thepracticeofothering.SoI startedusingthat at the Institute to create some coherency and
deeperunderstandingbetweenthedifferent researchers.Yes.Verymuchso.So we talk a lot about bridging and breaking. And
bonding.Attheinstitutional level where other organs of the economy
andgovernmentand culture are being used in a very pernicious way,
onereactionis,“Ifyou don’t like me, I don’t like you. I can’t come to
yourhouse,youcan’t come to my house.” So when someone breaks
bothdefensively,like at Stanford, if someone attacks me, then I need
tocreatea grouptobe safe. But in doing that I can go beyond just
creatinga grouptobe safe. I can actually start to attack the other
groupbeyondwhat’snecessary.SoI feellike what’s happening a lot in movement spaces and
socialjusticespacestosomeextentiswhatI call defensive breaking. You can think about
expressionsofnationalismthatcameoutof the ’60s and ’70s. It’s like, okay, white people
don’twantus,wedon’twantthem.Partofthat is reactive I think. So as I’ve tried to introduce
theideaofbridgingandbelonging,andI talked about the circle of human concern where
everyone’sinthecircle,evenbeyondhumans. And someone in the audience said, “What
abouttheKochbrothers?”I said.“Well,not that you have to accept their policies or defend
yourselfagainstthem.Butyouhavetohold on to their humanity.” When we started talking
aboutthattherewastremendousresistance, especially in movement spaces. And then on
theotherside,somepeoplewhoare,quoteunquote, “hardcore researchers,” they also had
difficultywithit.Youknow,it’slike,“Whatdoes this mean?” Sounds too woo-woo and we’re
goingtoholdhandsandsing“Kumbaya”.And of course when we dig a little we find research
onbelongingisquitepowerfulfrom,quoteunquote, a “scientific perspective.” In the medical
field,inthesocialfield.Soit’sjustunearthing it. I think here in California we work in this
fieldofbelongingandaroundthecountryit’s really taking off. We work with the spiritual
communityandreligiousactivists.Andthen you see stuff like the Florida restoration—one
ofthemostimportantpoliticalmovements in the last election cycle. Both the head of it and
thedeputy,one’sblackandone’swhite,one’s conservative, one’s liberal, they create this
stuffaroundbelonging.Andcreatingthislarger “we.” And it’s only because of that in part
thattheywereabletowin.Sosomepeopleare now embracing it saying, “Okay, this is a way
tobuildpower.Ifyoucanbridgewithpeople and create this larger ‘we’ you also can create
morepower.”I thinkthat’sright.Butactually we’re talking about a much deeper ideological
spiritualconnectionthat’snotbecauseyou’re going to win elections, but because we are part
ofeachother.Sothebestpartisstillbeingworked out. And I’m blown away at how quickly
peoplehaveembracedtheidea.Andalsowatching people struggle with it.Well, we have a lot of resources
online but a lot of people aren’t
going to go online. It’s like looking
at the yellow Volkswagen. “Every
car’s a yellow Volkswagen!” So I
think once we start looking for
it, all of us are in families, even if
they’re dysfunctional. The thing
that makes it hard is we’re much
moreskilledatpracticingotheringasa society and as a culture. So the idea of belonging
andtheideaofbridgingatfirstseemsnaïve. What I say to some people is that bridging,
connectingwithpeoplewhoare“apparently other,” ’cause there is no real other, can be hard.AndI sawthatyou’vebeenrunning
theseconferencesonthethemefor
sometimenow.Haveyouseena shift
innotjustawarenessforthepeople
whocome,butactualpractical
applicationintheircommunities—of
lessotheringandmorebelonging?Howwouldyouadvisesomebodywhomaybedoesn’thave a lot of
agencyintheirlife,butgenerallyfeelstheywanttobeinclusive, want to
getridofwhatevertheycangetridofthatishurtingotherpeople and
wanttooffera bridgebuttheydon’thavethelanguageand they don’t
havepeoplearoundthemtohelpthemwithit?Like,what would you
suggestforaneverydaypersonwhomightseea speechofyours or read
anarticleorGoogle“otheringandbelonging”andthink,I want to be part
ofthatbutI justdon’tknowwhatI candoinmydailylifeto help that?104
JOHN A. POWELL
DUMBO FEATHER