Generally when I write about
stereotyping, as I did regarding the Trayvon Martin affair, someone is bound to
accuse me of racism. This time around
was no different. I was not surprised, for
despite the standard calls for a national discussion about race, anyone who is
politically incorrect can expect to be vilified.
Let me be perfectly plain,
stereotyping is not the problem it is made out to be. It is a normal way of understanding a complex
world that moreover can be helpful if it is not abused. Stereotypes are essentially cognitive calling
cards that enable us to interpret what is happening around us when we have no
further information.
The problem with these
simplified generalizations is that many of us continue to credit them after we
learn that they don’t really apply.
Thus, we often stereotype African-Americans as having rhythm, whereas
anyone who has seen General Colin Powell dance must understand this
characterization does not fit him.
As for myself, I am
originally a New York City Jew.
Consequently, people who do not know me often assume that I must be
liberal. Why do they do so? The answer is obvious—it is because most New
York Jews are liberals.
But should I get bent out of
shape when they make this mistake?
Should I berate them verbally or attempt to beat them into
submission? Or does it make more sense
merely to correct them and move on?
In fact, George Zimmerman
had every right to consider Trayvon Martin suspicious. Where and when he was, as well as how he was
dressed, sent up red flags that suggested a need to investigate. Furthermore, coming to this conclusion, did
not give Martin permission to assault Zimmerman.
Martin, it is also true, did
not deserve to die as a result of his transgression. This was a tragedy that all decent people
abhor. But neither does this calamity
provide justification for threatening Zimmerman’s life or concluding that white
Americans are as racist as their ancestors.
To bolster my argument, let me
tell a story that I have shared many times—including at KSU. During my twenties I worked at a summer camp
with a young Dane who was visiting our country for the first time. Fascinated with how we differed from his
homeland, he expressed a desire to see Harlem.
Having myself worked in
Harlem, I volunteered to take him there.
Beguiled with the romanticism of a place he had only read about, he was
overjoyed at the prospect. And so, when
we later walked down 125th Street, his head was on a swivel as he
took in the unaccustomed sights.
Then, about a block and a
half away, we spotted a gaggle of young men standing on a corner handing things
to one another. My coworker immediately
grabbed for his camera so that he could record the event for himself and his
friends.
When I come this part of the
tale, my students, especially the young women, look up in horror. What happened? Did you get beaten? I then reassure them that because of my
stereotypes I made my companion put the camera away. This was so because I, as an American,
assumed we were looking at a drug deal, whereas he, in his inexperience, had
not reached this conclusion.
My generalization, I remain
confident, protected us from harm. Mind
you, those street corner occupants could have been passing around baseball
trading cards. They were too far away to
be sure. My interpretation might therefore
have done them a disservice. Nevertheless
I believe it was reasonable.
Having been mugged twice on
my way to work and having a lunch buddy (who incidentally was a classmate of
Martin Luther King at Morehouse College) assaulted so brutally on his way to
work that he was hospitalized for three weeks, I believe I earned the right to
be wary.
What do you think? Don’t our individual and collective
experiences deserve to influence how we see the world?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment