A pseudo-response blog, inspired by
this post containing an interesting example of this truth in action in every day life.
Any one of us can fill in the above blanks—and many, many, more. We marinate in a culture steeped in this racial and stigmatic folklore. Take heart, however, that it's a good step to recognize these things, and recognize their illegitimacy in reality. You can't beat yourself up for the things you can't help but know, simply because they're in your environment; you can only be sure to avoid giving them credence without consideration.
Perhaps we should make an argument for eliminating these generalizations. While it's naive to suggest they will ever be gone, it is also detrimental to simply shrug our shoulders and allow them to keep going. Maybe we'd feel like a stodgy a—hole if we express offense at a racially-charged (or just stereotype-based) joke, but we don't have to repeat it. Take steps—eventually you may feel comfortable bringing others' attentions to what, exactly, they are actually saying.
No one likes joke-tellers, anyway, you're adults, for goodness' sake, and besides, everyone's heard it (in its funnier, raunchy alternate version) and gotten over it in junior high.
There's a balance to be struck, but the highly important first step is awareness; recognition and an understanding of what it truly is.
Have you ever had an experience in which you recognized a latent unfair generalization or stigma you held?
Comments (11)
Your title reminds me of a guy I went to high school with who ran for Class Treasurer on the basis of "I'm a Jew and Jews are good with money."
Stereotypes are not true for all, or even most, members of any subset of a population -
however, they can't be so far off the mark that no one would believe them, or they wouldn't have become so popular as to become the prevailing generalization.
so they're just true enough to perpetuate themselves... and all it takes is a small number of that subset to trigger stereotyping.
Moreover, despite the inaccuracies in those stereotypes - most of them offensive - the act of categorizing people based on appearance and behavior is never... I re-iterate, never going to stop occurring. It's what we do as animals: "Is this person a threat to me or my offspring? If not, okay. If so, let's avoid that person and all people who look and act like them so I and my young won't be subject to the threat posed by ___________." It's a basic human function, this ability, even if it has been twisted and subject to vitriolic propaganda and isn't as vital now as it once was when we were hunter-gatherers.
Long live stereotyping.
Death to inaccuracies.
You make a good point.
@offensiveideologue - You're right in that I generalized a bit in my claim that everyone stereotypes...but I do contend they are widespread, and the stigmatization of a people who is different—whoever they are, for whatever reason—does and has continued to happen, actively and inadvertently. They change, but the basic function of society stays the same.
And yeah, you're right in that it's a basic human function, as animals who need to survive, to stereotype. However, it's no longer a basic human necessity, and in fact, in this modern age, falling upon incorrect stereotypes due to an outside marker such as skin color can hurt us more than help us: what if you treated your black CEO like a lazy servant who wasn't good for much more than getting you coffee and ruining the company? You're out on your ass. I'm not saying you shouldn't be completely oblivious to outer indications: you meet a desperate-looking person with dirty clothes and a knife in an alley, you run. But you don't kick a hobo sitting on a street out in daylight, yeah? No wild marauder is coming after you and your young anymore, and if a threatening guy at the gym appears to have more testosterone than you, just use a different machine. It's time we evolved past that; stereotyping and stigmatizing are rudimentary evolutionary traits we no longer need, like earlobes. We aren't slaves to our biology, and as humans, it's our place to recognize this and move on.
@CallMeQuell -
They should call me Mario, 'cause I just got 1-up'd.
Granted, the basis for stereotyping has changed....different skin color no longer means tribal warfare, run, run, run -
but stereotypes can also be positive, in addition to being useful, such as realizing that you may have something in common with someone who enjoys the Pixies (true or not), or that early in the morning, Wal-Mart is not very crowded at all because hardly anyone wants to shop at 2:00 in the morning. I still maintain that stereotyping can be useful in circumstances which do not dictate drastic external judgments. Any pronunciation can be completely incorrect or unjustified, such as someone being terrified of someone else on the basis of, say, written text or appearance.
Stereotyping on the basis of skin color, racial profiling, isn't useful at all and hasn't been since the Crusades. Moreover, it's not valid as an indicator of threat, and is instead the direct result of propaganda and our own insecurities in dealing with those different from us. A xenophobe thinks that only those different from him may cause harm - a prudent man realizes that everyone is capable of it.... and your argument that there is nothing to fear but fear, or that there are no wild marauders: you're wildly mistaken. People die each day and people murder every day. Every ethnicity, every gender, almost every age. If you think that there's no one on this planet willing to cause you or I harm for money, for our possessions, or for the sheer doing of it, you are very mistaken. It's just that we have yet to meet these people.
