Just how wrong are certain social generalizations?

[Jamshyd]

Back as a Sociology student in ultra-individualistic Canada, I was all for the idea that you cannot judge an individual based upon their associations. In a naiive way, i actually thought that most people were like me: detached of cultural or genderal (etc...) identity. Boy was I wrong.

When I started going around, especially in Japan, I noticed that different societies can, in fact, be generalized, and that even includes Canadian and American societies (although to a much lesser extent).

I noticed that societies in which familial ties remain strong, and which are ethnically homogeneous, tend to be surprisingly easy to generalize upon. Of course, there will always be exceptions (almost always ones that left to live in a different society, or are otherwise alienated). But not as many as one would think. I can confidently say that all Japanese (and indeed, eastern-Asian) people are constantly on watch for 'Losing Face'. With that in mind, I can actually change my attitude talking to eastern Asians with a high level of confidence of what I predict the outcome would be. I still remain surprised at just how predictable people can be based upon social generalization, which, in individualistic western culture, has become somewhat of a taboo.

I also notice that I get along far easier with certain people than I do with others, and also notice their own relationships with others can be rather predictable. For example, French and Dutch people tend to like me easily, while Black Americans seem to always give me funny looks, no matter how hard I try. I also have never seen a French and and American guy get along easily. Of course, I realize this is quite subjective, and that there are exceptions, but my point remains: are such stereotypes entirely false?

Opinions?

 

[Dtergent]

Maybe if you point the looking glass back at you, you will find that what is normal ("ultra-individualistic", etc.) to you is one way that people outside your context generalize "you guys".

I have a different way altogether of dealing with Americans than with my fellow Southeast Asians. In many ways, it is also similarly predictable for me. That is just how it is. I've been straddling a handful of different cultures all my life, so it's a little easier for me to shift back and forth.

 

[neonads]

I've found individualism to be more powerful a behaviour driver than society in the West. While there are generalisations, they mostly pertain to people's views on issues like politics, race, religion, education etc. For prediction, I prefer to go with the Jungian stereotyping of people.

However, when I travelled to other countries where the social norms muddy up the Jungian waters it became much harder to anticipate. There's also the bias in that they see me as a walking cash cow and I don't know their language. I think there may be too many variables to be able to generalise with any accuracy.

 

[yougene]

I've found individualism to be more powerful a behaviour driver than society in the West. While there are generalisations, they mostly pertain to people's views on issues like politics, race, religion, education etc. For prediction, I prefer to go with the Jungian stereotyping of people.

I think it depends on what context the knowledge is being used. Rove has won many elections with little more than knowledge of demographic generalizations and how to skillfully apply that knowledge.

I think Jungian archetypes are useful as well. Id/Shadow elements are potent contributors to our actions.

Maybe if you point the looking glass back at you, you will find that what is normal ("ultra-individualistic", etc.) to you is one way that people outside your context generalize "you guys".

I bet marketers call us the "individualist demographic." %)

I have a different way altogether of dealing with Americans than with my fellow Southeast Asians. In many ways, it is also similarly predictable for me. That is just how it is. I've been straddling a handful of different cultures all my life, so it's a little easier for me to shift back and forth.

Do you have an identity you consider primary of them?

 

[Jamshyd]

Maybe if you point the looking glass back at you, you will find that what is normal ("ultra-individualistic", etc.) to you is one way that people outside your context generalize "you guys".

Oh, absolutely. That was kinda one of my points but I don't think I made it clear.

I've been straddling a handful of different cultures all my life, so it's a little easier for me to shift back and forth.

Yep, you (and Callas, and Fengtau, to name the ones I know on here) do not act like what one would expect a southeast Asian person to act because you've been exposed to other cultures as well as being alienated from your own. It is my opinion that a typical SE Asian simply wouldn't be posting their ass off on a drug message board


As for Jungian archetypes, I will write more about this when I get back from work.

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

A generalization is not the same thing as a stereotype. While neither are entirely accurate, generalizations are honest attempts to make sense of the world. They aren't rigid, they acknowledge the fact that there are exceptions (they're called generalizations, not absolutizations) and are open to change as you learn more. Because it's impossible to know everything, generalizations are necessary to a certain extent.

