Labelling / stereotyping

McGinty

I realise using labels is a useful way of identifying a person's religious, political, social, etc beliefs, but I beleive there is a danger in taking labels too literally, which in turn can cause unnecessary arguements, prejudice and stereotyping and in the extreme, death and war. I'm interested in other people's views on this, do you agree with using labels for people? Do you see any dangers in it, and if so what? Would you like to see a world without lablels, where people just accept each other as unique and different? Or is that too idealistic?

Bacchus

I agree that it is simply a way of describing someone by referring to them by their religion, race, political status etc. It's only racist or predjudice if you mean it to be. I would have no problem describing a man/woman to someone as being "black" if they were black(I'm only using this as an example off the top of my head) just as I would have no problem describing someone with red hair as "that red headed guy". It's simply a way of describing a person.
I don't really ever refer to someone through their political or religious beliefs tho'.
What I don't like is people labeling others in a degrading manner because of their religion, race or social beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with labels as long as no harm is intended. I am Irish. I am Catholic. I am a student. I am white. I am a lot of other things. Unfortunately a lot of people don't respect others and label people racially. This is what causes conflict and makes people afraid to refer to someone through race or religion.
Just look at America, the whole White/Black situation over there is a disaster. White folk afraid of all the black people. Black people milking the government for it can. I believe there is a Miss Negro America (could be wrong). Why?? Why do Americans feel that they have to treat Blacks specially. Why isn't there a Miss White America?? That is an example of the dangers of using labels, when you begin to treat others differently. Labels can be harmless but not while there are those who abuse people with labels and classify them into groups which they can have separate sets of rules for.
Anyway, hope I made myself clear.

dr_manhattan

I agree that labelling and stereotyping of people is wrong - and yes, I think we should aim for a world where we are free of such crude tools to exemplify people.

However, many of the problems of sterotyping lie with the languages we use: generalisation becomes necessary in order to discuss the world, and often these absolutist terms that we have lose their meaning through literal interpretation.

It's the naturteof the beast in this world that labelling is a number one way of dealing with people - but capitalism in the form of advertising is largely responsible for this: and peoples' innate village-mentality, where they tend to find it hard to deal with the "foreign" and need to generalise.

And we have to recognise that, while the west is at a stage that it can aspire to deal in a sphisticated fashion with each other, we have reached this stage be stealing from other cultures - therefore we cannot expect all cultures to want to play by our rules of objectivity. To do so is to play an unfair game with the rest of the world.

(see the WAY off-topic male contraception pill thread for more on this, haha)

Anyways, for once I got work to do, so no essay writing here ;-)

Specky

There's a big difference between stereotyping, racism and name calling.

If I'm describing a man waling down the street it is likely that I am going to use the characteristics that are most noticeable. His skin colour is likely to be one of those characteristics, especially if it is distinctively one colour or another or if my limited knowledge of ethnology does not provide me with the necessary clues with which to provide you with a precise country of origin.

In other words, if I see a black man I am likely to describe him as a black man.

I am not stereotyping him or calling him names, I am simply describing what I see in the terms available to me on the basis of my understanding.

If my subsequent actions or attitudes towards that person are different because that person happens to have a different skin colour to myself then I am being prejudiced based on race...racist in other words. However, chances are my attitude to a person walking down the street could be prejudiced by the colour of their shoes. I might look at them and just think "pff....wanker"...I have done this, sorry, it's true (not based on the shoes, by the way, but other small cultural things......)...is that more or less bad than being racist?

You see it here quite a lot. Threads with the line "I saw this skanger in town the other day..." etc. Stereotyping and prejudice all in one, accepted, not commented upon, endorced by others in fact.

Join this thread to the one about nbeing normal around about now. People want to feel a part of something, they do this often by identifying those who are not a part of it.


Stereotypes exist because they are, at least to some extent, true though. The civil service seems to be full of them for some reason, here and in other countries.

70's cool boy (leather jacket, cordroy trousers, mustache, thinks he used to be jack the lad but probably never quite was)
Lefty lad (long hair even though it's dissappearing fast, buck the system but not too much man)
Job-4-life (portly, christmas jumper, has his own little holder for paper clips, tidy desk)
Flower power chick (round glasses, straggly hair, used to drive a citroen 2cv but now probably has a cicocento...)

could go on....

...don't even start me on school teachers and lecturers.

