The word is not a ‘typo’: being ‘othered’ is a real problem in our contemporary society. ‘Othering’, as defined by Yiannis Gabriel, is “the process of casting a group, an individual or an object into the role of the ‘other’ and establishing one’s own identity through opposition to and, frequently, vilification of this ‘other’”. The meaning of being ‘othered’ may be understood within a neo-colonial framework; for example, within a social context where technocrats’ misgivings about a people, their traditions and associated philosophies outside of their own social network, may inform negative decisions and actions towards those people. However, when people within the same social network engage in this process of ‘othering’ in order to find a false sense of acceptance within the norms and practices of the wider society, then the process of ‘othering’ can lead to equally chilling and worrisome results.
In Trinidad and Tobago, Indians and specifically Hindus have suffered from this phenomenon of ‘othering’ to some extent, by those both outside and inside of their social networks, resulting in ideological contamination and philosophical chasms. Internal ‘othering’ often occurs as a result of persons believing themselves to be qualified in understanding the rules of Sanatan Dharma. The movement of a people and their religion out of India to Trinidad and Tobago and other parts of the world have doubled, tripled and rippled out of control, much like dropping a large pebble into a placid lake. On the banks of this lake, gentle ripples are transformed into uncontrollable waves that bash against the soft mud. In this mud our ancestors left their gentle footprints, not pressing hard into the soil, thinking to themselves that their children and children’s children would leave better impressions. Instead, these unforgiving waves, accompanied by silt, dust and debris, lash and cover the great sacrifices and adaptations our ancestors made to keep our religion untarnished and ever glowing in challenging times. Our ancestors were ‘othered,’ but they stood strong; now we are ‘othering’ ourselves.
What does this all mean? Instead of standing in solidarity with one position in the formation of national policy; instead of protecting the rights of children; instead of consultation and unification in the promotion of Sanatan Dharma, subgroups have engaged in what Sigmund Freud refers to as a type of “narcissism of minor differences”. In this scenario, one group believes itself to be closest in symbolic and philosophical proximity to the source and identifies with myopic views to pander to the masses whilst denigrating other groups. Examples of this tendency and its extreme effects can easily be found in recent history – Hitler and the Jews or the Hutus and the Tutsis in the Rwandan genocide.
In this world, organizations are created, sustained and destroyed in accordance with the need to maintain order. We are being asked every single day to accept the myriad of differences in opinions that define our democracy, but more and more, these opinions, preferences and ideologies undermine the stability that a society as complex as ours needs. In music, in literature, in philosophy and in art, too many sounds will make noise, too many words will destroy the narrative, extensive problematization weakens the message and too many flourishes of the brush make a simple portrait an abstract image.
Pt. Varistha Persad
Teacher 111
SWAHA Hindu College
