The distinction of people as those related to a dominating group and others has been a subject of an ongoing discussion of sociology and psychology. As the contemporary world becomes more inclusive in terms of eliminating discrimination, the discussion of othering as a concept becomes particularly relevant. This phenomenon exists in two dimensions, namely, psychological and social. The current paper questions the role of psychology in the social othering of people with disabilities. The identified topic is of significant importance to the field of psychology since it focuses on explaining the underlying forces behind the process of othering. In this paper, the concept of othering will be determined and theorized. The social implications of othering people with disabilities will be discussed from two perspectives, positive and negative. The interpretation of psychological theories and concepts will be applied to explain why humans to label people with disabilities as to others and what effect it has on the objects of othering. Therefore, it is argued that othering has a solid psychological base attributed to human socialization processes and has a negative stigmatizing effect on people with disabilities.
The concept of othering is based on psychological ideas and is manifested in social processes. To define this concept, one might state that it is a process that takes place when a “group of like-minded people identify another group as less than human” (Rogers, 2019, p. 102). The dominant group of people who, from the point of view of modern Western psychology, are perceived normal, exclude minorities that have distinctions in terms of race, gender, poverty, sexuality, and disability. As a response to their otherness, the dominant group avoids, fears, discriminates, or even abuses them. People with disabilities construct a significant group of individuals who have some physical or psychological impairments that cause their inability to function as a perceived normal being (Grey, 2016). Often, the manifestation of othering occurs via stereotyping that applies negative assumptions about the disabled. In such a manner, the social reality of the modern world categorizes individuals as per their normality and abnormality, which is determined by culturally imposed values and beliefs.
From a sociological perspective, the category of otherness might be explained by the application of normality. Indeed, according to Rogers (2019), psychology as a science has postulated what is normal in human nature and how to calculate the normality and its deviations. Normalization is the process that is rooted in the social processes of governance, where the members of society have to comply with the imposed perception of normality to be able to function as a system (Rogers, 2019). In other words, it has long been encouraged to act properly and be judgmental about the deviation from the things that are perceived as proper. For example, people must build families between men and women and raise children. If someone acts differently, they become excluded or discriminated against. The same might be stated about people with disabilities. Being physically and mentally healthy is a norm for society; any deviation causes mistrust, fear, and discrimination. Thus, the social categorization of people into normal and abnormal imposes specific behavioral patterns that separate marginalized groups.
Sociological and psychological perceptions of othering are different. From a psychological perspective, the process of othering is perceived as a result of the intertwined connection between the categories of other and self. As Krumer-Nevo and Sidi (2012) state, the term “other” is primary in the same way as the term of consciousness is. When viewed from a psychoanalytical point of view, others are projected upon and perceived merely as beings that are distinctive from the self; any person or group might be perceived as other due to any difference from the self. In other words, people distinguish between “we” and “others” based on unconscious perceptions of difference (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012). However, the sociological explanation of othering has more ethical roots and refers to the allocation of moral codes and ethical, cultural values to particular categories of people. As Krumer-Nevo and Sidi (2012) put it, society engages in “the process of attaching moral codes of inferiority to difference” (p. 300). Commonly, minorities or marginalized groups like people with disabilities do not comply with the majority’s normality perception and become excluded.
When discussing the psychological basis of othering, one might refer to the relation between the self and other, which is manifested within three dimensions. According to Krumer-Nevo and Sidi (2012), there are three dimensions of the self-other relationship, namely value judgment, social distance, and knowledge. Firstly, value judgment applies when an individual determines whether the other is good or bad, depending on the commonly perceived moral codes and cultural standards existing in the domestic environment (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012). For example, a person with serious mental illness is categorized as abnormal and attributed to negative values, according to which this person is ignored or discriminated against. Secondly, othering based on social distancing occurs when the other “is perceived as distant psychologically and physically” (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012, p. 300). In other words, when people do not commonly interact with people with disabilities and cannot understand their way of life, they tend to categorize them as different. Finally, the lack of knowledge about the culture or history of the other makes the representative of a dominant group detach from the other and induce their isolation from the group.
The prevalent Western culture in the modern reality of globalization has generated a particular socially perceived standardization of normality. Indeed, “the Western intellectual tradition has elevated human reason and civilization counterposed against primitive, savage instinct and nature, and associated people with disabilities with the latter” (Leone, 2019, p. 163). According to this assumption, people with mental disabilities who cannot compete with the majority who are perceived as normal become discriminated against and stigmatized. Moreover, psychologically, people possess the ability to reflect on themselves and others. As a reflective self, an individual compares oneself to others, as well as the members of their group to other groups, and determines the differences. According to Gulerce (2014), reflexivity is “central to our moral understanding since selfhood, and the good are inextricably intertwined” (p. 245). In other words, through reflection, people measure good according to themselves, and if they detect significant differences, they cannot assimilate with otherness.
