There'll be two parts to this post, a brief account of today's events, and a response.
Part I:
Today started off with the need to write. I awoke from a dream of words, which needed to be set down before they faded, as dreams do. Alas, even as speedy as I was, much of it had faded ere I set finger to keyboard, but the tattered remnants, you see in the previous post. I know once again the frustration of Coleridge.
If I could revive within me, that symphony and song
To such deep delight twould win me, that with music loud and long
I would build those domes in air, those fiery domes, those caves of ice!
That all would heard should see them there
And all would cry, Beware! Beware!
After that, it was lunch and off to Gnome-Rayshio's. Flaminjo and I decided to be adventurous and attempt a shortcut to Gnome's place, walking along canals on paths no mortal men hath tread in centuries. Fortunately, we met two seers, wise in the arts of navigation, who guided us unerringly to our destiny.
Much entertainment was had messaging Gnome's friends (who after what we did, might not be friends any longer). There was also a great improvement in his relationship with several young girls. Some listening to random podcast stuff and amusing soundclips, watching Date Movie and Gandalf clutching his wizardly nuts, a very good dinner, watching Paris and Nicole harass firemen, whacking Flaminjo on the head with pillows, stealing Battle of Middle Earth II.
I think Flaminjo smells of dumb, and I think Gnome has boobies.
Part II:
Stereotyping.
Originally meaning the metal plate used to print with, the word now has very negative connotations, of racial violence, of denial of opportunities, of oppression. At its core, I guess to stereotype is to cast further images from a basic mold. One sees a person of a certain race perform an act of theft, for instance, and concludes that all persons of that race are thieves. The question is, is it wrong to stereotype? Let me offer an argument for stereotyping, then refute some of the points in Rayshio's post (http://unwritten-love.blogspot.com/).
Argument: Should implies could
1) It is wrong to do X only if it is possible to not do X.
2) It is not possible (for us as human beings) to not perform acts of stereotyping.
3) Therefore, it is not wrong (for us as human beings) to perform acts of stereotyping.
The validity of the argument should be clear. I'll argue for premise 1 and 2.
In support of premise 1: It is wrong to do X only if it is possible to not do X.
This is the classical 'should implies could' idea. I'm not familiar with much of the territory, but strong support from this should come from intuition. An act cannot be morally wrong unless the agent could have done otherwise. It makes little sense to blame a person for stealing, if he had a psychological defect that compelled him, despite his strongest desires, to take things that did not belong to him. We could blame him for not seeking help, or allowing himself to be in the position where his defect would result in theft, but we cannot blame him for the act of thieving, since he couldn't have done otherwise.
For clarity, another way of putting the proposition is this:
If it is impossible to refrain from doing X, then it cannot be wrong to do X.
Thus, involuntary motions are never blameworthy. If some crazed alien implants a device in your left arm that fires a deadly laser beam whenever you hiccup, you cannot be held resposible for the destruction caused by the weapon, since hiccups are not under your control. It is impossible to refrain from hiccuping (and thus causing death), and therefore, it cannot be morally wrong (blameworthy) for you to hiccup.
That's a really cool weapon, on further thought. I want one. Make that ....two.
In support of premise II: It is not possible (for us as human beings) to not perform acts of stereotyping.
Put another way, it is necessary, as part of our humanness, that we stereotype. We cannot help but stereotype. Consider the following:
You are hungry. You look across this flat wooden thing near you and see a container of soft white grains. What do you do?
I'm tempted to say the above scenario isn't even possible. Once you know what rice is, you can no longer look upon something like that and not categorize it as rice. In either case, to believe that that substance would nourish you and assuage the hunger is to stereotype. It is to say, such stuff has been nourishing in the past, it will be nourishing in this new instance as well. Induction, right here.
Stereotyping, as such, is just induction. And it should be pretty clear it is not possible to not perform induction. To be a human person is to have a mind, and a human mind cannot exist without an inductive inferential structure (or so I declare, because every human mind I've seen has had one. Shut up.) So, to be human is to stereotype. It is necessary for survival, and growth, and flourishing.
Conclusion: It cannot be wrong for us to stereotype. It is unavoidable, and thus cannot be morally blame-worthy.
Refutations:
As I understand it, a large part (the last two paragraphs) of Rayshio's argument is directed at the possibility of making a mistake in stereotyping. That is, that bowl of rice you thought was nourishing (because you stereotyped it) might turn out to be toxic. In that sense, you were incorrect in stereotyping.
