When a person stereotypes another person, the individual is making generalizations based upon

Max Weber wrote about the importance of verstehen, or understanding, for those investigating social reality. This means that we must understand what life is like for the individual or self before we can truly understand life at more macro levels of society such as groups, organizations, communities, and/or nation-states.

While we tend to teach this concept in relation to research methods, it can also be connected to many different aspects of social research.

How does the idea of a deep understanding of life in society connect to generalizations and stereotypes?

We make generalizations about objects in order to make sense of the world. When we see something, we want to know what it is and how to react to and interact with it. Thus seeing a flat horizontal surface held up by one or more legs, we would generalize that to be a table upon which we could put our stuff, eat a meal, or play a game.

How do we know how to come to these conclusions? By experiences we have had with these objects. These experiences gives us an understanding of what they are and how they are used. The more we have actually seen and used these objects, the more deeply we understand what they are and how they can be used.

We generalize about more than just objects; we generalize about people so that we know how to interact with them. If we see someone in a mail carrier’s clothing, we assume they work for the post office. If we see someone who looks over 80 years old, we assume they are not in the workforce anymore.

When do generalizations move into stereotypes? Stereotypes are overgeneralizations; they often involve assuming a person has certain characteristics based on unfounded assumptions..

We stereotype people based on how they look in terms of sexual orientation, gender, race, and ethnicity. We look at people and may assume they have a certain sexual orientation or that their gender is either man or woman. We may assume they are white, African American, Native American, Asian American, or Latino.

We may be right or we may be wrong.

We also stereotype people based on what we assume about particular categories of identity and what other characteristics are associated with those categories. Some people assume that people who look “homosexual” are sexual predators; that women are nurturing and men are violent; that white people are arrogant; African Americans are loud; Native Americans are drunks; Asian Americans are smart; and that Latinos are lazy.

These are not generalizations, they are stereotypes. They are assumptions based on unfounded ideas about these groups, not identifying particular characteristics of a group of people. They signify a gap or lack in understanding. We typically stereotype those whom we do not understand or about whom we have no knowledge.

As we move through life, if we see one individual who seems to fit the stereotype, it reinforces those ideas, while we tend to ignore others in that same group who do not fit that stereotype, as well as others in different groups that do fit that stereotype. We assume, usually because we don’t know many people like them, that they are all strangers and that they are the “them” to our “us”.

In this society, we don’t really notice people who look “heterosexual” and if we did, we wouldn’t assume that they were a sexual predator. We wouldn’t think anything about seeing women who are behaving in a nurturing way, but if we saw a woman behaving in a non-nurturing way or a man acting in a nurturing way, we might draw particular assumptions about them. If we noticed a white people who appeared to be lazy, we wouldn’t assume this one person represented a characteristic for all white people. We are more likely to define them as tired after having done some huge task or job; we would assume they had a good reason for resting.

These stereotypes can easily lead to prejudice and result in some forms of discrimination. While generalizing helps us navigate our lives, stereotyping puts us in a dangerous place in which societal members are limited from their true potential and face barriers to contributing their talents and assets to the societal mix.

Would a better understanding of people reduce stereotyping and, subsequently, prejudice and discrimination? If so, how would we do that? If not, what would be the benefit of a deep understanding of the lives of individuals in a society?

• We often have general beliefs about groups of people.
• Generalisations are a kind of mental shortcut based on our prior experiences.
• If your generalisation lines up with reality, it can be valid. If it doesn’t reflect reality, it’s invalid.
• Generalisations should be flexible and change as we gather new experiences.
• Stereotypes are different.
• Stereotypes are representations that we inherit from our culture, and they tend to be rigid and used to limit or control specific populations.
• Positive stereotypes are just as bad as negative stereotypes.
• It’s good to try and identify and challenge our own generalisations and stereotypes.

What are stereotypes?

We often have general beliefs about groups of people. For instance:

Can you think of any groups of people that fit these descriptions?

• People from Group A are emotional
• People from Group B are unemotional
• People from Group C only care about money
• People from Group D are all super smart
• People from Group E are all great athletes

If you can think of an answer to any of these, it means you have at least one general view of a group.

Now here’s a question for you: is that view a generalisation or a stereotype? (What’s the difference? Are they bad?)

Generalisations

We all tend to make generalisations from our observations about other people.

For instance, we meet three people from Group A and every one of them is smart. So we start to assume that everyone from Group A is smart, until the day we meet someone for Group A who isn’t.

We generalise all the time without even thinking about it. This is because our brains are basically very efficient/very lazy depending on how you look at it.