In the modern world, the category of otherness is explicitly addressed and transparent. While scientific and political discourses tend to cultivate tolerant language aimed at reinforcing diversity in societies, there exists the discriminating and oppressive language that stigmatizes the disabled as a group within those perceived as others. Indeed, as the study conducted by Alorainy et al. (2019) has identified, the negative implications of hate speech against people with disabilities and other minority groups as manifested via particular linguistic features. Importantly, the others of the study theorize the reasoning for cyberhate against others with the help of Intergroup Threat Theory, which implies that “prejudice is a product of perceived realistic and symbolic threats” (Alorainy et al., 2019, p. 3). Indeed, people experience symbolic threats from marginalized groups or individuals; these threats cannot be approached from a realistic perspective and are based on differences in values and social norms. Consequently, the majority of people who perceive themselves as dominant normal tend to exclude individuals who bear potential threats from the group. The hate language used online against the disabled causes their continuous stigmatization.
The overall concept of othering, in general, and othering of people with disabilities, in particular, is manifested in a two-fold way. On the one hand, it perceives others as inferior and abnormal, attributing them with negative characteristics. That is why people with disabilities who perform in various social settings, such as school or work, often become an object of bullying and humiliation. On the other hand, people with disabilities are perceived from the perspective of making a good effect. Indeed, while the dichotomy between the dominant group and the others has an explicit negative manifestation in online communication, the stigmatization occurs even when the process of othering is tackled from a welfare perspective. With the tendency to enforce inclusive society and tolerance toward minorities and marginalized groups, the needs and particularities of those subjected to othering are viewed and discussed openly (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012). However, the process of othering is completely natural, while the reinforcement of tolerance triggers informed articulation of the otherness of the disabled, which still stigmatizes this marginalized group.
Many social phenomena are characterized by the theme of cultivating a charitable and compassionate attitude toward people with disabilities. Many welfare programs and policies articulate the problems and underrepresented status of people with physical and mental disabilities (Caroll, 2016). As the study by Grey (2016) shows, many billboards that aim at promoting benevolence and compassion toward people with mental health problems illustrate others as needy ones. Apart from the fact that health care providers use it as a way of promoting their services, such posters cultivate the behavior of benevolent othering, where help can be provided to others (Grey, 2016). This benevolent othering is explained by the psychological need of people to be givers of help, where “giving functions as a form of self-gratification” (Grey, 2016, p. 244). For the same reason, the contemporary tendency toward an inclusive workforce and education refers to people with disabilities as those that have particular needs and requirements and have to be treated with special attitude (Caroll, 2016; Reutlinger, 2015). Consequently, despite the positive or negative nature of othering, people with mental or physical disabilities are still stigmatized due to their exclusive and inferior status.
In conclusion, the experience of people with disabilities is characterized by suffering from being the objects of social and psychological othering. As a social concept, it refers to the process of exclusion of people who are different from the majority, which leads to their discrimination. From a psychological perspective, othering occurs as a natural process when a human reflects on the differences between the self and others. However, the intersection of psychology and sociology induces a more complex process that is based on the integration of moral codes and commonly perceived social rules as the determinants of normality. The majority cannot assimilate with the values, history, or culture of the marginalized group and recognize its members as a symbolic threat. In response to this threat, people try to exclude these individuals from the group using hate language or behavior. On the other hand, the contemporary tendency toward tolerance and inclusion of marginalized people, including those with disabilities, implies a positive effect. However, the process of othering, even if it is manifested via benevolent means, significantly stigmatizes the disabled and causes their continuous suffering.
References
Alorainy, W., Burnap, P., Liu, H., & Williams, M. L. (2019). “The enemy among us” detecting cyber hate speech with threats-based othering language embeddings. ACM Transactions on the Web, 13(3), 1-26.
Carroll, M. (2016). Othering and its guises. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 23(3), 253-256.
Grey, F. (2016). Benevolent othering: Speaking positively about mental health service users. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 23(3), 241-251.
Gulerce, A. (2014). Selfing as, with, and without othering: Dialogical (im) possibilities with dialogical self theory. Culture & Psychology, 20(2), 244-255.
Krumer-Nevo, M., & Sidi, M. (2012). Writing against othering. Qualitative inquiry, 18(4), 299-309.
Leone, M. L. (2019). Reframing disability through an ecocritical perspective in Sara Mesa’s Cara de pan. Journal of Gender and Sexuality Studies, 45(1), 161-184.
Reutlinger, C. J. (2015). The ableist othering of disability in the classroom: An experiential investigation of academic adjustments in higher education [Doctoral dissertation]. Kansas State University. Web.
Rogers, W. S. (2019). Perspectives on social psychology: A psychology of human being. Routledge.