The rhetoric of "us vs them" reinforces divisions and justifies violence from "summary" of The Myth of Religious Violence by William T Cavanaugh
The rhetoric of "us vs them" is a powerful tool that has been used throughout history to create and reinforce divisions between groups of people. This rhetoric works by simplifying complex social and political issues into a binary opposition between an in-group and an out-group. By framing conflicts in this way, it becomes easier to dehumanize the other side and justify violence against them. Once a group has been identified as the "other," it becomes easier to portray them as a threat to the in-group. This perceived threat is often exaggerated or fabricated in order to justify aggressive actions against the out-group. In this way, the rhetoric of "us vs them" can be used to justify violence as a defensive measure against an imagined enemy. The rhetoric of "us vs them" also serves to solidify group identity and cohesion. By emphasizing the differences between the in-group and the out-group, individuals are encouraged to see themselves as part of a unified collective that is under attack. This sense of shared identity can be a powerful motivator for violence, as individuals are more willing to sacrifice for the group than for themselves. Furthermore, the rhetoric of "us vs them" can be used by those in power to maintain control over the population. By creating a sense of fear and mistrust towards the out-group, rulers can justify authoritarian measures and limit dissent within their own ranks. This manipulation of fear and division serves to reinforce existing power structures and prevent challenges to authority.- The rhetoric of "us vs them" is a dangerous tool that can be used to justify violence and maintain social divisions. By simplifying complex issues into a binary opposition between groups, this rhetoric dehumanizes the other side and creates a sense of threat that justifies aggressive actions. It is important to be aware of how this rhetoric is used and to resist its divisive and violent effects.
