perfect antagonism.
Their aim is to divide us all!
They want us to be inhuman.
They want us to throw out our kindness.
They want us to bury our love
and burn our hope.
Their aim is to take all our light!
They think their bricked walls
will separate us.
They think their damned bombs
will defeat us.
They are so ignorant they don’t understand
that my soul and your soul are old friends.
They are so ignorant they don’t understand
that when they cut you I bleed.
They are so ignorant they don’t understand
that we will never be afraid,
we will never hate
and we will never be silent
for life is ours!”
― Kamand Kojouri (Goodreads)

I've highlighted two lines which I find particularly striking. We are, all of us as Carl Sagan wrote, made from stardust. We humans came from the self-same ancient batch of that stardust. Once we, as atoms and particles, nestled together on the shores of the universe. It is sad that we no longer choose to remember that, but strive constantly to divide ourselves, one from another.

The Man in the High Castle

The Man in the High Castle (1963)
is an alternative history novel by American writer Philip K. Dick. Set in 1962, fifteen years after an alternative ending to World War II, the novel concerns intrigues between the victorious Axis Powers—Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany—as they rule over the former United States, as well as daily life under the resulting totalitarian rule. The Man in the High Castle won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1963.

I haven't read the novel, and we had resisted dipping into the TV (Amazon) series loosely based on it, until a few evenings ago. We dipped, but not very deeply. Two hour-long episodes convinced us that we didn't want to waste any more time on such a gloomy, terribly depressing, often disturbing, not to mention gratuitously violent, piece of dystopian fiction. Although there's a resistance community in the story, standing up to two ruthless authoritarian governments, without prior knowledge of outcome, a viewer can feel as hopeless as the film's characters themselves.

I did find many of the events in those first two episodes to be almost carbon copies of events in certain World War 2-type movies and novels I can recall, just changes in location, period and characters' names. In those earlier films, though, I knew that it was always going to be "alright in the end".

Main characters in the TV series: a young woman, probably in her mid-twenties and a couple of young men, also around that age would not have many memories of their world before Nazis and Japan took over. Other, older, characters had needed to adjust. Life had to go on. The terrifying sight of abhorrent iconography on buildings, flags, vehicles, along with such alien ideals being normalized is the central discomfiture.

In the TV series the USA, as we know it, is split. The eastern half, as far west as the Rockies is under rulership of the Nazis, while the west coast, and eastward as far as the Rockies is ruled by Japan. There is a rather unwisely planned (but necessary for plot growth) neutral buffer zone around Colorado and the Rocky Mountains area.

I understand that the series compares to the novel only in its broad original premise, and in names of some of the characters. P.K. Dick's original idea was an interesting concept to explore, and while the novel's style and detail must have needed some modification in order to appeal to a 21st century audience, less of the viewer manipulation I've read about in commentary would have been preferable. Viewer manipulation appears to have become the norm these days!

Though I'm unlikely to continue watching Amazon's version of The Man in the High Castle, I do remain curious as to where it seemed to be going with the plot. Rather than subjecting us to more dystopian discomfort, I spent time reading articles and commentary around the net from those who had watched the whole of season 1 and most of newly released second season. A few hints follow - beware, though - they could spoil it for anyone who plans to watch the series in future.

The I Ching is used, in the TV series by one of the more sympathetic of its characters, a Japanese official: Tagomi, the Trade Minister.

[Philip K. Dick] was enamored of the cleromancy of the “I Ching,” and in addition to having his characters in “Man in the High Castle” utilize it, he used it himself to plot the novel, in a kind of extravagant commitment to the themes of his own story.

From Variety HERE

.... reels of banned film [newsreels etc] circulating around the world, depicting alternate [alternative!] histories of what could have happened or might still happen to the world. It is not so different from movies in general — but these films are widely held to be mystical depictions that are absolutely real, not just clever fiction made by someone in the basement. To be fair, they do have chilling real elements that even Hollywood can’t quite produce. In “The Grasshopper Lies Heavy,” the reel that becomes the Magical MacGuffin of the first season, San Francisco is depicted being razed by an A-bomb, and a few of the characters see themselves and people they know onscreen, either dying or murdering others.

The first season introduced this supernatural device without, apparently, having much of an idea of where it would go.........The second season lays an interesting foundation and builds up quite a head of steam by the final few episodes — but you can feel the projector sputtering with a kind of desperation as the final hours spool out. Season 2 produces more answers and more action than Season 1 — but those answers are curiously flat, following what has been hours and hours of little more than texture. And it ends with a bait-and-switch that is both too expository and too frustrating, the exact kind of twist you hope a show will not pull.