We make it through our day by using unconscious rules of thumb called mental heuristics, and one of these heuristics is around representativeness, which means we make assumptions about one thing based on our previous experiences with similar things.

So if you see someone walking through the city in an expensive suit, you’ll assume they’re financially successful—not that they are a broke student who just won the suit in a modelling competition.

Generalisations can be useful, but…

Generalisations can be valid or invalid, depending on how well they reflect reality.

For instance, you might believe that men are generally taller than women. Now that’s not true in all cases, but if you were given a list of randomly selected people who were over 2m tall, and you guessed they were all male, you’d probably be about 80% right. So that’s a valid generalisation.

On the other hand, if you said men are generally more interested in science than women, this is possibly statistically true, but the variation is so tiny that it’s not valid as a generalisation. If you were to be given a list of randomly selected people who were interested in science, and you guessed they were all men, you’d probably only be about 50% right, which is as good as random guessing. That’s an invalid generalisation.

Generalisations are usually based on some amount of evidence, but if the evidence is limited or misleading, then the generalisation is going to be wrong. People often argue about the evidence for each other’s generalisations.

While invalid generalisations just don’t line up with reality, valid generalisations are actually pretty useful—they let us respond appropriately to particular situations we encounter or anticipate the likely needs of people in those groups.

The key is to be open to new input and observations, so we can constantly update our generalisations and make sure they stay valid.

Also, reminding ourselves of the limits of our own generalisations can help us be more sensitive to other people and make the effort to see them for who they really are.

Stereotypes are different, and generally bad

On the surface, stereotypes sound like generalisations. For example, “women like nurturing other people” sounds like a generalisation, but it’s probably a stereotype.

Stereotypes are different in a number of ways:

• A generalisation is based on your own direct evidence or observation. A stereotype is usually something you inherit from the surrounding culture, it’s a pre-established way of describing people.
• A generalisation is flexible; new observations can change our generalisation. Stereotypes tend to be rigid, and they can become boxes that we expect people to fit inside.
• A generalisation is a shortcut to help you navigate your relationship with members of a group. A stereotype is often used to exert power over a group. This is because stereotypes are limiting. They say there is something at the core of everyone in that group that means they can’t be anything other than the stereotype.
• Generalisations are personal; they tend to only affect you and your direct relationships. Stereotypes are fuel for broad social “isms” like racism and sexism.

Positive stereotypes can be just as bad as negative stereotypes

Stereotypes are often negative (e.g. people from Group A are bad drivers) but they can also be positive (e.g. people from Group B are good at maths).

Both positive and negative stereotypes can be equally bad because they operate to constrain people. Negative stereotypes are bad by definition, but positive stereotypes also trap people in expectations to be a particular way which may not be true at all.

How can stereotypes distort the Field Model?

Stereotypes are like any assumption: they can cause you to skip over Stop Ask Listen. That means you don’t see someone as they truly are.

If you look at another person and see them as a stereotype, then you are at risk of assuming all sorts of things that aren’t true in reality: what they think and feel, what they value, what decisions they will entertain, what they will say yes to, what they will say no to.

If you misunderstand another person so fundamentally, how can you make any free and equal decision with them?

How can you compensate for stereotypes?

It’s easy to fall into stereotyping people without realising it because we think we’re making a valid generalisation, and we don’t realise that we’ve actually inherited a stereotype created to deliberately limit a population (whether race, religion or gender).

To compensate for your own stereotypes:

1. Reaffirm your belief that everyone is an individual with their own inner and outer worlds. This is the foundation of respect, the Field Model, and Stop Ask Listen—and it’s at the heart of any challenge to stereotypes.
2. Catch yourself, then ask questions. If you notice yourself believing something about a person based on their membership of a group, stop and ask yourself why you believe it.
3. Expand your world. If you realise you’ve inherited a stereotype, you might be able to challenge it by having an open conversation with a person from that group. This will at least expand your perspective by adding to your inner and outer world.  

If you feel like you are being stereotyped, then the response is different.

• Assess the social context. Is this just one person among many, or is it a whole group? If it’s just a couple of people, are they close to you?
• If it’s an isolated individual stereotyping you, then you might be able to call them out and push back. In a close relationship, you’d ideally feel safe enough to say something to your partner.
• If it’s the social majority, you may want to be more cautious and work out if you have any backup if you are going to push back on this group. If you at least have the backing of friends, allies and institutions, it’s easier to stand up to a larger group.

And if you see other people applying stereotypes, you have the option to step in and make a case for a more realistic and supportive way of looking at the world, and the people in it.