One of my favorite Sci-Fi writers Orson Scott Card used in his Ender's universe an interesting classification of aliens. The classification is based on how much understanding between peoples or species is possible.
Swedish words utlanning, framling, raman, and varelse are used for the terminology that was introduced by one of the major characters (Valentine) after spending time on a planet populated by Scandinavian descendants. This classification is known as the "Hierarchy of Exclusion," appears in the "History of Wutan in Trondheim," a fictional work described by Orson Scott Card in his novel "Speaker for the Dead," of the Ender's universe.
I don't know if this classification is used or has real roots in Sweden, or is an invention of the brilliant mind of Orson Scott Card. I'd appreciate any insight.
The original classification as appears in the book:
1 Utlanning (Otherlander): the stranger we recognize as a human of our world, but of another city or country.
2 Framling: the stranger we recognize as human, but of another world.
3 Raman: the stranger we recognize as human, but of another species.
4 Varelse: the true alien, which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible. They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we cannot know it.
Some additional clarifications (hat tip goes source 1 and source 2):
Utlanning, or otherlander
source 1-the stranger we recognize as a human of our world, but of another city or country. someone of another city or country literally. Those who are closest to you but are other than you.-Swedish word: utlînning [u:tlen:ing] utlînningen utlînningar (noun)
-English translation: foreigner, alien
-Compounds: utlînningslag -en—Aliens' Actsource 2 An utlanning is a member of one's own species from the same planet but another country. Contrast with framling.
Framling
source 1-"human" but of another world. Someone substantially different than you, but descended from the same people, and cultural source.-Swedish word: frîmling [fr'em:ling] frîmlingen frîmlingar (noun)
-English translation: stranger, foreigner, alien
-Compounds: frîmling(s)|skap -et—alien status, alienationsource 2 A framling is a member of one's own species that dwells on another planet. For example, if I am a human being and an American, then a person who lived on Mars would be a framling to me; a Ukrainian would be an utlanning.
Raman (pl. ramen)
source 1-Beings not of your people, but can be related to, spoken to, and communicated with. They come from other lands, and other sources, but common ground can be established. Nature, properly approached, spirits of the lands and skies, and any other entity in which any form of communication is possible falls here. This is literally the limit, after which no relation is possible.-Swedish word: ram [ra:m] ramen ramar (noun)
-English translation: frame / (figuratively "limits, bounds")
-Examples: inom mñjligheternas ram—within the limits of possibility
-Compounds: ram|avtal -et—skeleton (blanket) agreementsource 2 A raman is a member of a species of intelligent beings (different from your own) with whom one can achieve meaningful dialogue. Whether or not dolphins are ramen or varelse has not yet been satisfactorily determined...
Varelse
source 1-Alien, no "conversation" is possible, they might be intelligent, they may be self aware, but you have no way of knowing it. These are foreigners with whom no understanding is possible.-Swedish word: varelse [v'a:relse] varelsen varelser (noun)
-English translation: being
-Examples: levande varelse—living creaturesource 2 A species of beings with whom one cannot achieve meaningful dialogue. Contrast with raman.
They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act.
One is expected to understand and to be understood by utlanning and framling. Its more difficult with ramen. Some of their actions and motivations can be totally alien to us.
For example, a raman race of pequeninos is killing a human colonist. Because their life cycle includes transformation into a tree like being, the only stage when they can procreate, and the stage reserved only for the most distinguished of the previous stage, the killing of the human was meant to be a highest honor possible for them. It was a murder for humans. A dilemma, but nevertheless, an understanding is achievable.
There is no understanding possible with varelse, because they are too alien. If you move to understand them somehow, they are not varelse anymore, but become ramen to you. The process of understanding may not be mutual.
The original villains Ender was fighting were aliens called buggers who did not recognize humans as sentient beings at the beginning and almost wiped out humans completely. When they finally recognized the mistake, the roles reversed: the humans seen only the deadly enemy, never understood why the buggers stopped the advance on Earth, and ended up wiping out the buggers' race. Humans became ramen for them when they stopped fighting, but they still remained varelse for humans, until they learned how to communicate with Ender.
OSC explores Prime Directive from a different angle. Pequeninos make case to humans to share all information, because, as they say, every minute of not sharing, only increases the gap between them making future understanding more and more difficult. They don't see any value of the Prime Directive to them.
While in the Ender's universe utlanning and framling supposed to be able to understand each other, they are not, of course, conflict free. There are wars and power struggle. A fact of understanding does not imply automatic agreeing.
Which turns into the application of this classification to our current conflicts. A cursory search of the internet brings up liberal fans of OSC calling Bush supporters ramen at best, or even varelse. Seeing that as a gross oversimplification, I myself is guilty of lamenting of a huge gap in applied logic (or lack of it) in conservative - leftists debate. It would be better to reserve the terms to the real aliens.
Anyway, applying them to here and now, I see a mistake that leftists make. They equate understanding and acceptance. They refuse to judge moral coordinates in which different groups operate.
Yes, I can understand what makes our current enemies tick. No I can still judge them wrong. And when they display their desire and ability to harm us, I'd say smash them smartly with a full understanding.
I hope other FReepers (and non-FReeper sociologists for that matter) will try to define and chart this phenomenon, especially as it has been so blatant since the election.