We may not like them, but they are necessary and it seems that we cannot get away from labels
and putting others in neatly defined boxes. We assign identity based on what is familiar to
us and this can be influenced by factors such as upbringing, social status, or
the media. We have an instinctive need
to classify and categorized people. This is why, for instance, when meeting
people it is almost immediately important to determine the gender of others. If gender is even a bit ambiguous, then we
become uncomfortable.
Additionally, we attempt to put people into
categories in an attempt to understand them, but this can become
dangerous. Categorizing people devalues them,
and in fact, can lead to misunderstanding. I do think, however, that to a
certain degree we need a social identity…this is how we make sense of the world
around us and social as we know it would not be functional without it.
The author describes identity as a process,
but it is also a social construction. “As ‘being’ or ‘becoming. One’s social identity-indeed,
one’s social identities, for who we are is always singular and plural-is never
a final or settle matter.” (3) Our Identity is fluid and can change with who
others perceive us, but with how we perceive ourselves. For instance, racial and
identity becomes assumptive in different social situations, even when we may or
may not identify with the categories that we are placed in.
Also, even while individuals are identified
based on differences, people may experience identities differently, even if
they are placed in the same category. For
example, a man can experience his “manhood” in a differently way than the next
man and the idea of what it means to be a man may not match up with what is
considered hegemonic.
Jenkins identifies two types of identity, collective and
selfhood. Collective identity is similarity among many people; examples include
gender, ethnicity, and kinship (81). The author argues for the existence of two
types of collective identity, one in which individuals knowingly identify as a member
of a collective identity, and another in which individuals are recognized by
others as members of a collective identity.
This gives rise to negative (and often
times false) identification of people. Generalized stereotyping and racial
profiling are examples. When people are classified into racial, or other
various categories, this takes away from individual uniqueness because these
people are seen as being one in the same. This can be of particular concern in
locations, such as The United States, where there is an emphasis on
individualism. Additionally, the author notes other dangers of categorization. “Given
socially defined categories and people being distributed among them, inequality
is generated and perpetuated by two mechanisms: exploitations and opportunity hording
(6)
In short, categorization confines people to a
certain fixed image. People are then put into groups which are established by
the majority, that they may or may not belong. This is incredibly limiting, but
also a very necessary part of our society.
As a society I believe that we thrive on categorization. It is true that it creates some problems such as Jessica has mentioned, (stereotyping, racial profiling, etc...) but there are many things that we as humans rely on this categorization. One less serious way rely on this system is making friends. Imagine you go to a new school and do not know anyone. The first thing you are most likely going to do is try to cling to the people that "look" like you would share the same interests as them. This is just based on profiling.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of us relying on the categorization is obtaining a job or getting into a college. Many kids out of high school put on their application that they were a part of NHS or some other type of group that they contributed throughout secondary schooling. Employers or administrative offices will expect that since you were part of this group or "category" that you are respectable and give the same respect to your peers. Although it is an earned categorization as Massey explained in the first few pages of the reading, it is still a categorization that people make and it does help us throughout life.
I agree with your note that we tend to flock to those who "look" like us, or share similar interests. This becomes evident, for example, when patients prefer physicians of their same race. (1 in 5 African Americans and 1 in 3 Hispanics prefer a doctor of the ethnicity (Chen, F.M. Annals of Family Medicine, March/April 2005; vol 3: pp 138-143.)) This seems almost inherent and innate, but also something that we are conditioned to carry on.
ReplyDeleteBut, I do think however that when we give these labels and define identity, we make assumptive judgement about people. What about people who are given an identity in which they do not define themselves? Going off of your example, when self-labeling yourself into categories that are associated with respect, we essentially make guesses about what that person is like based on what we know, previous experiences, our own biases, etc. Additionally, which categories and discourse that are synonymous with respect (or even any identity for that matter) varies from culture to culture.
Something that I found interesting: according to a study conducted by The National Bureau of Economic Research,"job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback." This type of stereotyping illustrates the danger of assigning identity to others.
I very much agree with a lot of the statements that you mentioned within your post. I think Jenkins also raised a lot of good ideas and perceptions about how people tend to be categorized automatically based on what the eyes can see. I also agree with the statement that certain categories such as race, class, and gender are socially constructed variables that people are raised and conditioned to believe these traits and stereotypes are indeed true. It will always be a challenging task to fight against the categories and stereotypes in which an individual is unwillingly placed based upon their appearance and or mental characteristics.
ReplyDeleteHowever if these socially constructed ideals and assumptions were challenged more often, and people were more educated on certain false accusations placed upon certain types of people I feel like there could be a way to break out of them, and re-create the way we use generic things to make strong judgments of others. Also if more people were aware of the privileges they encompass due to their socio-economic status, race..etc and instead of using these privileges to their advantage challenge them to their ability to discover how equal things really are within the specific settings in which they are placed in society could help even the playing field for others who aren't as fortunate.
