"California drivers are the worst." "Americans are an arrogant bunch of people." "The Left hates the United States and wants to make it a socialist state." "Evangelicals hate gays." We love to speak in generalizations. We lump folks together into a mass of humanity and then label them with all sorts of stereotypes. All men are sexist. All whites are racist. Fundamentalists are haters. And on and on.
It's not true, you know. In fact, I think in most cases it is far less true than most of us imagine. The reality is that every single group you can imagine is made up of individuals. And, as snowflakes and fingerprints tell us, no two individuals are the same.
In the same way, no two Christians are the same. There are Christians who are very similar and Christians who are rarely similar. I have some favorite teachers and preachers that I've listened to and learned from over the years -- that I respect greatly -- but I cannot think of a single teacher or preacher that I agree with 100%. That doesn't mean there is friction. That doesn't mean that there is terminal disagreement. It just means on this one little item or that one side idea I don't agree with this one or that one.
This is true across the board. In fact, we know it. Every one of us has been lumped together at some point or another with a particular group with which we are associated -- geographic, national, racial, religious, social, gender, educational ... on and on and on it goes. And we say, "Hey! That's not me! Maybe it's them, but it's not me!"
So why do we inflict the same indignity on others? Why don't we give each other the same courtesy we would like? "This group believes X although not everyone in it does." But we don't. We condemn all on the Left regardless of whether or not they agree with the point we're complaining about the Left for. We condemn all "right-wingers" (The term is intended as a pejorative, isn't it?) for being ... what ... racist or haters or fundamentalists (another pejorative instead of its actual meaning) even though it isn't a truthful condemnation. And we assume and condemn en masse.
Look, it's easy to speak in group terms. Among the current Left there is indeed an amazing number of self-declared or even closet socialists. That's okay to say it. On the far-right there are indeed the nut jobs who tend to fascist and racist ideals and like to collect together and form a militia. It's the truth. For the ease of communication, some of these generalizations are helpful for shorthand. I'm not suggesting we don't do it because, frankly, that would be a pointless suggestion. All I'm asking is that when we're engaging individuals, can we please engage them as individuals? Take me, for instance. I oppose gay mirage on principle. Does that mean that I have to be rude or unkind when I encounter someone who is involved in such a relationship? No. The principle, to me, is clear, but in an individual encounter, I need to consider the individual. I need to do unto others as I'd have them do unto me. We can disagree on principles, but we need to love people. Is this not possible in our society anymore?
9 comments:
You hot on one of the things that is most annoying about much conversation that we see online. I had it drilled into me when I first started commenting on blogs that it is wrong to assume that multiple people agree on specific points and that it's important to deal with people as individuals rather than members of groups. I try to avoid unqualified generalizations, even though I don't do as well as I'd like.
Personally, I find demands that I defend something you've said (or Art or ...) frustrating. It's ridiculous to demand that I do so, and It's impossible for me to meet the demand.
This is one of those things that affects so much of the public discourse and is frequently used as a way to demonize others when they haven't done anything that can be criticized specifically.
Finally, this compulsion to generalize has really made the immigration discussion harder than it needs to be. By removing the notion of dealing with immigrants as individuals and instead dealing with them as an amorphous group, the space for nuance and justice has been removed.
Again, right on target.
In so many cases these generalizations eliminate any potential discussion, don't they? I can't talk about individuals without being generalized. I can't talk about general principles without having individuals subsumed into the generality and without having faulty specifics assigned to the generalities. If I'm white, I'm racist not because I'm actually racist, but because I'm in that general vicinity of race. It doesn't seem to end.
Is terminating dialog the point?
For some it is. If you can marginalize your opponent by labeling them as a part of a group, and imposing every real and perceived negatives of that group to that individual, then you’ve ended the conversation before it started. It’s much easier to do that, than to actually defend your position in a debate.
The unintended consequence of labeling everything and everyone racist is that it minimizes and demeans actual racism. Of if you label everyone you disagree with as “evil”, you minimize actual evil to the point where the term becomes meaningless.
