Just how wrong are certain social generalizations?

[swilow]

I think social genralisations are very dangerous ground myself. Sure, some cultures may instill certain traits in some or most of its peoples. But they are cultural traits, like some Sudanese living near me wear colourful clothes (and some don't). These are simply external things. If I started seeing personalised qualities as being inherent in a group of people, I get close to racsim. The genralising of a whole people, while simple-seeming and often also apparently real, leads to such things as the Holocaust. Jewish people, culturally, have certain varied traits, largely based upon religious doctrine; however, if these traits are seen as their nature and not simply a piece of baggage, that is dangerous ground.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^^^ But what if it's about your own people?

Oh and vegan, touche.

 

[Jamshyd]

Very interesting replies, everyone. A couple of points:

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?

Definitely neither.

One can not like a certain societal structure just as any other expression of culture. If someone doesn't like Persian carpets because he does not like the Persian aesthetics, that doesn't make him racist.

As for you, it is well known that people of different social classes and educational/religious backgrounds tend to socialize with others of the same. Again, that does not make you an elitest.

A racist hates a group of people simply because of the colour of their skin or the language they speak..etc. An elitist hates a group of people simply because of their socioeconomic status. The keyword here is hate.

----

alicat72 and ebola: I disagree with what you say, and that is in fact why I started this thread.

It is not inconceivable that people from a society have common characteristics. For example, a frustration that basically every single expat I've met working in east Asia shares is the way east-Asians eschew directness. It can be understood, then, why people from different societies can get along easily or not.

Again, a training in Social Sciences in north America tends to make people imagine the whole world being as individually oriented as it is here, or that there is a large number of outcasts who express unique qualities. This is not very true of pluralistic societies. Such groups can be surprisingly homogenous, and have a relatively small number of Alienated members since, in such societies, there is a group for everything - that, or death.

Furthermore, pluralistic societies, like individualist ones, tend to think of the whole world in pluralistic terms. This is especially because foreigners as a whole are designated as a single group. You are to be judged by the actions of other foreigners.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Japan, I have found. It is almost shocking how easy it is to predict the behaviour or beliefs of one Japanese person based on the behaviour or beliefs of another, and I have found that Japanese society basically has no outcasts so long as they are Japanese.

----

It seems to me that, for the sake of political correctness, many people are unable to voice out criticism for their fellow humans. If there is something I don't like about another culture, I will most certainly criticize it, just as I would my own culture. It also seems like people have a very hard time accepting difference. They either reject it as evil or pretend it doesn't exist. I have found that the best level of understanding occurs when differences are acknowledged and admired.

I would also like to note that most westerners' exposure to people of other cultures comes from immigrants. You should keep in mind that immigrants are amongst the minorities of outcasts in their home cultures, and are frequently not representatives of their original societies. Such generalizations seem to only really manifest when one witnesses people in their "native" societies.

 

[ebola?]

Jamshyd:

It is not inconceivable that people from a society have common characteristics. For example, a frustration that basically every single expat I've met working in east Asia shares is the way east-Asians eschew directness. It can be understood, then, why people from different societies can get along easily or not.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that people form a certain society cannot share a given characteristic. We can do a thought experiment, though. Take any hypothetical individual. If you make a complete description of all affiliations with various social groups, from global citizen to nuclear family member, and tendencies to act therein, you have a complete description of that person as a social and cultural being. For many people, though, describing them solely or even mostly in terms of one group-affiliation can be misleading.

I have a particular bias. A sociology department is a great place to meet "outsiders within". Also, many of the Japanese that I've met have left the country precisely because of the stigma that the Japanese conferred upon them.

In short, sure, I'll concede that there are numerous cases where wide generalizations "work", but problems pop up when care is not taken to look for exceptions.

It seems to me that, for the sake of political correctness, many people are unable to voice out criticism for their fellow humans. If there is something I don't like about another culture, I will most certainly criticize it, just as I would my own culture.

Sometimes, yes, I'd say that this is true and unfortunate.
I think that even within one's own culture, there are two types of critique (at least two...these are what happen to be coming to mind):

1. imminent critique: judging a culture/social configuration/etc. by its own purported standards or by the unrealized potentialities that it holds (the latter being that Marxist thing).
2. importing outside standards with which to judge.

Given the culture occurs on many different levels, I don't think that complete cultural relativism or tolerance is viable, as if these were taken to their logical conclusions, no one could criticize anyone except herself.

It also seems like people have a very hard time accepting difference. They either reject it as evil or pretend it doesn't exist. I have found that the best level of understanding occurs when differences are acknowledged and admired.

And there's that whole enlightenment universalism thing.

ebola

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

In short, sure, I'll concede that there are numerous cases where wide generalizations "work", but problems pop up when care is not taken to look for exceptions.

This sounds about right to me.

Generalizations can be thought of as two-edged sword -- they alleviate one problem while creating another. They make life easier by taking a big shortcut in the prediction of how well-received your actions and deeds will be. But they carry the inherent danger of seeing what you're expecting to see, when what's actually there is markedly different, and the chances for miscommunication and misunderstanding are increased.

Each generalization really requires its own cost-benefit analysis: how 'safe' am I working under this assumption? That is, is the effort saved in not having to assess each individual separately on criterion X worth the risk of offending somebody when I 'guess wrong'? It's not just the people you're generalizing about that you need to take into consideration -- it's also how comfortable ALL those whose approval and respect you seek feel about you making this generalization.

