I want to return to an interesting question that Matthew asked in his Precis for Bartkey/McIntosh. He asked, "Bartky claims that stereotyping leads to those holding the stereotypes to negate or even ignore the opinions and rights of those stereotyped. Is it fair for her to assume that all stereotypes are negative, and that everyone, if they hold them, acts upon them in such a way."
I think this is an important question, considering that much of the public humor in our culture, i.e. Tosh.O, Saturday Night Live, Larry the Cable Guy, Chappelle's show, are, at the core, often based on stereotypes. Even on MadTV, there was a recurring character named Ms. Swan, for example, who was a Chinese woman speaking broken English and working at a nail salon. So, I think that even though we often pretend to not hold or believe in stereotypes, we often laugh in agreement with them and use them on a daily basis. Even the world of advertising, functions largely on stereotypes. Women are often commodified and sold (but only certain kinds of women) under the guise of selling cars, axe cologne, or bud light.
In response to Matthew's question, I would assert that there is no such thing as a positive stereotype, because the very act of stereotyping (categorizing based on perceived characteristics) is dehumanizing and oppressive. It reminds me a lot of the Lugones essay and the idea of not being able to define yourself in certain worlds because via stereotypes, and other racist, and sexist, and heterosexist constructions, you’ve already been defined before you even get there. I think the process of classifying and categorizing people (putting them into boxes based on facets of prescribed identity) allows us to interact with people in a lazy way. Rather than actually getting to know people as humans and individuals, we can depend on all of our stereotypes to tell us who the person is, without asking. In that sense, stereotypes are a mechanism, or a tool for othering, romanticizing, and exoticizing whether they appear to be positive or not.
I’m interested to hear what people think of this. Would you answer Matthew’s question differently? What do you think about the relationship between ‘isms’ (racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, age-ism) and humor? And what about the defense that people always offer: Well, there’s always a little truth in every stereotype, right?
I agree that we definitely live in a society that relies on stereotypes as a way to categorize and sometimes choose who we make an effort to get to know better. However, I think one of the main faults of stereotypes is the justification it provides for the people who indulge in them. Unfortunately, someone who feels they have already been set in a category, even if they feel they have wrongly been placed there, may not attempt to dispel the preconceptions and instead adopt an attitude of “what’s the point in trying to act differently?” or “I might as well do what they already expect.”
ReplyDeleteYes, many people laugh at some stereotypes and have a lighthearted approach to certain ones. At times, even the people the stereotype is being aimed at laugh it off. But are they really laughing? People put so much emphasis on how important first impressions are mostly because in many cases it is very difficult for someone to alter their snap judgments. Whether it is a question of ego or being stubborn, I would say it is very hard to convince somebody that their assumptions were wrong.
So what role do stereotypes play? What’s the point in working so hard to make a good first impression when the pre-existent stereotypes are leading the way? I think that the danger with stereotypes is that even if someone takes the time to challenge them, at the end of the day, they still exist and people wait for the first sign of a slip up to put a person right back into the category they associated you with. No matter what one has done to prove them wrong, they still exist, which means that it is a constant struggle to remove yourself from their definition.
I think people need to differentiate between stereotyping and judging differences. Stereotyping is an oversimplified and usually negative view of a person based on gender, sex, ethnicity etc. In that way, stereotyping is always bad. On the other hand, judging people simply by categorizing them based on things (ex: that person is white with brown hair) is very different than stereotyping (ex: that white woman looks middle class, she probably has a couple kids, is married etc).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Esha as well. Society utilizes stereotypes in order to make initial judgements easier. If a person has a pre-existing stereotype, when the stereotyped person does something contrary, it is surprising.
It will be a long time before things like race and gender will become a differentiation instead of a stereotyped category.
I love your phrasing that stereotypes "allow us to interact with people in a lazy way." I think the lazy part of it is being unwilling to see multiple dimensions of someone, or really taking the chance to "be yourself" with others. And though I think that it quite frankly sucks, of course we can find a little truth in every stereotype, because stereotypes have covered a lot of traits that people have. So stereotypes can be easy to prove as truth, but only if we're being lazy.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that stereotypes are so marketable (as humor, or in advertising) because they are recognizable, like a social language. I would even use the word lazy again. It's lazy humor, but it sells.
In the end, I don't think we can rely on stereotypes to genuinely know someone because a stereotype chooses broad characteristics to describe something complex: humans. I would conclude with you that positive stereotypes do not exist because stereotyping itself is not a positive practice.
I would agree with the idea that stereotypes cannot be positive. There are plenty of stereotypes for certain races, sexes, classes, etc. that paint that group of people in a positive light, but the presence of stereotypes is generally negative. The problem is that if these stereotypes are taken as reality they can ultimately have an exclusionary or dehumanizing effect.
ReplyDeleteIf I, as a woman, do not uphold the stereotypes commonly associated with women, whether positive or negative, my status as a woman is called into question. The same would go for any aspect of my identity. Because of this, I would agree that the act of stereotyping is innately oppressive, and does have negative effects.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that our society will turn away from stereotyping any time soon because it works. It does help to sell products and to further perpetuate ideas of what one should look like if (s)he identifies with a given group. Stereotyping is just another way for humans to keep each other where we "belong."
I also agree that stereotyping is inherently damaging to every person, but your question about stereotyping and humor is really interesting. On the one hand, the use of stereotypes in the context of MadTV or similar shows can be a terrible indulgence that comes at the expense of the group being stereotyped. I cannot see a benefit to a caricature of a Chinese woman that only reinforces stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteOn the other, I think that some shows, 30 Rock and SNL, for example, try to use stereotypes to make us aware of their ridiculousness. I love 30 Rock, and my first thought when you asked the question about humor and stereotype was Tracy Jordan, played by Tracy Morgan, on 30 Rock. He is a raging stereotype in many ways, and the debate over whether or not 30 Rock is racist or is using stereotypes to call stereotypes into question is ongoing. Here's an article from a few years ago about the issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeeshan-aleem/is-em30-rockem-the-most-r_b_637300.html
The final paragraph is the most interesting, and I'm not sure where to stand on the issue of stereotypes in humor in this context:
The writers of 30 Rock are aware that they have diligently stuffed scores of stereotypes and racially loaded qualities into one character. It's likely that their response to the claims of this essay, if they took them seriously, would be that the character is entirely ironic, and that it is foolish and inherently unprogressive to look to a character as representation of an ethnic community. (There is also the argument that Tracy Jordan is an extension of Tracy Morgan, which is unpersuasive for many reasons.*) But attempting to play with stereotypes, ironically or not, is playing with fire. And playing haphazardly with the raging flame under the great American melting pot means you're likely to get scorched.