The Expansion of "Us"

My post today is a departure from the typical discourse found on this blog, but I think that it is relevant to the entire concept of development as a whole.

My father often suggested to me that the development of humaniry can be viewed as an ever expanding conception of “us.” As the human race progresses, the size and scope of “us” expands to include a larger and broader section of humanity as a whole. The interesting question that remains is what defines and sustains this notion of “us”?

Most conceptions of primitive man depict a man who is brutish, territorial, and violent by today’s standards. Let’s consider, for a moment, a man who is totally selfish – his conception of “us” includes only himself. For such a man, self-preservation is the only goal. Whenever there is scarcity of food and other resources, he is plunged into direct competition with the rest of his race – his neighbors become enemies by default. It is easy to see the limited potential of such a society – growth can only happen with an increase in available resources.

Fortunately, humans are not entirely selfish. Without even delving into the vast literature of behavioral psychology, a cursory review of human history reveals an “altruistic” side to the human psyche. There is a tendency in man, often reinforced by social structures such as religion, to subjugate one’s self interest for the benefit of “us.” The tremendous capacity that humans have for sustained collective action is clearly one of the most striking things about us as a species. But what is this notion of “us” for whom humans are willing to suppress their own personal interests? A necessary precondition for such behavior is a sense of belonging to something larger than the self.

In contrast to the notion of raw competition with the rest of our species, the idea of “us” involves accepting our place in a broader group. The most basic and universal “us” is the family unit, though many other more complex conceptions of “us” clearly exist. Accepting ones place in the group also requires willingness to sometimes subjugate one’s individual desires to the “greater good” of the group. It is this agreement that social scientists frequently refer to as the “social contract.”

History reveals a natural instinct of humanity to self-arrange into groups. The most fundamental such group is the family unit. But beyond ones family, there often exists a sense of solidarity with one’s neighbors, friends, colleagues, etc. Society in its current incarnations has evolved an increasingly complex array of identities, including religion, caste, and national identity. An individuals sense of “us” is constantly being shaped by the dynamic and interwoven influences of these multiple identities. The fact that many of these identities are often exclusive in nature and sometimes inherently incompatible is a recurring source of tension for humans. But somehow from this tangled web of identity emerges a sense of “us” – a notion of belonging to a broader group. This sense of “us” is the psychological glue that binds together the social contract.

The notion of “us” is by no means an original idea – it is actually a recurring theme in the history of ideas. For example, Jesus’ commandment to love ones neighbor like the self is a basic way of expressing that humanity should expand its conception of “us” beyond the self. The notion of equality among the faithful before Allah, one of the most fundamental and explicit tenets of Islam, can be viewed as a way of broadening the believer’s sense of “us” to include all believers. Similarly, the notion of racial pride or identity might be viewed as a way of broadening (or narrowing, as the case may be) the sense of “us” to include all members of that group. Some evolutionary scholars have suggested that religion itself is an evolutionary mechanism that facilitates group action and therefore better outcomes for humanity. Such a conception is highly compatible with our theory – by creating or affirming a sense of “us,” religion and other sources of identity can help align the interests of individuals with the interests of the human race as a whole.

Viewed across the entire spectrum of human history, the concept of “us” seems to be expanding. From a relative free-for-all among our Neanderthal ancestors eventually emerged families, villages, tribes, nations, etc. It seems evident that the average human identifies with a much larger group than he would have several thousand years ago. But while the concept of “us” seems to be expanding throughout human history, the tendency towards fragmentation is also undeniable. The identities that people assume are not always catalysts of integration – they are often exclusionary by their very nature. The inherent competition between identities for allegiance among individuals often has violent manifestations. Many bitter conflicts in recent history have been the result of clashes of identity – the few dozen separatist movements perpetually active across the world are perfect examples of this. Although humanity has not been faced with serious scarcity of basic resources for at least a couple of decades, conflict has persisted well into the current day. Many participants in such conflicts are not lacking in food, water, and other basics, yet they are still willing to risk their lives fighting. The willingness to risk ones personal well being in the absence of immediate threats to ones person speaks to the raw power of identity in shaping individual action.

The destructive power of fragmented identities is particularly salient in the Indian context. India, although relatively young as a nation, is home to a staggering volume and diversity of history and culture. It has an incredibly complex set of identities, many of them unique to the region, many of which exist in constant tension with one another, perpetually juggled by those who hold them. The tremendous disparity across regions and cultures is not particularly conducive to a unified sense of “us.” It is a near miracle that some notion of national identity has emerged in such a young and naturally divided country. This is tremendous progress, but there is obviously much to be made. The lingering sense of division here is manifested in the most basic elements of life, from labor relations to human geography.

A constant refrain among India’s intellectuals is that communalism is inhibiting the country’s progress. But why is communalism so bad? The very notion of “communalism” is a way of describing resistance to an expanding conception of “us.” The very reason communalism is socially unhealthy is because by definition it is the promotion of a narrow and exclusive conception of “us,” often at the expense of the greater good. There is empirical research (Banerjee, Pande) that supports the hypothesis that social fragmentation along ethnolinguistic lines results in poor governance. Too many politicians in India make their bread by fostering and creating divisions in society that narrow the conception of “us.” This is inimical to progress as both a nation and a species. For India to prosper, her people must be willing to step beyond these narrow divisions and embrace their shared humanity. As Tagore elegantly said, we as people should strive for “a world that has not been broken into fragments by narrow domestic walls.”

In future writing, I hope to expand on this idea with more concreteness and detail and also use it as an analytical lens for various issues in development. Any and all comments and critiques would be most appreciated.