pronoun: used as the subject of a verb to refer to people, animals, or things already mentioned, or, more generally, to a group of people not clearly described; used to refer to a person whose gender is not known or does not need to be mentioned
Prefer listening to reading? Just click below.
They seem to be everywhere, don’t they? Just look around. They’re… different. Not like you and I. They’re not like us…
This may seem unrelated, but have you ever read This Book is Full of Spiders by David Wong? A friend lent it to me a long time ago. It claims (or rather, a character in it claims) that the human mind can only recognise an arbitrary number of friends, though a generalised group can count as one of this number. Conversely, those we encounter who do not fit into these so-called “friend slots” are categorised as the opposite. Other. Alien. Enemy. Them.
This Book is Full of Spiders attributes this discovery to a scientist named Dunbar. To my great delight, a little online research revealed that Dunbar’s number was a real, working scientific theory. The number of these so-called “friend slots” available is based primarily on brain size, but is generally around one hundred and fifty (at least according to Dunbar). The novel describes this number as “the capacity for human empathy”. Ironically, it also explains most, if not all human prejudices…
The key point here is that a single slot can be used for a categorised group. So, if I identified my fellow blue-eyed people as friends, then it follows that those with brown eyes are not friends, as they don’t fall into this category. This would be true of any colour other than blue, but I’m choosing to omit the rest from this example in the interest of simplicity. Now, a certain brown-eyed person could have their own “friend slot”, but people at large with brown eyes would, as a rule, be greeted with mistrust. Sound familiar?
It struck me almost as soon as I read the theory: what if a friend slot was simply assigned to humans? Any and every human being. We’d solve a lot of problems, wouldn’t we? Prejudice would cease to be, whether it be ageism, racism, sexism, or any “ism” you care to mention! Homophobia? Gone. They’re human. Discrimination due to disability? Also gone, they’re also human. Sounds idyllic, right? Yet I’ve stumbled upon two problems with this thought thus far…
The first is that we don’t get to consciously choose who occupies our brain’s friend slots. So, we can’t stop ourselves from becoming prejudiced in this way. Not unless we begin thinking in terms of the human race as a whole before we’ve made connections with one hundred and fifty people, anyway. Counter-intuitively, the second problem is the most precious, beautiful thing in the world…
Individuality is the problem. Or, it would be more accurate to say, our desire to be and be seen as unique individuals is the issue. We don’t want to be lumped together with other groups in the eyes of others, as this can influence how we perceive ourselves: “I identify as x, not y!” and there are many who now choose “they” as a preferred pronoun. They wish to be known and thought of as “other”. Different. Separate. There’s nothing wrong in it, but between how diverse the human race is and how our brains are wired, it becomes almost impossible to create a society where everyone is truly accepted by everyone else.
I can’t help but wonder: is that really so awful? They do say “you can’t like everyone”. If I like some people, you like some other people, cousin Lesley likes twenty-two of the people I like and forty-six of the ones you like but can’t stand the rest, is there really anything wrong in that? Isn’t being allowed to like, dislike, care or not care about whoever or whatever you like, for any reason you like, one of our most fundamental rights as individuals? To think and speak freely? And why does a nebulous, anonymous “they” always seem to be trying to censor our words and – by extension – thoughts, these days? Why and how are there correct and incorrect or valid and invalid opinions? Why can’t we just disagree, discuss, then walk away with a deeper understanding of both viewpoints, even if our opinion remains unchanged? Why are they quashing conversation? A world of tolerance sounds divine, but if it’s created by refusing to tolerate any other viewpoint then, by definition, it’s not tolerant at all, is it?
These posts may not be for everyone, dear reader, but I hope they give you some small pleasure as I remove the clutter of excess thoughts from my childlike mind. Why not offload some of your own in the comments? Just make sure you don’t think too much!
They may only be words, but if they’re of value to you please do see below to leave a comment, subscribe to our newsletter, or help sustain our blog by making a small donation.
+Click Here to Support Our Words
Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post. No fees. No fuss. No spam.
