“Those not for us”

Thinking about the polarization that has developed in this country and indeed around the world, and the harm that I think it does.

People who are trying to polarize, or activate, other people often say something like “Those who are not for us are against us.” The cultural roots of this probably go back to the Christian Bible, Matthew 12 verse 30:”He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”

But compare Mark 9 verse 40: “For he who is not against us is on our side.”

Now I quote these not to invoke the authority of scripture but to make a point about the possible truth of either of those statements. Logically, if one of them is true, then the other is also, because they both maintain that the entire human race is divided into exactly two disjoint sets. Logically, they mean exactly the same thing. And because they mean the same thing, they stand or fall together.

However, I think that most people would not experience them as meaning the same thing. We know that, on any given issue, there are those that are “for us”, those “against us”, and then a whole lot of other people. And both statements are making a claim about those others, reaching out to include them in one or the other of the dichotomous sets. Both separate the world into two camps, but not the same two camps. And they are used in different ways, to further different purposes.

“Those who aren’t for us are against us” is used to 1) persuade people to explicitly support “us” (“Gee, I’m sure not against them, so I’d better make that clear by signing up for them”), or 2) justify attacks on anyone who isn’t explicitly in “our” camp (“We didn’t hurt any innocent bystanders because there are no innocent bystanders; anyone who is not for us is against us and therefore fair game.”)

“He who is not against us is on our side,” on the other hand, is used to expand our understanding of “our side”, to expand the community of which we may consider ourselves to be a part. (Check it out for yourself; google “not for us are against” and read some of the hits you get. Then try “not against us is for” and read some of those.)

The fact that the two statements don’t in fact mean the same thing, I maintain, proves the falsity of both. Neither statement is true in itself; they are both used to manipulate or persuade. We all know that relative to any given issue dear to our hearts there are huge numbers of people who are neither for us nor against us; they are neutral, or indifferent, or unaware of the issue, or simply see things in a third (or fourth, or fifth . . .) way. But we react differently to this fact, based on personality or circumstances. Some of us, some of the time at least, go with “live and let live”–those not against us are for us. Others, or perhaps the same people at other times, go with those not for us are against us.

My own bias is towards “those not against us are for us”. It neither promotes nor supports anger, violence, fanaticism, the formation of hostile camps. It is not a power play. It does not put me in a box not of my own choosing. It does not force me to choose sides.

But for exactly these reasons, I suspect, it is appealed to far less often than “those not for us are against us.” This statement is a call to arms for the faithful, and a warning to the rest to “be with us or we will be against you.” It is intended to stir people to action. It is a power play, at least when used by the powerful. It deliberately puts many people into a box not of their own choosing.

It also tends toward paranoia. Because it is inherently divisive, it can lead to suspicion and division even within one’s own camp.

It’s not that there are never times when it is important for everyone to get on board about something to avert a disaster of some kind. There are. Global warming may be such an issue. But I say, beware those who invoke the easy dichotomy of “those not for us.” Consider carefully. What are they trying to persuade people to do? Who are they using it against? What cause or action are they promoting with this divisive rhetoric? Who are they trying to silence, and why? And before you let yourself be boxed in, think–are you really either entirely with them or against them? Or are there other ways to think about the issue? And even if you are “for them”–even if you agree about the issue involved–consider their tactics, and whether or not they may do more harm than good.

The next time you hear someone say “Those not for us are against us”, or “You’re either for us or against us,” consider responding with “That’s just not true.”