I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT categories lately, and about one in particular: "the people".
Why should little Sally's reluctance to hand over her doll be discounted any more than your reluctance to hand over your watch?
It's a phrase that politicians utter regularly, sometimes modified by phrases like "American," or "of this great nation," or "common," and sometimes not modified at all.
Even those modifications don't always make clear who the phrase actually refers to, which may be why those two words are so popular.
By saying "the people" want this, or "the people" won't stand for that, a politician can tell the truth about a handful of his or her constituency while implying that the point of view is shared by everyone.
This ability to classify a subset of humanity as the totality has been with us as long as there have been people to classify.
It's remarkable how many original names of tribes or bands translate as simply "the people".
On this continent alone, the original names of Native American tribes include: Dena'ina, Dene, Dine'e, Gwich'in, Innu, Innuit, Lenape, L'nu'k, Maklak, Mamaceqtaw, Ndee, Numinu, Nunt'zi, Olekwo'l, and Tsitsistas—all of which simply translate to "the people".
It's very easy for us to limit, without thinking, the category of "people".
And this lies behind many of the problems we are faced with these days.
"The people" translates too easily to "us," and allows us the dangerous luxury of creating different rules, and different values, concerning "them".
Some of "them" for some of "us" have included, over the years:
- The nerds, in high school, if you were in the in-crowd,
- The in-crowd, in high school, if you were a nerd,
- The employees, if you were the owner,
- The owners, if you were an employee,
- Roman Catholics, if you were a Baptist,
- Protestants, if you were a Roman Catholic,
- Atheists, if you were Islamic, or Baptist, or Roman Catholic,
- Muslims, Baptists, and Roman Catholics, if you were an atheist,
- People whose skin was a different color,
- People who came from a different part of the world,
- People who have less money than you,
- People who have more money than you,
- The homeless,
- Liberals,
- Conservatives,
- Women,
- Children.
That last group is instructive.
Because America treats people equally under the law many of the "thems" listed above have been able to overcome their unfair treatment at the hands of "us".
Women have slowly gained the right to be considered "us" in more and more cases, as have minorities, over the years, and we can expect more progress as time goes on.
But the rules children live under are not, for the most part, the laws of the United States, but the rules of the household or the classroom.
So they have less recourse, and they also can show us just how insidious this division between "us" and "them" can be.
For example, have you noticed how often children are forced by an adult to "share".
An interesting demand, when you consider that the adult would very probably be deeply offended if confronted with the same demand.
Imagine if your boss at work (or your mother) were to insist that you allow a co-worker to wear your watch, or your earrings, or use your car.
Would you feel good about being forced to "share"?
Would you even tolerate it?
I'm not coming out against sharing, here—I'm just pointing out how easily we change the rules for those we don't quite consider "people".
Why should little Sally's reluctance to hand over her doll be discounted any more than your reluctance to hand over your watch?
Some years ago an adult client complained to me about their nephew, who asked for a glass of water just as the family was leaving the house for a restaurant, and "held everyone up".
I asked what would have happened if one of the adults had needed a glass of water.
The answer was, of course, that it wouldn't have been considered a big deal—an adult is a fully entitled person.
If you stand in any schoolroom, or supermarket, and compare the way adults treat children to the treatment those same adults would tolerate from others, it quickly becomes clear that children are not considered people.
And from these experiences, children learn that exclusion from full personhood is okay, even normal and good.
Is it any surprise that they become high school students who exclude the nerds from their group?
And from there become voters who want discriminatory laws?
We've come a long way in the last two hundred years, in keeping the promise of a nation that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
But we've got a way to go yet.
And that path involves the recognition that "the people" means all the people.
Maybe we can start by including our own children.
At least, that's what I think today.
