Fear of Others: The Matters of Understanding
People fear what they do not understand. Humans often tend to classify something/one that they do not know as an “other”. Fear of this “other” incites misinterpretation, among it, resulting in conflict. Hence, having the ability to be tolerant of the “other” of our lives is critical. However, what does it mean to be tolerant?
Tolerance can be understood differently; however, it can simplify in one word: Understanding that others may have something else different than us. Understanding that these “others” can mean strangers, friends, even families. Tolerance is built towards understanding the exact things that make us different. Identifying what is one’s Identity, believes, and trait. Of which it can form an exact body of what we can understand. Realizing that, differences would then have to be addressed, within ourselves and these “others” in life.
Culture, in its essence, plays a significant role in morphing crucial knowledge regarding Identity. Culture can also be defined as “A complex frame of reference of traditions, beliefs, values, norms, symbols, and meanings/patterns” (Ting-Toomey & Takai 2006). It is relevant to know that culture is more intricate, involving social and personal factors to form a concise body. Any relations between these different factors can form a picture regarding a hierarchy in our social life, which is integral in influencing any individual.
Relations between any culture within the web of society are based on duality. Our perspective is morphed by it, where any differences of any “dominant culture” and “co-culture” mix are entangled. A profound effect of such a dualism between a dominant culture is based on beliefs, values, perception, and traditions of customs and the patterns of communication involved. Having played a role in the hegemonic control of an institution within a society plays a central role in becoming positively predisposed to our Identity. Co-culture then exists as a somewhat balancing role within any personal identity, being more personal and “emotional” based on any individual. Any part of this different part of our Identity needs to be understood as being influenced by the society where many cultures can encompass one another within a specific geographical area and influence one another (Samovar, Peter & McDaniel, 2010).
Knowing the factors at play will know the available differences and, in this case, need to be understood to prevent any labelling process from occurring. The labelling theory itself is based on the base of social deviancy and trend that it does not attach to any actions but is more focused on society’s habits to put labels that tend to be more damaging to the minority or those that deviate from the norms of the cultural standards. This label itself is expressed from the experience and the perception within the dominant majority within society. The cultural norms also played a significant part in putting those labels onto the screen and image of a particular culture nor institution that portrays that culture. Therefore, if a sure label is perceived as “deviant” to the norms of the cultural standards, then the label will stay for a long time within any institution. Such deviancy’s preciseness can be questioned as an anomaly, as the similarity can be mend and put into those labels into the knowledge of society by exposing the label from the basis of the “other” within the dominant norm.
It will be difficult to find a common ground to make knowing differences and accepting them as a common norm. This can be found within the trend of us as humans make conflicts that stems from cultural tensions and differences. This conflict, that resides from fear to fuel it constantly, is dangerous if able to manifests into the consciousness of society. This notions of “false consciousness” within the perceptions of the people last in the image of overgeneralization of culture, predisposed stereotypes, and a morphed reality that within itself, generates conflict. Harmony is the key to undermine such false consciousness, a betterment of ways is to initiate ways of compromise, to understand each other, within different cultures and identity. Preventing chaos through recognizing the negative effects of fear and the precedents that followed, is to know the folly it will bring, and proceed with it the good and positive aspects within differences. Understanding, therefore, can be found to be relevant to match the nature that came from fear.
An anomaly of cultures within the world, not just Indonesia in specifics, also exists within the notion of Understanding. Following understanding from the human’s perspectives and the traits that make them, it is easy to understand the culture that become relevant in their life’s. Culture maketh man, much of the nature that makes Identity. Identity then, meant to understand towards, to hold on to as a source of self-evaluation, to know the complexity within the concept of culture. It is simpler then to understand such a notion when we allow ourselves to be exposed to the “other” which is that is in binary opposition within our morphed perception and false consciousness. By Identity and culture, people who are different from us are always there. Noticing them is one step towards Understanding. Allowing oneself to stoop to a generalization of culture and stereotyping, is to disenfranchise a fellow human being rights of morphing and making their own Identity at will. Such force of view that practically influence others will incite pressures that will quickly boil down into conflict — resulting in further distrust down the line. It then follows a cycle of hell in forming bonds and relationships with our fellow human beings. Allowing oneself to arrive an informed conclusion about our pride and prejudice, can avoid unnecessary conflict that may arise from fear and paranoia.
Harmony and the notion of a global identity, henceforth, should be considered as a prime goal to reach with Understanding. However, the internet and the rise of anonymity, with the radicalization of media freedoms and the rights for equal voice in both hateful and mindful rhetoric, is both a curse and a blessing. The internet is a complex being that it is also key in the interconnectivity of our current society. We have never seen such examples within human history, besides the concepts of free flow of information, that is still relatively controlled within Humanity’s trade routes and the historic “Silk Road”. The world wide web then, is the ancient trade road multiplied by tenfold within its matrix, information can go within a second without any geographical and physical boundaries to limit its. Making cultural boundaries to adapt as quickly as information could follow, creating a chaotic process of understanding. The media is also partly at fault, but at the same time, not responsible for the portrayal they’ve craft for the public. As the adaptation of the internet follows a darker path, so does its practitioners, adapting the practice into something more simple, degenerative trend that what came before. We could examine this from the way the news is delivered, much more so with catchy soundbites, slogans that semantically is bombastic, but does not really means anything in its essence. Losing in this digital world is a sense of something deeper and analytically can be brought into definition. In this sense, harmony without understanding, the alternative path to what humans can do to overcome a false consciousness that is rife with fear and conflict.
Knowing this, we need to start asking ourselves to provide what could enjoin different people with different beliefs, ethnicities, and cultures to bind together. It all revolves around the many concepts of customs, symbols, information and meaning of those things, along with the connections and matrix between people within a society. It therefore can be concluded — the one word, which is Understanding.
References
Martin, Judith N. dan Nakayama, Thomas K. 2007. Intercultural Communication in Contexts. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Oetzel, John G. 2009. Intercultural Communication: A Layered Approach. London: Pearson Education Ltd.
Samovar, Porter, McDaniel. 2012. Communication Between Culture (8th Edition). USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Ting-Toomey, Stela Chung, Leeva C., 2012. Understanding Intercultural Communication.
