Have you ever wondered why the sight of a child born male at birth wearing a dress makes adults so uncomfortable? Or why the new family in town that does not attend religious services in a small community is noteworthy to its residents? Or even why two women sharing an intimate embrace outside of a restaurant can inspire words of hate and malicious stares from those passing by?
Human beings are not just biological creatures; we are meaning-makers. We contract shared identities through political affiliations, religion, gender roles, racial categories, and cultural traditions. These social constructs provide structure, predictability, and a shared sense of belonging. They answer the universal question of “who am I in relation to others?”, which helps shape our individual understanding of our own identities. Our nervous systems are intrinsically wired for connection, so these narratives we have created and the social constructs that have accompanied them become synonymous with safety (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
However, it is necessary for us to recognize that these constructs are not universal truths; they are simply agreements that have developed over time. And when someone lives outside of those agreements, whether by questioning religion, expressing a marginalized sexual orientation or gender identity, or belonging to a minority racial group, it triggers discomfort among the majority. Psychologically, these outliers disrupt what feels like social order for those who are invested in “the way things are.” These differences are interpreted as a threat, not because they actually are threatening, but simply because of what they symbolize: the possibility that the rules by which we live are neither fixed nor absolute.
Why Outliers Feel Threatening
Psychologically, human beings are drawn to a shared sense of sameness because it signals predictability and belonging. Research shows that uncertainty often provokes anxiety and defensive reactions upon exposure (Hogg, 2007). When communities encounter diversity, the response is frequently rooted in fear—fear that if one person can step outside the rules, the whole structure might collapse.
But this fear confuses stability with rigidity. Stability is found in a community’s ability to adapt, not in its refusal to change.
Diversity as Strength, Not Threat
Empirical research consistently shows that diversity among groups results in better decision-making, more innovation, and the ability to adapt more effectively to face challenges.
Empirical research consistently shows that diverse groups make better decisions, innovate more, and adapt more effectively to challenges (Phillips, 2014). What may initially feel like a crack in the foundation of social normalcy is actually a reinforcement. Those communities that embrace difference do not lose their identity; they are able to refine, deepen, and become more resilient.
In order to evolve and embrace diversity, it requires those within the community to sit with the discomfort that arises when previously accepted constructs are disrupted: to acknowledge the reflex to defend “normal” but then move on to contemplate the deeper reflections of “what are we afraid to lose?” The illusion of safety, which is built on exclusion, is ultimately very fragile. Safety, which is built on inclusion, is far more expansive.
Confronting Our Own Discomfort
If the end goal is actually stronger, healthier communities, we have to be willing to face the discomfort of change. It is only through experiencing and confronting these reflexive fears and our fixation on sameness that we are truly able to move towards authentic safety.
Differences do not create chaos; they create the opportunity for growth. The threat of chaos always has existed and always will. However, our willingness to embrace those who live beyond the limits of the socially accepted norms provides a unique chance to enhance our collective strength.
We must then practice self-reflection, as well as challenge those who spread fear-inducing narratives that differences are dangerous, in order for all members of our communities to benefit. Creating platforms based on further stigmatizing marginalized groups is not only dangerous for those who are impacted by these false narratives, but also threatens our capacity to strengthen our communities.