Jessica the first thing that came to my mind when reading your opening statement, was that was exactly what my Women's studies professor said. People get very uncomfortable when they cannot classify people into genders. At such a young age we are taught to split into boys and girls for gym class, as opposed to being split into, say, right and left handed groups. It just seems silly but as a culture we are raised to think that is normal.
ReplyDeleteJessica I also found your fact about the study conducted about resumes disturbing. Similarly, in a study conducted by Yale, 2 identical resumes with female and male applicant names attached. Males compared to females were rated as having higher competence, mentoring, and higher ability in every category. The fact that this gender bias is so prevalent in today's society, among all other biases is unbelievable.
Something Jenkins wrote in his literature about social identity I believe is very accurate, "class in itself and class for itself". It is true, that the example he gave about groups such as the working class because of their similar situation, have similar interests. This really rang true to me and made me think of my social identity personally, and what Jenkins also said earlier about society not existing without everyone having their own social identity, and with that similarities.
Jessica, I agree with your statement “categorizing people devalues them, and in fact, can lead to misunderstanding”. Categorizing people usually leads to devaluing them in the way society looks at them. For example, when you see an African American in a lower class neighborhood, a lot of people would assume that they aren’t as bright as other kids and are usually up to no good. These African American kids are more than capable of being above average in the classroom if we didn’t just assume they weren’t bright and treat all of them like they don’t even want to learn.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when you say “categorization confines people to a certain fixed image and then put into groups which they may or may not belong in”, I thought it was on point. However, I did get confused on it being a necessary part of our society. So, I looked back in the readings and found this quote in Chapter 9, “ More generally, categorization is a routine and necessary contribution to how we make sense of, and impute predictability to, a complex social world about which our knowledge is always partial. The ability to identify unfamiliar individuals with reference to known social categories allows us at least the illusion that we know what to expect of them.” This helped make more sense, but I don’t agree with it being a necessary part of our society. I feel like we subconsciously, and consciously at times, feel the need to categorize people to pretend that we know something about them that may or may not be true, but it gives us some idea as to who the person is. This gives us comfort because we aren’t completely “in the dark”.
Social Identity is the understanding of who we are, and also other people's understanding of themselves. Jenkins believed that this social identity is achieved through socialization within social groups. In today’s society most people aim to try and fit in and find their social group, whatever that may be. this is sometime difficult because we live in a society that finds no wrong in placing the people that composes that society into categories. I think the main purpose of these social categories is to make it easier to identify people. But just like Jessica mentions this " devalues them….and lead to misunderstandings." Placing labels on people living in the society is really harmful at times. This causes harm because it make it easier for people to judge and have premeditated judgment about that person. It sometimes makes that person ashamed of who they are because of the negative imagery that society associates with that particular category of people. And as we all know this crates conflict among the society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jessica that stereotype of one race decreases individual uniqueness assuming people remain the same characteristic. It also puts invisible pressure and restrict personal development. For example, people think Asians are good at Maths, which turn out to be unnecessarily. It is true that categorization helps us identify ourselves into certain groups, find people more like us and make friends. However, we tend to be limited in the circle we belong. We tend to be stuck in our comfort zone and reluctant to get out of it. What's more, dividing people into different categories generates inequality between them. Different races, gender, class can be treated very differently.People will tell you they went to see a "woman doctor", or they will say they wen to see the "doctor". People will tell you they have a "gay colleague", or they'll tell you about a " colleague". ( Michael S. Kimmel and Abby L. Ferber,2010) , In short, categorization lets us know who we are and where we belong, but sometimes we need learn to think in the way out of fixed categories.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I completely and utterly disagree with the idea of categorization of an individual to gain an understanding of them before meeting them. I understand that members of our society do it all the time, but I feel that it is unnecessary and the detriments caused by labels outweigh the benefits. As Jessica mentioned, "categorizing people devalues them". This statement should be a red flag to alert others that this process should not be acceptable in society. If you would watch this video:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/virginia-parents-walmart-biracial-daughters_n_3313143.html
you will learn that a Virginia father was accused of kidnapping his own daughters from a local Walmart because, "they didn't fit". Let me help you understand the gravity of this situation, this man a loving father and husband who already faces society's scrutiny for being in an interracial relationship, brought his kids into the public's eye and was categorized as a kidnapper because his skin color was not the same as his childrens'. His children were categorized as 'African American' or 'Black' and he was seen as 'Caucasian' and therefore, not in accordance with the children, even though he could also be seen as a man of childbearing age who is likely to be a father. Calling the police on a man that committed no crime is not a characteristic of a functional society.
Some of you agreed earlier that categorization is crucial to making friends and that people flock to what they are familiar in the sense of outward appearance or race. I also do not agree with this statement and I will use myself as an example. I am a multiracial female and my outward appearance is one of African American descent. In situations where I moved from one location to the next and had to make new friends, many of these new acquaintances did not have a darker pigment to their skin, nor did they have curly hair. It was impossible for me to look similar to the people I associated with (at least the people outside my immediate family), yet I made friends with ease and these friends were not limited to one racial category. I don't think race influences who a person is comfortable being friends with and I don't think that categorization based on race acquaints people with unfamiliar circumstances.