I've read, regarding the end of the second series, that one of the more troubling aspects of the way the finale plays out is the villainization of the Resistance. (See HERE;) though a commenter at that website thought differently:

The villain-ization of the resistance was actually probably the best thing this show did. American exceptionalism almost always has full permeation of entertainment media. The idea that Americans, especially in "rebel mode" could actually be "bad" never gets explored. Yet we take it for granted with almost all other rebellions everywhere else that it can happen.

Postscript
Should any passing reader be interested to see Phlip K. Dick's natal chart and a run-down on another movie adaptation of one of his short stories, take a look at an archived post HERE.

Arty Farty Friday: At the Movies ~ The Adjustment Bureau & Limitless

Arty Farty Friday this week features a couple of movies instead of paintings or photographs. It's all art, n'est-ce pas ?

While we were out of town last week we saw two movies: The Adjustment Bureau and Limitless.

I've been digging around my memory cells to discover why I found a certain similarity, or even continuity in the movies' themes, in spite of the fact that we saw them in the wrong order for any thought of potential continuity to have immediately kicked in.

The realisation that, in both stories, adaptations of literary works: a Philip K. Dick short story, and a novel by Alan Glynn, a lead character of senator is used, at the beginning of one and at the end of the other. I fancifully imagined that with a little bit of re-writing the two might easily dovetail: Limitless coming first, with The Adjustment Bureau carrying on a sequel to the tale.

Before going off at a tangent though, a bit of astrology. I'm posting the natal chart of Philip K. Dick (data from Astrodatabank with a AA rating (the most reliable of all). He wrote The Adjustment Team, the short story which provided screenwriters with the basic premise for The Adjustment Bureau.

How's about this for the chart of a sci-fi writer!? Classic!








Uranus (planetary ruler of everything futuristic, unexpected, eccentric) smack-dab on his ascendant. Moon and Venus in Aquarius (ruled by Uranus). Venus and Uranus in harmonious sextile and linked via two quincinx aspects (150*) to Neptune (planet of creativity and fantasy). But there's more: another, similar, formation (these are called "Yods" or Fingers of Fate). The second one has Neptune linked by sextile to dynamic Mars, with the pointer hitting Venus ( planet of the arts). There's even a third Yod: Moon and Saturn in sextile pointing to Pluto - not quite as obvious a connection as the other two, but still significant because Saturn rules career, Pluto rules darkness and secrecy. Astrologers consider that, in a Yod formation, the "energies" attributed to the two sextiled planets are blended and funnelled through the energy attributed to the planet at the apex of the formation.

Back to the movies:

Both films are what I call science-fiction-lite. No aliens, no transformers, no spacecraft or time travel. Situations are abnormal but play out with normal-ish characters and backrops.

A quick run-down in reverse order of our viewing: Limitless is the story of a down-at-heel writer (very well played by Bradley Cooper), a self-confessed loser suffering a mega-dose of writer's block. He has the opportunity to try an experimental drug which enhances brain function. He does so and in a flash attains the IQ of a genius with engaging charisma and boatloads of self-confidence. Of course, to maintain this wondrous mental capacity he needs to continue taking "the pill". Thereby hangs this tale, adapted from Alan Glynn's novel The Dark Fields. I haven't read the book but researches confirm that the movie is a close match apart from the ending. As it happens both my husband and I agreed that the movie ending was contrived at best, phoney at worst, and left quite the wrong message. Without giving away more of the plot, and the reason why the two might possibly dove-tail, I'll move rapidly on to:

The Adjustment Bureau is adapted from a short story by sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick. I haven't read the story, but understand from those who have that the movie bears little resemblance to it, apart from using the barest bones of the story's main proposition. Still, it was an engaging enough movie, we thought. Matt Damon plays the lead: an inspirational and honest congressman (a rare enough breed for sure) running for the Senate, but badly defeated due to some saucy revelations from his past. However his concession speech at defeat so inspires his audience that a come-back seems assured, even progress past the Senate to the presidency is whispered as a likely outcome - in time. But then love comes along and hits him between the eyes. He meets a dancer (Emily Blunt) - they are soulmates at first sight. The fun begins. The Adjustment Bureau's people take over.

This film, on one level, is a story concerning the different layers of reality, and fate/destiny - how they might work in a sci-fi-lite world. On a whole other level, though, the story could be seen as explaining that what we choose to call "fate" or "destiny" is nothing more than the consequence of our using free will to its fullest extent.

No more detail so as not to spoil the fun for others. Both movies are well worth a look. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give them both a 7.5.