===================

We/Us vs. Them/Others

  1. definition
  2. examples and/or illustrations
  3. other useful sources
  4. bibliography


Definition

This term refers to a way of discourse when referring to ourselves and others.  The discourse of “we/us vs. them/others” is the construction of a boundary which creates a separation between groups and identities.  The “we” or the “us” in this case is the group which is included, while, on the contrary, the “them” or “others” is the excluded group.  Such language also works to create exclusionary boundaries in order to create collectivity, solidarity, and sense of belonging for the “we/us”- while excluding the “them/others” from this dominant collective identity.  In this sense, it creates a distinction between both groups and people, as well as it assumes boundaries between identities (Yuval-Davis, N. (2010). Theorizing identity: Beyond the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy. Patterns of Prejudice, 44(3), 261-280. doi: 10.1080/0031322X.2010.489736)

Another definition provided is that those who are referred to as “we/us” as belonging to the ‘insiders’ while the “them/others” are referred to as the ‘outsiders’ or the excluded group (Eaton, C., Eswaran, M., & Oxoby, R. (2011). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: The origin of identity, and its economic implications. Canadian Journal of Economics, 44(3), 719-748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01652.x)

A third source defines this term as “dichotomous language which distinguishes the boundaries of identity.”  Adding on, it works to positively enforce and represent the “we/us” while on the contrary negatively enforcing and representing the “them/others.”  Similarly, this type of discourse is identified as language which is most often used to legitimize war and types of conflict, such as genocide (Eaton, C., Eswaran, M., & Oxoby, R. (2011). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: The origin of identity, and its economic implications. Canadian Journal of Economics, 44(3), 719-748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01652.x; Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘us’ and ‘them’. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287-314. doi: 10.1177/0957926510395442; Breman, J. (2001). Us and them in the new world order. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(45), 4260-4261. Retrieved February 20, 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4411349; Wondolleck, J., Gray, B., & Bryan, T. (2003). Us versus them: How identities and characterizations influence conflict. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 207-213. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/215462359?accountid=13631 ).

This discourse is also used for the purpose of creating and sustaining an “ethic national identity” in terms of politics, where the “them/others” are the excluded group which does not belong to this collective or dominant ethnic national identity (Muller, J. (2008). Us and them: The enduring power of ethnic nationalism. Current, (501), 9. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A179277687&v=2.1&u=rpu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=cb88a03fdef48469bf97e74b0e70a141 ).

 

Examples and/or Illustrations

The language of “we/us” and “them/others” is used in the context of race.  Using white and black identities as an example, a white individual may have the tendency to refer to those which belong to their race group as “we/us”, while referring to those which do not belong to their race group or identity, such as a black individual, as “them/others”.  Drawing from this example, it is easy to see how such discourse creates boundaries and a divide or distinction between different groups and identities (Yuval-Davis, N. (2010). Theorizing identity: Beyond the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy. Patterns of Prejudice, 44(3), 261-280. doi: 10.1080/0031322X.2010.489736).

Another example, with much more serious implications, where such discourse is used is for the purpose of legitimizing war.  For instance, George W. Bush used such language after 9/11 in order to justify the war against al Qaeda.  To summarize, he stated that “our” violence is justified by minimizing the impacts, while stating that “their” (the enemies) violence is not to be accepted – in this sense he attempted to justify killing the “others” (in this case al Qaeda).  Furthermore, in his speech prior to the “war on terror” he used words such as “peace”, “good”, “human”, “democracy” and “civilization”to describe “we/us” while using words such as “terror”, “enemy”, “fear”, “violence”, “criminal”, “murderer” to describe the “them/others” (al Qaeda) (Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘us’ and ‘them’. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287-314. doi: 10.1177/0957926510395442).  Through this discourse, Bush drew a line between “us” and “them”, with them representing evil that needs to be exterminated (Wondolleck, J., Gray, B., & Bryan, T. (2003). Us versus them: How identities and characterizations influence conflict. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 207-213. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/215462359?accountid=13631).  George Bush also used the “war on terror” and this type of discourse to encourage the strengthening of immigration and border policies for all countries by suggesting that “if you are not with us then you are with the terrorists (“them”) (Boucher, J. (2012). The cost of bandwagoning: Canada-us defence and security relations after 9/11. International Journal, 67(4), 895. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A320589646&v=2.1&u=rpu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=06d5aed2a3b73c4c77fa4bb3fe675618).  In this sense it is easy to seethe powerful ability such dichotomous language has to influence a nation into war by justifying it through positive representations of “we/us” and contrary negative representations of “them/others”.