Let's take your example. In East Asia, most anecdotal evidence suggests that erring on the side of being too vague gets better results that erring on the side of being too frank. I've decided to work under that generalization when I'm in that part of the world, until the person I'm dealing with gives me reason to do otherwise. The benefit is huge -- I don't have to test the limits of every person I meet and speak with. The cost is not negligible -- I have at times not realized (to my detriment) when an East Asian was being quite frank with me, simply because I didn't expect it. But I find this risk does not outweigh the benefit of having the time and brainpower to work out the finer points of how these people think and interact, since instances where this assumption gets me into trouble have been few and far between.

When I want to politely correct a person about a generalization they've made that I don't think is wise for them to make, I often start with, "[On the contrary,] I think you're going to find that..." In other words, I can't prove your generalization wrong. Maybe it squares quite well with your own experience and what you've learned. But beware, because I've seen trouble befall people who lean on that generalization.

For example, I would not generalize Japan, based on my experience and reading, as a place that does not locally produce outcasts. But... I think you're going to find that Japanese who feel out of the loop in Japan are likely to deal with this differently than Canadians who feel out of the loop in Canada. If you're wondering, I find the former, if they remain in their homeland, are more likely to 'go through the motions' of fitting in amongst a group, even if inside they feel very alienated, just for the sake of survival. You have to get to know them and their social circle slowly over a long period of time before you see glimpses of how chummy they really feel. If I had lived by the rule that there are no Japanese outcasts, I probably would have missed the opportunities for friendship with pretty much all the Japanese people I'm friends with now. Because the Japanese who don't (in their hearts) run with the herd are far and away the most interesting and kickass to get to know For me anyways.

 

[yougene]

Social generalizations do cause alot of problems. The idea of validating and perpetuating these kinds of generalizations seems like they could be damaging to someone, someday.

On the other hand, these social generalizations are but a subset example of how we make sense of the world.

In context of Piaget's cognitive development model, these capacities emerge at the concrete operational stage.

The Concrete operational stage is the third of four stages of cognitive development in Piaget's theory. This stage, which follows the Preoperational stage, occurs between the ages of 7 and 11 years and is characterized by the appropriate use of logic. Important processes during this stage are:

Seriation—the ability to sort objects in an order according to size, shape, or any other characteristic. For example, if given different-shaded objects they may make a color gradient.

Classification—the ability to name and identify sets of objects according to appearance, size or other characteristic, including the idea that one set of objects can include another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Operational#Concrete_operational_stage

In other words ranking and categorizing. The two taboos of a liberal arts education. With good reason, categorizing people goes hand in hand with ranking them. When you subconsciously rank people in terms of value that's where problems arise. On the other hand, categorizing and ranking is what brings us some of the best in humanity. Categorizing the physical world, ranking what is ontologically primary, etc.... This capacity is essential! It's the same neutral technology being used for both good and not so good.



The characteristic problem with the concrete operational stage is...

Children in this stage can, however, only solve problems that apply to actual (concrete) objects or events, and not abstract concepts or hypothetical tasks.

People at concrete operational may see patterns associated with differentiable groups of people, but they lack the abstract thinking to see why this may hold true. I say this with a bias obviously, but such generalizations are going to be more partial than logically informed ones.


The next stage in Piaget's model

Formal operational stage

The formal operational period is the fourth and final of the periods of cognitive development in Piaget's theory. This stage, which follows the Concrete Operational stage, commences at around 12 years of age (puberty) and continues into adulthood. It is characterized by acquisition of the ability to think abstractly, reason logically and draw conclusions from the information available. During this stage the young adult is able to understand such things as love, "shades of gray", logical proofs, and values. Lucidly, biological factors may be traced to this stage as it occurs during puberty (the time at which another period of neural pruning occurs), marking the entry to adulthood in Physiology, cognition, moral judgement (Kohlberg), Psychosexual development (Freud), and psychosocial development (Erikson). Some two-thirds of people do not develop this form of reasoning fully enough that it becomes their normal mode for cognition, and so they remain, even as adults, concrete operational thinkers.

Interestingly there is a correlation between institutional/cultural structures and cognitive structures. The two go hand in hand nearly always. You'll find rational(formal-operational) people where the institutions of the Enlightenment are setup. People need a space, culture, and language to be rational before you can really start seeing it appear on meaningful scales. Similarly you'll find concrete-operational wherever you find mythical religious institutions. In the absents of either of these kinds of institutions you'll find syncretic magical thinking wherever you find tribal institutions.


The root of the problem isn't that we live in a world of generalizations. The problem is we as a society haven't yet done enough to get more people up to speed on critical thinking.

Part of the problem is institutional. We all know that traditional institutions can be very homogeneous, and wary of outsiders. Even if people are ready to pop out of the concrete-operational stage the structures of traditional institutions are designed to make it very difficult. Cultural isolation, being ostracized, etc... Living in some rural areas this unfolding may be outright dangerous to your well-being! Not surprisingly rural areas have higher centers of concrete-operational.

On the other hand, imagine being at the concrete operational stage and having all the mythical belief systems correlated with it. Well going to a university might be a very painful antagonizing experience for you. All the sudden things like values, morality, and God which gave you value in your native institution do no such thing here. Not only that but they actually de-value you in the eyes of your peers!

These institutions exist as fragmented islands at odds with one another. In the process of this all sorts of people are getting marginalized. The people that ironically need it most.