generalizations
If Australians can be 'A Resilient People', then Asians can be bad drivers.
Friday November 2009 11:13
Question: Can a generalization be any more true just because it's flattering?
Apparently, yes.
Everyone seems to accept it when a 'nation of people' is described in general positive terms.
Does anyone else out there wince whenever a 'nation of people' is described as Proud? Or Resilient? Or Hard Working?
No?
What about when a nation of people are described as Thieves? Or Dishonest? Or Bad Drivers?
Ah! ...do you see?
When these positive generalizations gush from the mouths of interest groups and politicians and then wash up on television, radio and in the newspapers I can't help but look around and see if anyone is balking the way I am. The thing is, don't really see any.
"The working families of Australia deserve better."
Er...No they don't. Some deserve better. Some deserve worse. Some are getting exactly what they deserve.
But those who identify as part of a 'working family' let the warm self-stroking non-sense wash over them as they nod in agreement...and no one seems to call anyone on it.
OK then, I will:
Aussie Battlers deserve a fair go! No they don't. The (hypothetical) Aussie Battler Dave Gibson of North Fremantle, WA might...or he might not. That's a statement you could make...and that could be debated.
The Australian Troops overseas deserve your support. The (hypothetical) Sergeant Trevor Michaels serving in Afghanistan might. But he might also be an arsehole. We can have that conversation.
But you can't have a conversation over whether 'single mothers deserve better' because the fact is you could find some who actually deserve worse.
Of course, the issue isn't what single mothers deserve...its whether you can generalize qualitatively about single mothers at all.
My point it you can't generalize - qualitatively - about any group.
You can generalize facts about a group, sure. That is to say you can generalize quantitatively.
For example you can say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Female".
But you can't say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Honest". Its an entirely prejudiced statement. It is wrong and unacceptable for exactly the same reasons as it is wrong and unacceptable to say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Sluts."
Note here: People get all caught up in the 'sluts' part of that statement - but that's not what's primarily wrong with the statement. What’s wrong is that the term "Sluts" is describing not a measurable fact but a subjective value. Swap out the words "Sluts" with "Nice People", "Bad with Money", "Attractive", "Saints", "Evil","Generous" or any other value based term (positive or negative) you can come up with and the problem is the same.
However, swap it out with a valueless quantitative term such as "female" or "human" "and you don't have a problem. (Unless of course your statement is simply inaccurate, as in "The Single Mothers of Australia are Men").
A stereotype is any value-based generalization about a group. Just because the generalization is a positive one does not make it any less questionable, just less likely to be questioned because its flattery.
And that's my point: We are so quick to admonish a negative stereotype but a positive one is spoken by many commentators and politicians openly with - not shame - but with actual pride. Like its some sort of profound and inviolable insight.
So we get bullshit statements like these:
• Australians deserve to have their stories told
• The 'working families of Australia' have had it too hard for too long
• Aboriginals are a 'proud people'
• Our men and women in blue deserve our support
Don't be walked all over with this simple twisting of reality. The only strength it holds is in people's reluctance to challenge such statements because usually, the statement is an appeal to the popular ego of the subject.
Its bullshit and it should be called as such. Such statements should not pass unchallenged. Such pandering should be attacked.
However don't fall into the trap of attacking the statement itself. Then you'll be written off as 'not supporting the troops' or 'scapegoating single mothers'.
Instead, attack the assumption behind the statement: that its OK to generalize if your being flattering in the process.
Because if its OK to generalise about the good things, why not the bad things too?
Doug Suiter,
Melbourne, Australia.
Friday, 13 November 2009
Apparently, yes.
Everyone seems to accept it when a 'nation of people' is described in general positive terms.
Does anyone else out there wince whenever a 'nation of people' is described as Proud? Or Resilient? Or Hard Working?
No?
What about when a nation of people are described as Thieves? Or Dishonest? Or Bad Drivers?
Ah! ...do you see?
When these positive generalizations gush from the mouths of interest groups and politicians and then wash up on television, radio and in the newspapers I can't help but look around and see if anyone is balking the way I am. The thing is, don't really see any.
"The working families of Australia deserve better."
Er...No they don't. Some deserve better. Some deserve worse. Some are getting exactly what they deserve.
But those who identify as part of a 'working family' let the warm self-stroking non-sense wash over them as they nod in agreement...and no one seems to call anyone on it.
OK then, I will:
Aussie Battlers deserve a fair go! No they don't. The (hypothetical) Aussie Battler Dave Gibson of North Fremantle, WA might...or he might not. That's a statement you could make...and that could be debated.
The Australian Troops overseas deserve your support. The (hypothetical) Sergeant Trevor Michaels serving in Afghanistan might. But he might also be an arsehole. We can have that conversation.
But you can't have a conversation over whether 'single mothers deserve better' because the fact is you could find some who actually deserve worse.
Of course, the issue isn't what single mothers deserve...its whether you can generalize qualitatively about single mothers at all.
My point it you can't generalize - qualitatively - about any group.
You can generalize facts about a group, sure. That is to say you can generalize quantitatively.
For example you can say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Female".
But you can't say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Honest". Its an entirely prejudiced statement. It is wrong and unacceptable for exactly the same reasons as it is wrong and unacceptable to say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Sluts."
Note here: People get all caught up in the 'sluts' part of that statement - but that's not what's primarily wrong with the statement. What’s wrong is that the term "Sluts" is describing not a measurable fact but a subjective value. Swap out the words "Sluts" with "Nice People", "Bad with Money", "Attractive", "Saints", "Evil","Generous" or any other value based term (positive or negative) you can come up with and the problem is the same.
However, swap it out with a valueless quantitative term such as "female" or "human" "and you don't have a problem. (Unless of course your statement is simply inaccurate, as in "The Single Mothers of Australia are Men").
A stereotype is any value-based generalization about a group. Just because the generalization is a positive one does not make it any less questionable, just less likely to be questioned because its flattery.
And that's my point: We are so quick to admonish a negative stereotype but a positive one is spoken by many commentators and politicians openly with - not shame - but with actual pride. Like its some sort of profound and inviolable insight.
So we get bullshit statements like these:
• Australians deserve to have their stories told
• The 'working families of Australia' have had it too hard for too long
• Aboriginals are a 'proud people'
• Our men and women in blue deserve our support
Don't be walked all over with this simple twisting of reality. The only strength it holds is in people's reluctance to challenge such statements because usually, the statement is an appeal to the popular ego of the subject.
Its bullshit and it should be called as such. Such statements should not pass unchallenged. Such pandering should be attacked.
However don't fall into the trap of attacking the statement itself. Then you'll be written off as 'not supporting the troops' or 'scapegoating single mothers'.
Instead, attack the assumption behind the statement: that its OK to generalize if your being flattering in the process.
Because if its OK to generalise about the good things, why not the bad things too?
Doug Suiter,
Melbourne, Australia.
Friday, 13 November 2009
0 Comments