In a similar context, Hitler, during World War II, also used such language to exclude the Jewish populations (or the “them/others”) and consequently influence Germany to discriminate and hate “them” so that war could be legitimized.  It is clear that the “them/others” are legitimized as the evil “enemy”- especially in the context of war (Breman, J. (2001). Us and them in the new world order. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(45), 4260-4261. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4411349; Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘us’ and ‘them’. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287-314. doi: 10.1177/0957926510395442).

A third example where such discourse is used is be for the purpose of justifying genocide.  For example, the tribunal warfare in Rwanda which resulted in genocide of many people, was also a result of a similar discourse which led to the divide of identities between two different groups of people, the Hutus and the Tutsis, and consequently to their anger and resentment towards one another (Eaton, C., Eswaran, M., & Oxoby, R. (2011). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: The origin of identity, and its economic implications. Canadian Journal of Economics, 44(3), 719-748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01652.x). 

A fourth example where similar discourse is used is in the case of both immigrants and/or migrants.  Since the immigrants or migrants do not belong to the dominant or collective identity, they have the potential to be excluded, at least in discourse, by referring to them as the “them/other.”  For example, if a person was to immigrate to Canada, and because they are from another country there may be a classmate (which belongs to the dominant Canadian identity) that may make a statement such as, “we dress way better than them (in reference to the immigrant classmate)”.  Such discourse shows a clear divide in identity which seeks to label an individual as not belonging, or as an ‘outsider’.  Similarly, it can be noted that due to the national identity assumed by the country and its people, immigrants are often forced to reshape their identity in order to be included in the country or in order to become a part of the “we/us” identity (Muller, J. (2008). Us and them: The enduring power of ethnic nationalism. Current, (501), 9. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A179277687&v=2.1&u=rpu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=cb88a03fdef48469bf97e74b0e70a141; Basa, C. (2006). Me, us and them: Migrant women defining change. Development, 49(1), 120-123. Retrieved February 20 2014, from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/216915577?accountid=13631).

 

Other Useful Sources

Caine, K., Salomons, M., & Simmons, D. (2007). Partnerships for social change in the canadian north: Revisiting the insider–outsider dialectic. Development and Change, 38(3), 447-471. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00419.x

Kusow, A. (2003). Beyond indigenous authenticity: Reflections on the insider/outsider debate in immigration research. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 591-599. Retrieved February 20 2014, from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/224808536?accountid=13631

Ozcurumez, S. (2009). Immigrant associations in Canada: Included, accommodated, or excluded? Turkish Studies, 10(2), 195-215. doi: 10.1080/14683840902864002

Peterson, K. (2008). There is more to the story than ‘us-versus-them’: Expanding the study of interstate conflict and regime type beyond a dichotomy. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 14(1), 4-35. Retrieved February 20 2014, from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/browse/15548597/v14i0001/

Other Related Terms:

            Other related terms are “insiders/outsiders” where the ‘insiders’ are the “we/us” and the ‘outsiders’ are the “them/others”, and “included /excluded” where the “we/us” are the included group, and the “them/others” are the excluded group.

Case Law:

            Considering that this term is a common form of discourse, rather than a term defining a specific issue at hand, it does not lend its self to case law.

 

Bibliography

Basa, C. (2006). Me, us and them: Migrant women defining change. Development, 49(1), 120-123. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/216915577?accountid=13631

Boucher, J. (2012). The cost of bandwagoning: Canada-us defence and security relations after 9/11. International Journal, 67(4), 895. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A320589646&v=2.1&u=rpu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=06d5aed2a3b73c4c77fa4bb3fe675618

Breman, J. (2001). Us and them in the new world order. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(45), 4260-4261. Retrieved February 20, 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4411349

Eaton, C., Eswaran, M., & Oxoby, R. (2011). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: The origin of identity, and its economic implications. Canadian Journal of Economics, 44(3), 719-748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01652.x

Muller, J. (2008). Us and them: The enduring power of ethnic nationalism. Current, (501), 9. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A179277687&v=2.1&u=rpu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=cb88a03fdef48469bf97e74b0e70a141

Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘us’ and ‘them’. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287-314. doi: 10.1177/0957926510395442

Wondolleck, J., Gray, B., & Bryan, T. (2003). Us versus them: How identities and characterizations influence conflict. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 207-213. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/215462359?accountid=13631

Yuval-Davis, N. (2010). Theorizing identity: Beyond the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy. Patterns of Prejudice, 44(3), 261-280. doi: 10.1080/0031322X.2010.489736