Some people think that language itself affects how our brains work; for good or for ill. In other words, the actual way our words describe and encapsulate ideas makes it possible, or in some cases, impossible, to think about things outside the way the words themselves describe them.
Take the case of 'them', or more specifically, the group descriptor 'them'.
We have 'us' and we have 'them'. Both are groups. The former is a group to which we belong, the latter is a group to which we do not belong. I am a member of the group 'veteran'. I am not a member of the group 'knitters'. My wife is the opposite. However, both of us are members of the group 'our family', and the rest of the world isn't.
It is normal and natural to attempt to qualify and quantify the experiences we have, but we make different judgments about what we experience within our groups as opposed to what we experience outside of our groups. For example, in my group 'our family', I am quite well aware that one of us likes to eat broccoli and one of us does not. This does not seem strange to me; after all, I'm aware of the fact that my group consists of individuals with different preferences. It's perfectly natural to me to understand that members of my group are not all alike.
On the other hand, when I experience a different group, especially one which I have no knowledge of, I have no insight into the similarities or differences present within that group. I may make assumptions based on my lack of knowledge (ignorance).
For example, I may note that all members of the group I term 'asian' have a particular physical appearance. A certain color hair is predominant, physical stature, eye shape, and that sort of thing. That may also lead me to believe that I can make other generalizations. So if I meet a member of that group that belongs to a certain religion, and I have no other information available to me, I may believe that all members of that group are members of that religion. If the person behaves in a particular way, I may believe that this is common or universal within the members of this person's group.
Such generalizations can lead to stereotyping. Stereotyping can lead to bigotry, racism, and other forms of discrimination. Unfortunately, sometimes there are either (anecdotal or real) facts which support some types of stereotyping, and these can lead to a belief that any stereotype is therefore accurate. For example, if it is commonly seen that certain groups are better at particular physical sports, this reinforces a stereotype that all members of this group have this advantage; it is not difficult to see how people might also tend to believe that members of this group are also possessed of less positive stereotype behavior, such as criminality.
Worse, enforced political correctness (at least in the USA) is often seen as an enforced untruth to support the feelings of groups who are being oppressed or believe they are. Regardless of the underlying basis for trying to change stereotyping behavior and statements, many see it as an attempt to pretend that things are what they are not. A wink and a nudge are given to it, or lip service is paid to it, but underlying beliefs about stereotypes do not change.
Our language makes it all too easy to use the term 'them' to mean a monolithic group, one which is all the same, unlike 'us', which our own experience shows us has great variety within it.
Classifying groups as 'us' and 'them' and then assigning monolithic values to the group 'them' also allows us to simplify our worldview, to make difficult problems less complicated to solve, and permit us to not spend a lot of time pondering over issues which bother us but which we may not otherwise be able to put to rest in our minds. It's the easy answer, and the simple solutions it allows us to come up with gives us satisfaction that difficult problems can be resolved simply.
It is unfortunate that we have these terms. I know, for example, that people who shoot abortion doctors in the name of Christianity are not the same sort of Christians that I am, they may share some basic membership in my groups (white, male, US citizen, Christian, anti-abortion), but they are still not representative of all members of the groups we share membership in. My experience makes this clear to me, but that fact also means I can't come up with a simple solution to the problem of people shooting abortion doctors. I am not a member of the group of people who are from the Middle East, are Muslim, and feel that the US interferes too much in the nations of the Middle East or that Western values are destroying traditional Islamic values in families. When a Muslim man from the Middle East performs an act of terrorism, I have no basis for understanding that he is not representative of the groups he is a member of. Perhaps on an intellectual basis, but not based on perceptions and classification based on the word 'them'.
Please note that this does not forgive or defend bad behavior! In either case, the person is responsible for their own actions and should be held to account for them. In either case, the person may be part of a larger group that *does* perform such actions as a matter of course. The question is whether or not all the member of the groups the person belongs to believe those things. In the case of the former, I know this not to be true because *I* am a member of that group and *I* do not feel that way. In the case of the latter, I have no such assurance.
It's the difference between looking out and looking in. I know what it's like inside my house - I'm in here! I don't know what it's like inside my neighbor's house; I can only make guesses based on what I see from the outside.
