Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00331)

At 07:25 PM 1/7/02 +0000, you wrote:
> Having surfed a bit, I can now offer a link and a bit more
> explanation. The terms originated in linguistics but are now
> commonly used in anthropology. Pike and Harris respectively are the
> authors most associated with these terms in the two fields. A link
> explaining the terms further is:
>
> http://www.msu.edu/~dwyer/EmicEtic.htm
>
> The bottom line is insider/outsider. Which equates to
> subjective/objective, of course. Insiders say "You can't really
> understand x unless you're one of us, and approach it just as our
> group does." Outsiders say "You can't possibly understand x unless
> you look at from the standpoint of a detached observer rather than a
> committed participant."
>
> It's irritating but not unusual to be told by insiders that "We know
> better than you because of our insider status." But it's far more
> irritating (and rarer, fortunately) to be told that "you are morally
> wrong, and an enemy, to approach this subject any other way than the
> way we insiders do."
>
> PJ
Paul:

I've seen this happen in more than one way. On a flight to Salt
Lake City, for instance, I ended up on a plane loaded with Mormon
missionaries. I got to feel the outsider at the time.

Another way I've seen it happen is when on theos-l many years ago,
we got a "Daniel in the Lion's Den" type of xtian among us for a
while. He though he was there to "save our souls," and believed
he was acting as an representative for a superior spiritual system.
He just wasn't ready for the openness and diversity of belief, and
eventually became bewildered and left the list.

The biggest point in both cases was where the person or people
not only thought they had an special religious system, but could
not acknowledge other equally valid paths to Truth.

-- Eldon