Stereotypes
The textbook I am using for the Interpersonal Communication class decries stereotypes, but allows that they are not necessarily always untrue.
A recent Ted Talk I saw by an African woman states, "Stereotypes are not wrong because they are untrue, but because they are incomplete."
What?
I think this is sending a mixed message. While it might be true that there has been some basis in reality for some stereotypes, I think overall we do better to denounce stereotypes.
Some are, or might seem, harmless, "Black people like fried chicken." "Latinos value family." "Asians have strong work ethics." And if you were to do real research, these might hold up, to some level. I don't think the alleged harmlessness of a stereotype dismisses its lack of logic and potential damage to thought processes. Plus, don't white people do all these things? Is it possible Asians would like fried chicken if it had been part of their heritage? Do Black people not value family? Why are these attributes treated as the sole possession of one group?
I say this partly because these messages about stereotypes being partially true or incomplete bothers me. They are the height of illogic. But I also preach against stereotypes because all of us are the victims of them and they are at least galling if not discriminatory.
Case in point: Evangelical. Many of us evangelicals are seriously considering not using the term for self-reference any longer. The word has become toxic to so many, mostly due to the evil media and a little bit due to our own fault (or the fault of high profile leaders).
I am proud of what evangelicals were and what we stand for spiritually, socially, and Biblically. I'm not so sure about what we stand for now, especially with the political ramifications. We are being stereotyped as a group that values political power (i.e., allegiance to Trump and Trumpism) rather than obedient followers of our Savior. We are being stereotyped as hypocrites who criticized Clinton roundly for his sexual behavior but overlook Trump's. Some pastors and parachurch leaders have been too vocal in their support for a man who really doesn't get what we are about.
I find the man, his behavior, and his communication style appalling. Let me say that clearly. I do like some of what he has accomplished, though. I realize that is difficult for some on both sides to take. The sign of a good mind is being able to hold contradictory thoughts at the same time, but that also sounds like an excuse for sitting on the fence. It seems that we must find a way to call him to repentance and yet value what he does correctly (which is less and more than some might think).
A recent Ted Talk I saw by an African woman states, "Stereotypes are not wrong because they are untrue, but because they are incomplete."
What?
I think this is sending a mixed message. While it might be true that there has been some basis in reality for some stereotypes, I think overall we do better to denounce stereotypes.
Some are, or might seem, harmless, "Black people like fried chicken." "Latinos value family." "Asians have strong work ethics." And if you were to do real research, these might hold up, to some level. I don't think the alleged harmlessness of a stereotype dismisses its lack of logic and potential damage to thought processes. Plus, don't white people do all these things? Is it possible Asians would like fried chicken if it had been part of their heritage? Do Black people not value family? Why are these attributes treated as the sole possession of one group?
I say this partly because these messages about stereotypes being partially true or incomplete bothers me. They are the height of illogic. But I also preach against stereotypes because all of us are the victims of them and they are at least galling if not discriminatory.
Case in point: Evangelical. Many of us evangelicals are seriously considering not using the term for self-reference any longer. The word has become toxic to so many, mostly due to the evil media and a little bit due to our own fault (or the fault of high profile leaders).
I am proud of what evangelicals were and what we stand for spiritually, socially, and Biblically. I'm not so sure about what we stand for now, especially with the political ramifications. We are being stereotyped as a group that values political power (i.e., allegiance to Trump and Trumpism) rather than obedient followers of our Savior. We are being stereotyped as hypocrites who criticized Clinton roundly for his sexual behavior but overlook Trump's. Some pastors and parachurch leaders have been too vocal in their support for a man who really doesn't get what we are about.
I find the man, his behavior, and his communication style appalling. Let me say that clearly. I do like some of what he has accomplished, though. I realize that is difficult for some on both sides to take. The sign of a good mind is being able to hold contradictory thoughts at the same time, but that also sounds like an excuse for sitting on the fence. It seems that we must find a way to call him to repentance and yet value what he does correctly (which is less and more than some might think).
Comments