McGinty

Specky, Interesting comments, and I would agree with most of what your saying. For example a black person walking down the street is just that, a black person walking down the street. Their skin colour is black, that is identifying a person by colour, or gender, for example a woman walking down the street.

What I did mean though by labelling is take one of the people you mentioned as an example, nine times out of ten your definition would be correct but you could for example have a lefty lad, who has short hair, wears a suit and has a job for life, and this is where we are in danger of pigeon holing a person. Some one may have leftie views, or ring wing view, but may not wear the typical right wing/ left wing look.

I have to say that I don't like to identify myself with say a polictical or religious view, for example I believe in God and believe Jesus Christ, therefore I have a christian belief, however I wouldn't say that I am a Christian, because that is just one part of me. I also happen to be a mother, but again I am not just a mother period, there is more to me than that.

I raised this thread through the 'Normal' thread (Incidentally it gave me a really good giggle) and the Male Pill thread, because people get so hung up on the labels.

I guess that's what I'm talking about, rather than actual racism, because we all know that is wrong, but for some labelling can be the first step to it.

Take for example the 'skanger quote', maybe a person may dress like a skanger (I have to be honest and say I don't really know what a skanger is - so if I am wrong in something that is why) they may not act like a skanger but have been labelled as such due to their dress sense and the people they're with, and what about people who have many different types of friends, say for example from different cultures/ countries or different political/ religious persuasions. Take boards for example, I am not really a techie sort of person, and yet I enjoy dipping my toe here from time to time but most people would label boarders as techie/geekie kind of people, that may not be the case at all.

Specky

I wear glasses, spectacles, bins whatever you want to call them, and the number of times people have come up to me in the pub and said things like "I bet you work in computers"....

shrug

...now unfortunately they wouldn't be far wrong (damned annoying)

When I worked in London my work took me into a lot of dodgy areas and to avoid attracting too much attention from muggers I used to wear urban camouflage (ie I dressed like the people I met on the streets)....handy 'cos I was a scruffy bugger anyway...

I was continually stopped and questioned by police and often searched resulting in many lengthy explanations when they discovered I'd be carrying a mobile phone (not as common then as they are now) and a selection of tools.

Similar experiences in shops where I've stood in a queue wearing my civvies and been served last...went to same shop a couple of days later in shirt and tie and been served first...

These are prejudices.

In my view they are the prejudices of normal people. I don't like them, nobody should like them but you can't make people think differently. The way they think is the result of generations of conditioning, you can't fix that on your own. In my view it's easier and more profitable to play on people's prejudices.

In my business role I am required to do many things that bring me into contact with people and I have found that I can have a significant effect on the way they treat me by the way I present myself...so I do what gets the best results.

Now. The problem with prejudice comes when the things that people are prejudiced against are things you cannot or will not change...ie the colour of your skin, your religeon, your ethnic origins, your sexuality etc etc. These are the dangerous and harmful prejudices. As the persons against which the prejudices are directed you can do very little (apart from not making your abuser's beliefs come true...if they say you're an ignorant arrogant git don't be...if you are then you deserve to be treated as such regardless of who or what you may be).

The responsibility for breaking these dangerous prejudices lies with the perpetrators. Responsibility, understanding and familiarity change people's attitudes. Breaking prejudice is another topic though really.

My civil service stereotypes are playful things I use myself, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that everyone in the civil service falls into these. I do deal with local government people a fair bit though and these stereotypes do crop up. They're based on personality more than physical characteristics...but just like people grow to look like their dogs they also grow to look like their jobs.

As far as the type of people on boards is concerned you're right there is quite a diversity of people here. The stereotypes are here too though, generally in the minority but they're here....haven't made up names for them all yet though

pickarooney

Originally posted by Specky
There's a big difference between stereotyping, racism and name calling.

If I'm describing a man waling down the street it is likely that I am going to use the characteristics that are most noticeable. His skin colour is likely to be one of those characteristics, especially if it is distinctively one colour or another or if my limited knowledge of ethnology does not provide me with the necessary clues with which to provide you with a precise country of origin.

In other words, if I see a black man I am likely to describe him as a black man.

I am not stereotyping him or calling him names, I am simply describing what I see in the terms available to me on the basis of my understanding.