I think this is founded on an ambiguity in the application of 'correctness'. Consider the following (slightly more realistic) scenario.
You meet several people from India, and they turn out to be, say, conniving. You lose a bunch of money. From these instances, you conclude that most people from India are conniving. You then meet a person from India, who in fact turns out to be the most honest person this side of the world.
You would be 'incorrect' to have drawn the conclusion that he is conniving, in the sense that the content of your judgment does not correspond to the way reality is. On the other hand, you could be 'correct', in the sense that the previous encounters might be sufficient for a justified judgment. Specifically, a judgment can be justified without being true.
Stereotyping can be justified, even if there are instances where it turns out to produce false conclusions.
Two conclusions come from this:
1) It is false that we should not stereotype, or place people in categories.
2) Stereotyping is justifiable, just like other forms of inferential rule. There are times when it is justified, and times when it is not. It can be done well, or badly.
Part I:
Today started off with the need to write. I awoke from a dream of words, which needed to be set down before they faded, as dreams do. Alas, even as speedy as I was, much of it had faded ere I set finger to keyboard, but the tattered remnants, you see in the previous post. I know once again the frustration of Coleridge.
If I could revive within me, that symphony and song
To such deep delight twould win me, that with music loud and long
I would build those domes in air, those fiery domes, those caves of ice!
That all would heard should see them there
And all would cry, Beware! Beware!
After that, it was lunch and off to Gnome-Rayshio's. Flaminjo and I decided to be adventurous and attempt a shortcut to Gnome's place, walking along canals on paths no mortal men hath tread in centuries. Fortunately, we met two seers, wise in the arts of navigation, who guided us unerringly to our destiny.
Much entertainment was had messaging Gnome's friends (who after what we did, might not be friends any longer). There was also a great improvement in his relationship with several young girls. Some listening to random podcast stuff and amusing soundclips, watching Date Movie and Gandalf clutching his wizardly nuts, a very good dinner, watching Paris and Nicole harass firemen, whacking Flaminjo on the head with pillows, stealing Battle of Middle Earth II.
I think Flaminjo smells of dumb, and I think Gnome has boobies.
Part II:
Stereotyping.
Originally meaning the metal plate used to print with, the word now has very negative connotations, of racial violence, of denial of opportunities, of oppression. At its core, I guess to stereotype is to cast further images from a basic mold. One sees a person of a certain race perform an act of theft, for instance, and concludes that all persons of that race are thieves. The question is, is it wrong to stereotype? Let me offer an argument for stereotyping, then refute some of the points in Rayshio's post (http://unwritten-love.blogspot.com/).
Argument: Should implies could
1) It is wrong to do X only if it is possible to not do X.
2) It is not possible (for us as human beings) to not perform acts of stereotyping.
3) Therefore, it is not wrong (for us as human beings) to perform acts of stereotyping.
The validity of the argument should be clear. I'll argue for premise 1 and 2.
In support of premise 1: It is wrong to do X only if it is possible to not do X.
This is the classical 'should implies could' idea. I'm not familiar with much of the territory, but strong support from this should come from intuition. An act cannot be morally wrong unless the agent could have done otherwise. It makes little sense to blame a person for stealing, if he had a psychological defect that compelled him, despite his strongest desires, to take things that did not belong to him. We could blame him for not seeking help, or allowing himself to be in the position where his defect would result in theft, but we cannot blame him for the act of thieving, since he couldn't have done otherwise.
For clarity, another way of putting the proposition is this:
If it is impossible to refrain from doing X, then it cannot be wrong to do X.
Thus, involuntary motions are never blameworthy. If some crazed alien implants a device in your left arm that fires a deadly laser beam whenever you hiccup, you cannot be held resposible for the destruction caused by the weapon, since hiccups are not under your control. It is impossible to refrain from hiccuping (and thus causing death), and therefore, it cannot be morally wrong (blameworthy) for you to hiccup.
That's a really cool weapon, on further thought. I want one. Make that ....two.
In support of premise II: It is not possible (for us as human beings) to not perform acts of stereotyping.
Put another way, it is necessary, as part of our humanness, that we stereotype. We cannot help but stereotype. Consider the following:
You are hungry. You look across this flat wooden thing near you and see a container of soft white grains. What do you do?