A stereotype, on the other hand, is based not on observations and experiences, but on cultural assumptions dictated to the person making the stereotype. There are no nuances involved, no sense that there is more than what meets the eye, and no desire to find out more. They are used as an easy way out by people who want simple explanations for things they don't understand about the world.

 

[L2R]

^good post!

generalisations are useful in that no one has the time nor resources to get to know every individual they come across, but as outlined above, a little effort needs to be made to not resort to thining with blind stereotypes.

individualism needs to also be kept in check as it may develop a potentially dangerous sense of pride.

 

[Dtergent]

Do you have an identity you consider primary of them?

Not really. Half my family is in the US, but, surprisingly, my relatives here are more liberal and free thinking. On the whole, I feel more comfortable in a local setting than in Western settings.

I consider both the urban and indigenous cultures here to be more free thinking than many cultures. The hispanized/Catholicized ones are the more conservative and (usually) condemning.

I find it very difficult to adjust to American constant small talk (I find it empty and sometimes nervous), as well as the emphasis on convenience (e.g. hostility over unpredictable events). In northern European settings, I find it difficult to adjust to the over-reliance on government and policy and lack of community.

Yep, you (and Callas, and Fengtau, to name the ones I know on here) do not act like what one would expect a southeast Asian person to act because you've been exposed to other cultures as well as being alienated from your own. It is my opinion that a typical SE Asian simply wouldn't be posting their ass off on a drug message board

True, but also there is much difference between Southeast Asian and East Asians. One is that there is more equality among men and women here, and many families are matriarchal. Two is that there is much room for individualism within community and family settings, so you get a lot of diversity within social groups.

I rarely have friends who are condemned by their families because of their drug use. The reactions of families ranges from trying really hard to help them get out of it to accepting it.

 

[neonads]

Is stereotyping not the application of generalisation-produced concepts on an individual?

 

[alicat72]

whew. what a read. these cultural identities and conceptions mean so much to me. i constantly review my 'views' of all societies.

this is what i always come back to- always-

everything is contained within shades of gray. there is no one or the other scenario....it's all gray. not black or white.....gray......and many different shades....

i love culture. ethnicity. religion. belief.

these are the things that make humans interesting....

making tight generalizations on certain cultures does not make it easier to understand.

of course, we are all individuals. and we reside within definitive societies. but, we do not always (as individuals) represent our core societies....


i really despise all this complication.....

let's make it simple please.....

we are individuals....

we are not what our society/culture/ethnicity dictates.....

we are not japanese

we are not muslims

we are not hindus

we are not krishnas

we are not georgians

we are not iranians

and so on........................

we are individuals and we make our own decisions!!!!!

yay!

we are individuals......

 

[Dtergent]

^I think a good way to put it is that we are individuals, and it is we who make our cultures, and it is we who make our cultures evolve.

Of course nothing is absolute. The idea that we are individuals and culture is a function of our lives (and not the other way around) is very important.

There is a difference between a distinction and a prejudice.

 

[alicat72]

^I think a good way to put it is that we are individuals, and it is we who make our cultures, and it is we who make our cultures evolve.

Of course nothing is absolute. The idea that we are individuals and culture is a function of our lives (and not the other way around) is very important.

There is a difference between a distinction and a prejudice.

i dig the "difference between distinction and prejudice"

we are certainly brought up in society. we live within culture and religion.

but we do not HAVE to succumb to any of these things.

those of us who break the bonds of society/religion/culture, are the ones who make life interesting.

 

[law12345]

What examples do you have of 'having one over' these people based purely on your previous knowledge of how they'll respond?

I think Western people have much more simple interactions and in NZ and Australia the main restraint seems to be negative reinforcement. Family is slightly important but nowhere near as important as in Asia. As for other things people can identify with other than being good people, that is a real problem and that is why people in Australia and New Zealand relish in subcultures or American culture, to a lesser degree British, to direct them which is pretty sad in a way.

To be shamed in Japan or Korea is like digging yourself a grave for life. No second chances there unfortunately.