I just posted something which contains absolutely zero references to race, and merely pointed out what’s been reported by various news organizations, yet I was characterized as both racist and evil.
It’s just easier to repeat “racist” than to demonstrate actual racism. If you repeat something often enough, it becomes the narrative. True or not.
Yes, it’s definitely about stopping debate before it starts.
There's a time for generalities and a time to focus on a specific person or action of a specific person. I have no problem referring to "the left", and will also speak of "the right" in general terms as well. There are characteristics specifics for both, and in cases where one of either side possesses a characteristic or two not common to the group doesn't mitigate the truth of the generality.
Craig mentioned two terms thrown about and I find they are not the same, except that each requires explanation to follow their usage. If some progressive calls someone a racist, that progressive is required to support the contention. We find today that the term has a far more loose definition than it once had. A policy is deemed racist if any negative consequences have an adverse effect on one race more than on another, even if there is no way the policy can be proven to have had that effect purposely intended.
Worse, the term is used as a weapon to demonize (no one wants to be regarded as a racist) or to shut people up. This buffoonish Ayanna Pressley has expressed a desire to bar "brown/black faces" that don't toe the line she believes they should. So a black person MUST agree with her or they're not welcome.
Evil is a different story. It's purposely defined more sharply so as to allow bad behavior to be championed. Evil isn't just that which is overtly damaging, like a mass murderer. Evil is simply that which is in opposition to God. It doesn't have to hurt, and may actually feel really, really good. So if I refer to an opposing blogger as evil, even if that blogger wants to insist he's a text-book Christian, I can list a host of reasons why I believe the term is appropriate...and stand ready to do so. The added benefit in my mind, is that there is the chance that the other guy will check himself out and consider my argument, just as I constantly check myself with or without outside criticism.
The thing about generalizations is that it is general. It is an average. That means what is said is true, to one degree or another, by the group to which the generalization is applied. And that's the important part. It has to be true in at least a general way for it to apply at all and as more people qualify, the more one is dealing with a group for which the generalization is appropriate. The Democratic Party has a history of racism, while the GOP does not. Thus, in general, "the Dems are racist" is not a false thing to say. It might be for a specific Dem, but in general the term applies. Evil could easily be applied to both given the sin nature of man. There are far more manifestations of evil than there are of racism, regardless of what the race-hustlers say.
"There's a time for generalities." Agreed. That's why I said things like, "For the ease of communication, some of these generalizations are helpful for shorthand." And, for me, speaking in generalities when speaking about ideas or groups is perfectly appropriate.
Weaponized words are a real problem, and generalization only increases their effect. Take your example of "racist." Racism is bad. Agreed. But then we have to ask what is meant by "racism" because apparently the word has an extremely broad and often bizarre meaning. Then we apply generalities and "all white people are racist" drops the "racist" bomb on an entire race (which, to me, sounds very racist).
"The thing about generalizations is that it is general." Absolutely. And my point exactly. When people take the general and apply it haphazardly to the individual, it's a problem. I agree.
I don't know that I agree with Marshal about sin equaling evil. Evil is more specific than sin. You can commit a sin of ignorance and not be evil. Evil is intention. We are all sinners, but we're not all evil, or do you think Paul, or Peter were evil? Paul called himself chief among sinners, so that makes him the most evil man? No, evil is to sin as a square is to a rectangle. All evil is sin, but not all sin is evil. To be clear, this is from our perspective, because when speaking in generalizations, you're talking about people's perception, not God's. When we say someone is evil, it should be because of the vileness of their actions, not by the general action of all sinners. Evil is more pointed than sin.
So, if I followed you correctly, you are saying that Paul is a rectangle?
Good, I was understandable. I worry about that sometimes
My point is that when someone refers to me as evil because of a blog post, that they trivialize and devalue evil.
Hitler, Mao, Guevara, Stalin, etc are legitimately evil, Trump isn’t.
Post a Comment