Just a couple thoughts on a nice spring morning...
Take the case of 'them', or more specifically, the group descriptor 'them'.
We have 'us' and we have 'them'. Both are groups. The former is a group to which we belong, the latter is a group to which we do not belong. I am a member of the group 'veteran'. I am not a member of the group 'knitters'. My wife is the opposite. However, both of us are members of the group 'our family', and the rest of the world isn't.
It is normal and natural to attempt to qualify and quantify the experiences we have, but we make different judgments about what we experience within our groups as opposed to what we experience outside of our groups. For example, in my group 'our family', I am quite well aware that one of us likes to eat broccoli and one of us does not. This does not seem strange to me; after all, I'm aware of the fact that my group consists of individuals with different preferences. It's perfectly natural to me to understand that members of my group are not all alike.
On the other hand, when I experience a different group, especially one which I have no knowledge of, I have no insight into the similarities or differences present within that group. I may make assumptions based on my lack of knowledge (ignorance).
For example, I may note that all members of the group I term 'asian' have a particular physical appearance. A certain color hair is predominant, physical stature, eye shape, and that sort of thing. That may also lead me to believe that I can make other generalizations. So if I meet a member of that group that belongs to a certain religion, and I have no other information available to me, I may believe that all members of that group are members of that religion. If the person behaves in a particular way, I may believe that this is common or universal within the members of this person's group.
Such generalizations can lead to stereotyping. Stereotyping can lead to bigotry, racism, and other forms of discrimination. Unfortunately, sometimes there are either (anecdotal or real) facts which support some types of stereotyping, and these can lead to a belief that any stereotype is therefore accurate. For example, if it is commonly seen that certain groups are better at particular physical sports, this reinforces a stereotype that all members of this group have this advantage; it is not difficult to see how people might also tend to believe that members of this group are also possessed of less positive stereotype behavior, such as criminality.
Worse, enforced political correctness (at least in the USA) is often seen as an enforced untruth to support the feelings of groups who are being oppressed or believe they are. Regardless of the underlying basis for trying to change stereotyping behavior and statements, many see it as an attempt to pretend that things are what they are not. A wink and a nudge are given to it, or lip service is paid to it, but underlying beliefs about stereotypes do not change.
Our language makes it all too easy to use the term 'them' to mean a monolithic group, one which is all the same, unlike 'us', which our own experience shows us has great variety within it.
Classifying groups as 'us' and 'them' and then assigning monolithic values to the group 'them' also allows us to simplify our worldview, to make difficult problems less complicated to solve, and permit us to not spend a lot of time pondering over issues which bother us but which we may not otherwise be able to put to rest in our minds. It's the easy answer, and the simple solutions it allows us to come up with gives us satisfaction that difficult problems can be resolved simply.
It is unfortunate that we have these terms. I know, for example, that people who shoot abortion doctors in the name of Christianity are not the same sort of Christians that I am, they may share some basic membership in my groups (white, male, US citizen, Christian, anti-abortion), but they are still not representative of all members of the groups we share membership in. My experience makes this clear to me, but that fact also means I can't come up with a simple solution to the problem of people shooting abortion doctors. I am not a member of the group of people who are from the Middle East, are Muslim, and feel that the US interferes too much in the nations of the Middle East or that Western values are destroying traditional Islamic values in families. When a Muslim man from the Middle East performs an act of terrorism, I have no basis for understanding that he is not representative of the groups he is a member of. Perhaps on an intellectual basis, but not based on perceptions and classification based on the word 'them'.
Please note that this does not forgive or defend bad behavior! In either case, the person is responsible for their own actions and should be held to account for them. In either case, the person may be part of a larger group that *does* perform such actions as a matter of course. The question is whether or not all the member of the groups the person belongs to believe those things. In the case of the former, I know this not to be true because *I* am a member of that group and *I* do not feel that way. In the case of the latter, I have no such assurance.
It's the difference between looking out and looking in. I know what it's like inside my house - I'm in here! I don't know what it's like inside my neighbor's house; I can only make guesses based on what I see from the outside.
Just a couple thoughts on a nice spring morning...