Of Prejudices & Generalizations
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?
i like the way you have put forth your perspective on this. it's a sad travesty of the human psyche but, to an extent I believe the affected (read: people who are involved in professions like the police and politics)have begun to live with the blotches spurted on them by such generalizations. wish this could change somehow..
ReplyDeleteon another note, liked the polls u've created on your blog. I'm an author myself (Watch Out! We Are MBA), so am going to keenly follow the results of this poll for sure!
I could be wrong, but a curious thought struck me. We tend to generalize more on the negative than the alternate. For e.g. all Gujaratis are thrifty (pure baloney, if applied to current generation of gujaratis) or all bengalis are idealists (Mamta notwithstanding). I could go on, but the point is I'd have to rack my brains real hard to come out with a positive generalization. (please note - an IITian being generalized as a good student is a factual statement, and not a generalization). Astutely argued, as is your hallmark. I guess, we don't generalize initially. Its only after a couple of bad experiences, do we tend to label the whole creed/region e.t.c as being synonymous to the individual against whom we harbour our ire. Mostly, its a defensive gesture, as if to caution ourselves against such a thing befalling us again. Its nice to be cautious. Not so sure if I'd say the same about generalizations, and worse, judging a person therein. Last two points:
ReplyDelete1) Attire maketh a man, but only on the cricket field. :-)
2) Between men thinking about sex every few seconds and women thinking about weight loss and shopping every five minutes, you got one spot on correct, and another horribly wrong...:-)
Keep writing...
Nishant - I have read some of the posts on your blog, and left a few comments too. Although I haven't had an opportunity to lay my hands on your book, I have read the poems on your blog and lemme say this - you have the talent to capture feelings beautifully in your words.
ReplyDeleteAs for the polls, I'd be glad to share the results with you (that is - once there are considerable no. of votes .. :)
Hatikvah - I believe you've provided another perspective to the act of generalization. And although it maybe a defense mechanism to generalize on the negative, I've heard (and done) many positive generalizations too (all people of a particular sunsign are charming or honest or courageous; ok you're right can't think of too many!!)
ReplyDeleteAs to your last point, I don't know which one is spot on and which one is horribly wrong (for I'd just presented the most common generalizations I hear, and not necessarily believe in), but with this comment, you've made a claim you know the opposite sex very well to make that generalization, by saying it's either spot on or horribly wrong (as a comment to a post that disputes generalizations and prejudices) .. :)
Wow, you've managed to do intense introspection on generalisations. But then, I'm not sure if generalisation always means prejudice. I think generalisation is necessary to avoid complexity.
ReplyDeleteI mean, what would you do in the following scenario:
You're hiring for your Company and you've got 2 candidates from two different countries whose qualifications appear similar and the interview with both of them wasn't much different. Past experience tells you that a particular country's nationals are generally more efficient than another country?
What would you do? and is that generalisation? And if it is, is it incorrect?
I couldnt help but notice that your profile talks about you in a very contradictory manner. The traits that you have mentioned contradict each other.
ReplyDeleteI do not quite agree with the fact that an Individualistic person can be a good Leader at the same time. Its hard to think of good leaders who were individualistic in their own right. The only ones that come to the mind are the likes of Adolf Hitler and Mussolini. And look what they did to the world.
Just a thought.
Anonymous - If you expect me to quote examples of people who, I believe, were/are both individualistic and good leaders, you are mistaken. If I drew parallels with other people to prove my point in this case particularly, it would nullify the whole concept of Individualism. I don’t know what you think about Individualism, and I really don’t care, but to me, it definitely does not require a precedent.
ReplyDeleteRakesh - If you read the last paragraph of my post carefully, you would realize that this is the same question put forward by me, albeit in different words. Generalization implies prejudice. It means having a pre-conceived notion about something (person, place, country, read "Past experience tells you that a particular country's nationals are generally more efficient than another country"). It also means classifying all elements of a group on the assumption that they share a certain characteristic.
ReplyDeleteHence, your point should be re-phrased as: When there's lack of enough information to take a decision (as is the case with two seemingly similar interview candidates) and a decision is imperative, is it justified to make a generalization (based on native country or any other parameter)?
I think the answer to that question would be YES. Although, it may be justified to take such a decision under the circumstances mentioned, the favourable outcome of such a decision cannot be guaranteed with as much confidence as that of a fully informed one.