RSS
Home
Using stereotypes to discriminate - against ourselves
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
There is an enormous ongoing effort in our society to combat stereotypes. Let me amend that – it would be more accurate to phrase it as a plural – there are a great many ongoing efforts to combat stereotypes, from institutional programs right on down to you and me and our personal battles. These stereotypes are so pervasive that they exist for almost every distinguishing human trait. The ones based on skin color are probably the most often discussed, but they also exist for such disparate qualities as gender, sexual orientation, body size, body shape, occupation, income, religion, national origin, educational background… the list goes on and on. My focus today is not upon the stereotypes we project upon others, but rather, the ones we project upon ourselves. These are less-discussed but, I suspect, no small cause of damage to individuals and societies. I will begin with a few more general comments.
For trait after trait, we find people making sweeping generalizations based on that trait. I think it is fair to call it a universal problem. We are all prone to making such assumptions at times, and we are all liable to be victims of the same syndrome based on other people’s assumptions.
At times, various scientific and analytical approaches have been employed in an attempt to find concrete evidence to support or debunk some of these stereotypes. As a result, there are now people who feel emboldened and validated by the feeling that some of their pet prejudices have been “proven.” Many of these cases center around differences of gender and race. Some of the research seems responsibly conducted and highly intriguing, but very little of it provides any support for overall stereotyping, for the simple reasons that A) individuals vary; and B) the methodology for arriving at answers is itself an evolving object of scrutiny and debate. Also, it is one thing to say that a particular group of people has a predisposition for a certain trait; it is quite another to say that the trait actually defines the group. Any exploration of specific theories is beyond the scope of this post.
The roots of this tendency seem to be very deep. They possibly date back to our ancient genetic past as survival tools. If, for example, one sees an unknown and perhaps hungry or aggressive creature approaching, it is clearly a good strategy to assume the worst and assume a defensive posture or position. Call it stereotyping if you wish, but if it helps keep one alive, it’s hard to argue with such results in the natural world. Unfortunately, it seems that societies evolve far more quickly than DNA. In a relatively brief period of time, we humans created large communities that were largely insulated from many of these dangers, but the tendency to make these assumptions remains.
Another possible way of looking at the problem is that we humans seem to have a tendency of solving puzzles and recognizing patterns. It has been demonstrated that this trait of pattern recognition is so strong that it can cause one to see a pattern where none exists. This trait could perhaps translate into a tendency to see patterns of human behavior and identity where they do not in fact exist.
One could go on theorizing around the causes of stereotyping, but I want to focus on a specific issue: self-stereotyping. Sometimes, it is fairly innocuous. I once worked with a man who possessed a beautiful singing voice – lilting and sweet with perfect pitch. He would invariably attribute it to his Irish heritage. Furthermore, he would declare it as an example of his Irish genes winning out over his Polish genes. The premise that Irish DNA has selected for singing ability to a greater extent than Polish DNA is, to put it charitably, presently unsupported by formal research. But this is a relatively harmless example.
Another former coworker was, to be frank, prone to frequent outbursts and would act with extreme rudeness and outright vindictiveness if she felt she had been wronged. If that seems like a harsh description, I can assure you that she would agree with it. Following such episodes, she would often smile and shrug and explain that it was all traceable to her Greek ancestry. “You have to know,” she once told me, “that I’m in touch with my heritage, and Greek people are crazy!” (Quick aside – I spent a month in Greece a few years ago. I dealt with hundreds of Greek people in that time and I never perceived any exceptional predisposition towards irrational behavior. Most of them struck me as decent, grounded folks such as you might find within a variety of locales and ethnicities.)
This is a recurring theme among various individuals I have encountered – this excusing oneself from rude or self-indulgent behavior by not taking personal responsibility and instead ascribing it to genetic forces beyond their control. I have heard certain African-Americans describe their people as exceptionally prone to irrationality, by way of excusing their own behavior. I have also heard certain white people of northern European descent offer the same description of themselves and their people, ascribing the trait to a connection with marauding Viking ancestors. A friend of Jamaican descent recently explained to me, quite cheerfully, that her people are also crazy, and that non-Jamaicans who deal with them had better be prepared to deal with exceptional irrationality if they intend to treat them badly.
I’m sure one could go on with the various ethnic examples. You may have heard a few yourself. In the end, it seems that just about every ethnicity/nationality/culture has members who regard their people as specially gifted with craziness, and are therefore somehow exempt from common expectations of public behavior and decorum.
A complication in the analysis of this trend is that perception may become reality. That is, if I look into my mirror and tell myself that I embody a certain behavioral stereotype, I may very well behave that way through the power of my own suggestion. In other words, I have given myself permission to behave badly. This is also known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So is there any truth to these claims? May we paint with a broad brush upon certain cultural groups and so label them as possessing distinct personal traits? May we excuse, and even embrace, our shortcomings as a cultural identify against which we are powerless? Well, there is no simple, absolute answer, since there demonstrably are various distinctive genetic markers among various groups. The complete significance of these markers still requires much research, so conclusions should be cautious and provisional. But I want to bring this discussion down to the individual; to the person who wishes to know whether their potentials and alibis are pre-ordained. I think we should not underestimate our own ability to make choices that trump our theoretical predisposition. To take personal responsibility for one’s behavior is an empowering act; it helps to prevent us from disregarding valid options that do not fall within a narrowly defined self-image.
Until such time as compelling evidence should emerge to the contrary, I think it would be wise to heed a line spoken by the title character in the film Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence is responding to Prince Feisel’s repeated insistence that this or that circumstances is occurring because “it is written.” Their key exchange goes like this:
Prince Feisel: Gasim’s time has come, Lawrence. It is written.
T.E. Lawrence: Nothing is written!
In fairness to Prince Feisel, perhaps there are many things that are written. But remember that writing comes in many forms, from stone engravings, to pen and ink, to pencil, to dust that only looks like stone until we blow it away.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