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

^^

I've always seen the eastern concept of shame as the equivalent to the western concept of guilt. The threat of each serve as a deterrent to negative behavior, and both are ever-lingering once the damage has been done. The differences in Oriental shame and Occidental guilt reflect reflect other cultural differences. Shame, which is inflicted by society, suits East Asia's collective mindset, whereas guilt, which is inflicted by the internal "conscience", reflect the West's individualistic nature.

Now, just to get back on topic, spot the generalizations and stereotypes in my above post.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

A generalization is not the same thing as a stereotype. While neither are entirely accurate, generalizations are honest attempts to make sense of the world. They aren't rigid, they acknowledge the fact that there are exceptions (they're called generalizations, not absolutizations) and are open to change as you learn more. Because it's impossible to know everything, generalizations are necessary to a certain extent.

A stereotype, on the other hand, is based not on observations and experiences, but on cultural assumptions dictated to the person making the stereotype. There are no nuances involved, no sense that there is more than what meets the eye, and no desire to find out more. They are used as an easy way out by people who want simple explanations for things they don't understand about the world.

Best response yet.

One point I feel is pertinent to this issue is: how does the person in front of you frame his or her identity? This is going to vary considerably from culture to culture, and even more so between individuals.

Q: Who are you?
A: I'm the youngest boy in the Johnson family.
A: I'm an architect.
A: I'm a Londoner.
A: I'm a gay woman.
A: I'm a U.S. Marine.
A: I'm a Roman Catholic.
A: I'm a Guatemalan.
and so on. You get the idea.

But what all of these have in common is, most people define their identity to a large degree in terms of membership in a particular group. You're going to feel naturally motivated to conform to that group's standards of behavior, even if only to a limited degree. Every group has a nebulous idea of what its 'typical' member is like, and this does entail generalizations. Even if one embraces membership but resists conforming to one of these generalized standards, one still typically accepts and acknowledges that yes, by and large, my people tend toward X, and even though I may not be like that, I'm at peace with this generalization, because these are my people. To refuse to do even this can result in serious identity issues, seems to me.

Individualism vs. group-orientation doesn't have as much to do with this as it might seem, IMHO. Individualism simply means that the needs and desires of the individual take precedence over those of the greater group. But even in the most individualistic societies, where people are given a wide berth to flaunt their personal quirks, most folks still define who they are largely by the circles they run in. (After all, if I may take this a little deeper, meaning in life is largely a function of connectedness, especially to other people.)

The only way I can see that this enters into it is that in individualist cultures, we make a rule that says that any person you encounter is much more than just a member of the groups they claim membership in, and needs to be met as such. It is deeply offensive to a Westerner to meet him with the attitude of, 'You're nothing more to me than Starbucks Employee X / Raver X / Jehovah's Witness X, etc.'. No. Here one must acknowledge that this person before you is an entire world unto himself, and that these identifying markers, which he uses to identify himself both to other people as well as himself, are but the tip of the iceberg. I'm not so sure if this rule applies in more group-oriented cultures. There, I don't think it's as much of a sin to treat someone out-group as nothing more than a component part of the group(s) they belong to.

One other thought. I've heard it said (and seen in practice) that it's good clean fun to spout generalizations about groups you're a member of, but NOT ones you're not a member of. I can see why this makes sense. It's much more dignified to let a group define themselves, than to foist identifying markers upon them from outside. Also, just like you can insult your friend in jest but not a stranger, generalizing about your own people is OK because at the end of the day, all in-group members know full well that each other are much more than these generalizations. Whereas, when a non-member makes a generalization, you can't be so sure that that isn't all he sees.

By the way Jamshyd, I've never found that who I click with has anything to do with ethnicity, but a LOT to do with socioeconomic class and education level. Does this make you a racist and me an elitist?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I've always seen the eastern concept of shame as the equivalent to the western concept of guilt. The threat of each serve as a deterrent to negative behavior, and both are ever-lingering once the damage has been done. The differences in Oriental shame and Occidental guilt reflect reflect other cultural differences. Shame, which is inflicted by society, suits East Asia's collective mindset, whereas guilt, which is inflicted by the internal "conscience", reflect the West's individualistic nature.