Exactly. On the other hand, referring to him as an African-American would be stereotyping as there is no grounds for assumption that he is either African or American

McGinty

I have to agree Specky with what you say, (well said) re: the look you wear and how your judged. You reminded me of a similar incident.

When I lived in England, at one time I was unemployed, dirt poor with little or no money, in between job searching I did three afternoons working in an Oxfam shop (anything to kill the boredom - I ironed ugghh) but anyhow I used to buy some of the clothes, so I was always well dressed, there were some people begging. They had dreadlocks, unwashed hair, scrufffy clothes, etc and they looked 'poor'. I remember they were quite aggressive in their begging tatics, and when I said I had no money, they pointed to the marks & spencers bag, I laughed and told them that I worked voluntarily for Oxfam, we had a chat about being unemployed, etc and they were suprised when I told them I had no money and I said people probably judge you on how you look, and you're doing the exact same. So yes, your right and I would agree its best to work with the system for now, but it can be great fun making people guess who and what you are, so that when they've placed one label on you, I enjoy changing that and having a new label placed. I guess I'm a bit of a chameleon.

True about the African-American statement, I mean you can't know a person origin until you speak with or get to know them. Best to stick with what you know instead of assuming.

Specky

but it can be great fun making people guess who and what you are

Oh yes, playing with people's perceptions and pre-conceptions is really good fun, I do it all the time.

keeaumoku_tofu

What I really don't get is how race only seems to be mentioned when talking about someone who isn't obviously white. It's like everyone else needs an adjective because they aren't a part of what's considered the norm. The same with when someone is gay. Why is their sexual orientation a part of their description? Do people describe their straight friends as being straight? It seems pedantic but I think the practice of only using labels on those who are somehow a "minority" only acts to reaffirm them as such. Using labels is fine to describe people but I think it's important to make sure we aren't doing it in a way that only emphasizes the race, religion, sexual orientation of those who aren't a member of what would be considered the norm. That's all.

Specky

What I really don't get is how race only seems to be mentioned when talking about someone who isn't obviously white.

From a predominantly white perspective yes, but go somewhere where the predominant skin colour is not white and you'll see the process work the opposite way around.

It's like everyone else needs an adjective because they aren't a part of what's considered the norm.

But isn't that completely natural? We're lazy in our descriptions, we choose the easiest. if there's nothing obvious like skin colour to use then we'll use hair colour, clothing or obvious facial features.

It seems pedantic but I think the practice of only using labels on those who are somehow a "minority" only acts to reaffirm them as such.

I don't thin we do, but I suppose it depends on how you define a minority. If you mean the subject is a minority in the current context of the situation within which he/she is being descibed then ok we do...but that's natural.

Anyway, the label isn't the problem it's the baggage attached to the label from the labeller's point of view that is.

I think it's important to make sure we aren't doing it in a way that only emphasizes the race, religion, sexual orientation of those who aren't a member of what would be considered the norm.

Yes but in a way that just means "I think we should all be nice to each other" which is a bit sort of...wishy washy...

There is a huge danger that in trying to legislate away people's prejudices they just build up new ones. Positive discrimination (there's nothing positive about discrimination in my view) is one way that is commonly used and I am totally against it. The idea that to prevent marginalising a portion of the community you should insist that a quota of people from that portion be defined and included in everything is just a pile of crap.

Who, as part of a marginalised minority, would want to feel that they were included just to make up the quota? Who, as part of an un-marginalised majority, would want to be considered the peer of another person who had proved their worth through no other means than having declared themselves outside of the majority? What a can of worms!

It is surprising how quickly some prejudices break down though, they don't disappear but the prejudiced people themselves rapidly become a minority and can actually become the victims of prejudice as a result. They say familiarity breeds contempt, and in some contexts this is true, but I think familiarity also brings blindness and if you are confronted with your prejudices every day I think you soon fail to see them anymore and move on to dislike something else.

Don't forget not too long ago there were pictures around of black and white US police officers beating up black suspects on the street in what were later described as race related attacks. Prejudice by association? People have an incredible capacity for hatred, sometimes they just need something onto which it can be focused.

Victor

Watching a group of teenagers on a bus (Irish, black and Asian) recently, they were still slagging the fat kid. Plus ca change ....

Specky

Watching a group of teenagers on a bus (Irish, black and Asian) recently, they were still slagging the fat kid. Plus ca change ....

...yeah and the fat kid was having a go at the kid wearing glasses...