Title
4-9-06
A stereotype is a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment (Webster.com). In literature, stereotypical characters are called, “stock characters” (Wikipedia.com) and just as we would ask what plays would be like without stock characters, I must ask what life would be like without stereotypes.
From the very beginnings of humanity, stereotypes were a mechanism of survival. It was important to judge your enemy and to decide what to expect of him. Of course, these guesses probably were not always right, but if you expect the worst, anything less is much better. That is probably why stereotypes are generally negative.
Stereotypes come in handy in the most random places. When you read a book, after only a few lines of description, or one line of dialogue, most readers already have at least an idea as to what the character is like. That is because we stereotype. We classify ourselves in accordance to stereotypes. We create them, then aim to achieve one (or several of them) of them. And those who place themselves outside a stereotype have just created a new one. We classify people under very basic descriptions: stereotypes. The rest of the details come when we actually meet the person, and get to learn about their actually personality.
What would life be like without stereotypes? How tedious would a new person be if you had to find out every single detail about them every single time and none of it could be approximated from a stereotype? How surprising would surprises become if every single thing about every single person were surprising? As in most issues, however, extremes are not the way to go. A complete trust and belief in the implications of a stereotype is wrong. There is always more to a person than a stereotype implies.
There is no future in fighting stereotyping. We decide what we think of a person within the first ten seconds of seeing them. And we do this by placing them in a crude categorization (a stereotype) using the stereotypical aspects of them. It is our nature. But a stereotype is only a foundation, or base to the actual personality of a person. And in some cases, it might even be completely incorrect. It is important to always look beyond the stereotype.
I have been stereotyped, along with the rest of humanity. Geek, band geek, weirdo, academic freak. But so what? If you really cared about how someone stereotyped you, then you make your appearance convey the correct image. And if you could not, then perhaps that stereotypes are not too far off from the truth. But, again, so what? Being who you are was never about what other people thought.
Stereotype! Could I have said the word stereotype more often than that? Probably, but let's not go there. Anyway, good stating of an opinion, good references, well argued, well supported (for once), but a weak close. Why is it that I always have to end it with a corny cliché?
A stereotype is a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment (Webster.com). In literature, stereotypical characters are called, “stock characters” (Wikipedia.com) and just as we would ask what plays would be like without stock characters, I must ask what life would be like without stereotypes.
From the very beginnings of humanity, stereotypes were a mechanism of survival. It was important to judge your enemy and to decide what to expect of him. Of course, these guesses probably were not always right, but if you expect the worst, anything less is much better. That is probably why stereotypes are generally negative.
Stereotypes come in handy in the most random places. When you read a book, after only a few lines of description, or one line of dialogue, most readers already have at least an idea as to what the character is like. That is because we stereotype. We classify ourselves in accordance to stereotypes. We create them, then aim to achieve one (or several of them) of them. And those who place themselves outside a stereotype have just created a new one. We classify people under very basic descriptions: stereotypes. The rest of the details come when we actually meet the person, and get to learn about their actually personality.
What would life be like without stereotypes? How tedious would a new person be if you had to find out every single detail about them every single time and none of it could be approximated from a stereotype? How surprising would surprises become if every single thing about every single person were surprising? As in most issues, however, extremes are not the way to go. A complete trust and belief in the implications of a stereotype is wrong. There is always more to a person than a stereotype implies.
There is no future in fighting stereotyping. We decide what we think of a person within the first ten seconds of seeing them. And we do this by placing them in a crude categorization (a stereotype) using the stereotypical aspects of them. It is our nature. But a stereotype is only a foundation, or base to the actual personality of a person. And in some cases, it might even be completely incorrect. It is important to always look beyond the stereotype.
I have been stereotyped, along with the rest of humanity. Geek, band geek, weirdo, academic freak. But so what? If you really cared about how someone stereotyped you, then you make your appearance convey the correct image. And if you could not, then perhaps that stereotypes are not too far off from the truth. But, again, so what? Being who you are was never about what other people thought.
Stereotype! Could I have said the word stereotype more often than that? Probably, but let's not go there. Anyway, good stating of an opinion, good references, well argued, well supported (for once), but a weak close. Why is it that I always have to end it with a corny cliché?
posted by Andy | 7:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home