I'm tempted to say the above scenario isn't even possible. Once you know what rice is, you can no longer look upon something like that and not categorize it as rice. In either case, to believe that that substance would nourish you and assuage the hunger is to stereotype. It is to say, such stuff has been nourishing in the past, it will be nourishing in this new instance as well. Induction, right here.
Stereotyping, as such, is just induction. And it should be pretty clear it is not possible to not perform induction. To be a human person is to have a mind, and a human mind cannot exist without an inductive inferential structure (or so I declare, because every human mind I've seen has had one. Shut up.) So, to be human is to stereotype. It is necessary for survival, and growth, and flourishing.
Conclusion: It cannot be wrong for us to stereotype. It is unavoidable, and thus cannot be morally blame-worthy.
Refutations:
As I understand it, a large part (the last two paragraphs) of Rayshio's argument is directed at the possibility of making a mistake in stereotyping. That is, that bowl of rice you thought was nourishing (because you stereotyped it) might turn out to be toxic. In that sense, you were incorrect in stereotyping.
I think this is founded on an ambiguity in the application of 'correctness'. Consider the following (slightly more realistic) scenario.
You meet several people from India, and they turn out to be, say, conniving. You lose a bunch of money. From these instances, you conclude that most people from India are conniving. You then meet a person from India, who in fact turns out to be the most honest person this side of the world.
You would be 'incorrect' to have drawn the conclusion that he is conniving, in the sense that the content of your judgment does not correspond to the way reality is. On the other hand, you could be 'correct', in the sense that the previous encounters might be sufficient for a justified judgment. Specifically, a judgment can be justified without being true.
Stereotyping can be justified, even if there are instances where it turns out to produce false conclusions.
Two conclusions come from this:
1) It is false that we should not stereotype, or place people in categories.
2) Stereotyping is justifiable, just like other forms of inferential rule. There are times when it is justified, and times when it is not. It can be done well, or badly.
posted by WhatRoughBeast at 11:16 PM
2 Comments:
hey, is laura. glad to see you're online and writing!
re: stereotyping...
i think far too few people have considered why we are prone to stereotype or realized that employing stereotypes (especially in the broadest sense, as with the "soft white grains" you mention) has some benefits. so kudos on going into that.
however, you have to consider the issue on the societal as well as the individual level.
in this mass-media, information age, a lot of people don't form stereotypes on their own through actual encounters and personal experiences. instead, they form these impressions based on media representations, word of mouth, etc. so, when discussing stereotyping, an individual's own personal stereotypes are not the only consideration.
the stereotypes that exist in a society or culture are powerful influences -- strong enough to compete with and possibly skew or override the first-hand impressions formed by personal experience. oftentimes, individuals are exposed to the stereotypes of society before they are able to form opinions based on anything else.
so one could argue that regardless of whether or not an individual can avoid forming stereotypes, the individual can consciously avoid propagating those stereotypes into society at large.
it's the propagation, not the formation, of stereotypes that is at the center of the stereotyping/morality debate. though an individual may not be able to avoid stereotyping, can a society/culture? and if so, should it?
after all, political correctness was a society-based, top-down phenomena rather than something that percolated up from the individual level.
so the question becomes not whether it's wrong to stereotype, but whether it's wrong to express and/or act on those stereotypes. and society has an opinion on that.
it's a real trick, cause (to draw out your rice analogy) it's in some ways like asking the hungry person not to avoiding assuming the soft white grains are edible, but rather to avoid acting like he just assumes the soft white grains are edible (even though loads of people he knows call the grains "rice" and claim to eat them all the time). it's still difficult and unnatural-feeling. plus, interactions between people are much more complex than digestive processes... the way in which our rice-eater behaves can drastically affect how edible the rice behaves in return. aaaaand... the metaphor explodes in bloody shards, stetched all to pieces! heh, i knew i could manage it...
really, it's too bad the formation of stereotypes isn't purely based on individual personal experiences. such stereotypes would be more relevant and meaningful... they'd translate to a kind of local area knowledge. the stereotypes of today have become dissociated with time and place -- and widely disseminated to boot. now it's arguable how much they reflect reality, and how much they shape it.
There are some studies in the US that indicate that race stereotypes are ingrained at an subconscious level even in people who don't consider themselves to be racist. I had raised the distinction with J earlier between the stereotyping and the action, but if we're not even aware of our subconscious stereotypes, it may be moot whether or not we can consciously avoid propagating stereotypes.
Post a Comment
<< Home