Characterizing people by way of a generalization works like any generalization - it must be accompanied by the rider that it is being used to communicate a big idea, and that individual cases will almost always vary. If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you'll see the connection here. In general, we know what an electron is doing, but we can only specifically nail down one of its two properties. We know either its momentum or its position, but not both.
It might be stretching matters to equate (perceived) human characteristics with quantum effects but it forces us to see a couple of points.
One, that language is important but imperfect.
Two, that language isn't what's real, it is merely a one dimensional snapshot of either a specific or a general idea.
So, what's this got to do with stereotypes? Well, they're useful, for a start. We all know what we mean when I refer to someone as a 'Jock'. But there will be considerable variation between each of the individual cases we conjur in our brains. (Many of us will be relying on the media here, specifically Hollywood, as a Jock is a peculiarly American case.) The Hollywood reference is important, because only in movies does the perfect Jock exist. In the real world, he's a mix of many different characteristics.
Stereotypes are valuable as long as we understand they work despite possibly having no examples actually existing. Our brains are agile enough to get that, in my opinion, because we recognize that matter is infinitely more complex than language, but that language is essential for communicating the complex.
No comments:
Post a Comment