And when we do, yes, it will matter much more as to whether these people are wielding knives and pistols, rather than how much melanin is in their dermis.
@offensiveideologue - Ha! Cuute.
Well, that's the only point I was really trying to make. It is certainly impossible for us not to stereotype (though actually, I think for the purposes of connotation and a bit more accuracy the word we're looking for is generalize), and when one finds something in common with someone else, it's a good point of connection. My main issue, at least for the purposes of this post and this discussion, was with racism and stigma.
We're on the same page on this point. Like I said, you can meet someone scary in an alley and know to be scared, but we can't claim dirty clothes and a miserable appearance as markers for every murderer. We have murderers and cutthroats in society, yes, but like you said—what they're wielding is far more important to note than their race. I didn't mean to say we were all kind, enlightened people, and that evil, scary people didn't exist...just that we don't live in a warring tribal society any longer, and for the most part, our threats are of a significantly more white-collar variety.
Lastly, I caught your jab about me finding you terrifying. Forgive me my initial generalizations. You did, on the other hand, threaten to personally abort a large portion of society....still, I get credit for continuing to give you a chance, right? Grin.
@CallMeQuell -
Oh, don't give me a chance - give me an inch and I'll run across the border to Canada and take a kilometre.
No, you were and are right - I'm quite derisive and hostile, but surely I'm not terrifying, even in a sort-of way.
As for your point, though - what causes us to be scared of someone in an alley? Is it being alone, being unsure of our own ability to defend ourselves, or is it something more, is it the propaganda we've been fed that people who look a certain way and act a certain way are to be avoided?
Granted, I'd say your alleyway analogy is a good example of useful stereotyping, but it's also akin to how some parents teach their children to be afraid of people who look different, or who don't live as they do. The process is almost identical, I'd wager. The only difference is that it's useful to learn to avoid skulking axe-murderers who might end your life, whilst avoiding someone on the street just because they look different isn't just useless, it makes one look like a complete douchebag.
Honestly, as a sociologist, I'm more of a firm believer in societies and sub-societies than any "race." Either your parents or guardians or caregivers raised you "right," to become a functioning, productive member of society, or they didn't. That's pretty much the basis for my own discriminationatory rationale: is Person X a complete and total fuck-up according to the standards which have been instilled into me, or do they meet the criterion of my biased standards? It's true that in so doing, I completely de-value their own life experiences and personality in some cases, but I'm pretty discerning, and race is probably one of the least important factors on which I make my daily decisions. Religion, however - as an atheist who would like to see mankind live to the year 02100 despite religious zealots wanting to destroy this world to usher in the next... I'd say religious belief - type, degree, and particular tenets - is a vital indicator of personal threat.
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed
to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant
people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most
unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders
of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who
would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent
it bitterly."
-- Isaac Asimov
And he sums up my feelings toward religious belief far more succinctly than I ever could.
But I've digressed quite far from my original point, which I believe is to never give me even an inch.
Heh.
Very good point. :)
@offensiveideologue - Ha! Well you certainly made your point. You're right, to bring your long story short, I agree with you. Though I don't have that big of a problem with religious types, at least not normal every-day ones. Having grown up among them, I've learned that the majority are good people. It's just the loud ones and the conspicuous ones that are to be avoided.
@CallMeQuell -
I avoid them all like the plague.
In fact, I'd rather roll around in a room filled with Yersinia pestis than spend ten minutes discussing the nature of the universe with someone who doesn't understand how patently absurd religious belief is.
Ever argued with someone like Paige?
You'd be better off fingering yourself until the dawn's early light,
because I guarantee you are not going to make any progress.
That's what beliefs do - they inure us to changes in our understanding,
preventing us from growing and learning,
from accepting new information and doing away with bad.
.
.
.
Why can't I ever leave brief messages?
@offensiveideologue - Ha, Paige is the best. There are intelligent believers, though, I promise. The internet is a bad place to look for them, though.
That was pretty brief! I'm proud!