Of Prejudices & Generalizations

Go to the Home Page

While working out my brain cells the other day, I realized that one of the activities performed very frequently, perhaps every minute, by our mind is some or the other kind of a generalization. How many times have we heard – men think about sex every few seconds, women think about their weight (and shopping) every five minutes and so on and so forth. Now the point I am trying to make is not that the above examples are, indeed, generalizations, but the fact that how we never rave about the frequency with which our mind performs generalizations, even though it is comparable (in frequency and effect) to the above examples.

In order to prove my point, I conducted a practical experiment, wherein, during a conversation with a friend, I tried to count the number of generalizations either of us made. And the number was shockingly high. I observed a similar trend during the coffee-time chit-chats with my team members in the office – people of so and so department are so inefficient, service in Bangalore is so poor, Mumbai is cosmopolitan in its culture, I liked this guy but he was just an engineer (with an expression of disgust on the girl’s face, even though she was 'just an engineer' at one point of time)… I too make a number of generalizations every day, inadvertently of course. In the past, I was in a habit of making generalizations based on astrological sun-signs; now, however, I avoid knowing the sun sign of an individual for as long as possible, as that would make me biased (for or against). Among the other generalizations we make, include those about people belonging to different communities, states, sexes (this one receives a lot of attention, somehow), countries, religions, social classes etc.; about different cultures, cuisines, cities, countries; about products manufactured in different geographies, couture by the biggest fashion houses of the world and designer dresses by the local boutiques.

First, let’s explore the basic premise behind a generalization. To begin with, one point must be established: most categories of generalizations enlisted above (people, cultures, cuisines, cities, countries, products etc.) stem from the thoughts and behavior of individuals, who make up a community, a state, a country, manufacture products, create varied culinary delights, and represent different cultures. It can be safely assumed that by and large, most generalizations eventually imply the generalization of an individual/a group of people. This being established, let’s consider the next point.

When we make a generalization about people, we assume that there is some underlying characteristic that binds the members of a certain group together, for this is the so-called rationale behind categorization. There are some exceptional cases, where, I believe, generalizations are justified. These include, but are not limited to, the following – physiological generalizations i.e. generalizations based on characteristics of the normal functioning of a living organism like breathing, eating, sleeping and other functions of the human body. It is logical to generalize people on the basis of physiological characteristics: diabetics, arthritics, neurotics etc. Another kind of generalization is based on heredity; different races do have different physical characteristics, as proven by experimentation – Indians are brown skinned, have dark hair, the average height of an Indian male is so and so etc., which can further be generalized for different geographical regions within the country. Similarly heredity generalizations can be made for other races (Caucasians, Hispanics etc).

I’d like to digress here and answer a question that was put to me by a friend (with whom I had a stimulating discussion on this topic), for it may occur to some of you too. He said – ‘Aren’t all scientific experiments based on generalizations? We perform the same experiment over and over again, and if the results are within an acceptable range of variance, we establish the scientific principle for all elements belonging to that category.’ And what about the law of probability? I was stumped for a while; then I rationalized – the type of generalization I was opposed to, was the one which categorized human minds; not non-living matter.

So why is generalization a malaise of the mind? I’m trying to repudiate the generalization of thoughts, attitudes and behaviors; basically everything that originates from the human mind. Every human being has his own set of ideas, values and beliefs, which have been shaped by his experiences. No two individuals have the exact same ideas and thoughts, even though they have been brought up under similar circumstances. When we generalize individuals, we ignore the basic principle of individualism. Now, I agree, some people feel more comfortable when they belong somewhere – to a social group, a fraternity, a team as opposed to being one of a kind. So these people, in a way, prefer being generalized. This post is not addressed to such people. This post is rather addressed to those who do not fear standing out and standing up for what they believe in, irrespective of how many supporters they have.

Having said that, is it possible to avoid generalization? To a large extent, I have kicked the habit of generalization, and I try and appraise each individual based on his thoughts and behavior, rather than the place he belongs to, the business school he went to, whether he’s convent educated or not and his reputation. But in a world where having enough information about the subject may not always be possible, does it become a necessity to generalize, in order to have ‘an opinion’ (even though it may not be an accurate one)? Can we really escape generalization and see each person for what he is or is it a psychological peculiarity, ingrained and unavoidable?

Go to the Home Page