I used to make this same distinction, and have seen it made by other Westerners writing about East Asia, but a clinical psychologist once corrected me on this, so I'll pass it along:

Guilt is a learned response, a programmed 'alarm', if you will, that lets you know you've broken a social rule that you've been taught.

Shame is not learned, it's instinctive. It's the feeling that your value as a human being has diminished.

Teaching children to feel guilty when they do something antisocial is being a good parent / teacher, because we live in social arrangements (i.e. societies) where everyone depends on everyone else, and rules need to be followed in order to make that happen. Eliciting shame in children when they do something wrong -- that is, making them feel intrinsically less loved, less worthy, less deserving of being alive -- is not good parenting / teaching. Type A people (neurotic people who are overly hard on themselves and others) are created by parents and teachers who withdraw ALL love and support when standards are not met.

All cultures, Western, Eastern, and otherwise, use guilt.

I'll probably take a lot of flak for this, but I would venture a guess, a GROSS GENERALIZATION, that East Asian parents are more likely to use shame to keep their kids in line than Western parents, because the social costs of having kids that are not in line are higher, and so they are more likely to do whatever it takes, even if it's cruel, to make sure their kids do not fail in this regard. Anecdotally, I have heard Chinese parents say some VERY harsh things to their children for what I would consider minor offenses, when they think no non-family-members can hear or understand them. I'd also say that 9/10 of Korean people I've known have been Type A and generally hard-going.
But that's just my own anecdotal findings. In the big picture, I could be totally off base.

 

[DarthMom]

are such stereotypes entirely false?

Opinions?[/color]

stereotypes aren't the problem, you have to be blind to not notice observational generalizations. the problems come when you bring in judgements and malice when "they" either do or don't fall into "their place"

 

[Rated E]

whew. what a read. these cultural identities and conceptions mean so much to me. i constantly review my 'views' of all societies.

this is what i always come back to- always-

everything is contained within shades of gray. there is no one or the other scenario....it's all gray. not black or white.....gray......and many different shades....

i love culture. ethnicity. religion. belief.

these are the things that make humans interesting....

making tight generalizations on certain cultures does not make it easier to understand.

of course, we are all individuals. and we reside within definitive societies. but, we do not always (as individuals) represent our core societies....


i really despise all this complication.....

let's make it simple please.....

we are individuals....

we are not what our society/culture/ethnicity dictates.....

we are not japanese

we are not muslims

we are not hindus

we are not krishnas

we are not georgians

we are not iranians

and so on........................

we are individuals and we make our own decisions!!!!!

yay!

we are individuals......

No, we are the groups in society we are a part of plus or minus random error.

 

[vegan]

I'll probably take a lot of flak for this, but I would venture a guess, a GROSS GENERALIZATION, that East Asian parents are more likely to use shame to keep their kids in line than Western parents, because the social costs of having kids that are not in line are higher, and so they are more likely to do whatever it takes, even if it's cruel, to make sure their kids do not fail in this regard. Anecdotally, I have heard Chinese parents say some VERY harsh things to their children for what I would consider minor offenses, when they think no non-family-members can hear or understand them. I'd also say that 9/10 of Korean people I've known have been Type A and generally hard-going.
But that's just my own anecdotal findings. In the big picture, I could be totally off base.

few generalizations can be made about "asians"

there are more differences between a japanese, a malaysian and a thai, or a cambodian, an indian and a singaporian than between a spanish and an argentinian or a german and an american

in the example that you give, remember that china is a country where people can only have one child. it's pretty obvious that their behaviour towards this unique child will be very different than the one from someone from another background (i suppose you're talking about chinese families abroad, but still, they may be the first or second generation there and still have the same cultural influences)

a generalization about koreans may be true about koreans, but it means nothing about other asians (here in the land of smiles, i've heard Korea refered to as "the land of no smiles"

 

[ebola?]

I'm not sure what I think on this question.
Within any (observed) social structure, there is a status hierarchy, and within any such hierarchy there are those who feel alienated from it. Generalizations, empirically reliable or not, leave out the "subalterns".

I also think we should try to be analytically clear in distinguishing between various social masks and "private" selves (is the latter real?).