(Example at the end)
Usually we discuss stereotypes in terms of how they are harmful—which is good because it’s super important to recognize and confront the stereotypes that perpetuate systems of oppression and hurt. That doesn’t mean all of them are harmful, though. Some are neutral and and some are a net positive. If you can think of neutral ones that’s fine but I’m especially interested in the constructive and beneficial ones. Hopefully I’m explaining this well enough but if it becomes clear I didn’t I’ll delete this post.
Example: I usually encourage people, especially kids and pedestrians, to assume that drivers can’t see you. While it’s not necessarily true even a majority of the time, it’s nevertheless a constructive stereotype to hold in terms of road safety.
I think in unsafe scenes it can be dangerous to try and argue against your gut instincts by assuming you’re being stereotypical. This message is vital for women and other targeted groups, but can apply to anyone really.
If you’re out at night, or in a club/bar/party, or out with strangers, or are without your phone/keys, ect; then you need to trust any sense of unsafety and be on high alert. If it’s a false alarm due to a stereotype then you can interrogate your biases later. If someone gives you the creeps, you need to maneuver into a safe position before giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Our instincts are really good at detecting if something’s off or dangerous, but really bad at communicating that to us consciously. So always go to a friend, or public location, or wait for another day, ect; before turning your back on someone with red flags, even if it’s a stereotype.
Woo the first real answer that just doesn’t argue with my semantics, and also really well written!
Yes, and I think the context, as you emphasize, is so key here. In situations that are vulnerable to the point of being time sensitive, interrogating one’s biases is absolutely valid to do later (or even better, before).
I am noticing a pattern in (what I consider to be) the real answers in that they mostly apply in situations where cognition is limited in some sense. Children have limited cognition so we tell them “stranger danger” and “cars can’t see you.” But, as we know from your example, cognition can also be limited by time which means that gut instincts and stereotypes often apply in dangerous situations as well.
Thanks for your comment!
I can say being a trans woman confronts you with this dilemma head on. While I was boymode I was largely ignored and didn’t think much about safety, but after transitioning I began to understand why my sister always had an array of self defense keychains.
Since it was a sudden shift for me I’ve ask myself how to avoid dangerous people, and apart from self defense methods the only real answer I’ve come to is recognize the signs and trust your gut feelings.
Sadly many people are conditioned to always be nice and accommodating to please everyone. Everybody needs to set strict boundaries and know how to leave unapologetically when they’re breached. You never owe someone your unconditional trust.
I don’t think a stereotype can ever really be constructive, even if “positive” since it limits the space for people that don’t fit it.
A clear example of this would be that Asian people are good at Maths. Not true, and does a lot of harm to the many Asians who are not exceptionally good at Maths. (For instance that Asian University candidates are often penalised for only having average Maths grades, or just the bullying and social pressure of feeling you’re not living up to a birthright.)
Asian people are good at Maths
I would argue that this is not a positive stereotype, based on your own arguments and the fact that it stereotypes ability based on genetics. My own? “Sikhs are awesome people”. They do a lot of community outreach and help/feed absolutely anybody. That’s an example of a cultural stereotype that’s entirely based on the documented positive things they do as part of their identity, not how their blood relates to their ancestors. I mean, what’s the counter-point, “some Sikhs are assholes?” Maybe, but that applies to everyone…
The Asian/math example is often called ‘positive,’ yes, but I would never call it constructive. There’s a reason I chose the wording of my post. Same goes for Latine/x people and “hard work”—that’s ‘positive’ but in no way constructive (and in fact is hateful and detrimental) and so outside of my question altogether.
I am encouraging people to think of stereotypes that are both “positive” and constructive. I often find they apply to children. Like “mushrooms you find on the ground are poisonous,” or “all bears want to eat you.” But… people aren’t taking to my description I guess.
I think it’s that we don’t really call them stereotypes when they’re not applied to people.
At that point it’s just a hueristic.
Valid I suppose. Oxford Learner’s does allow for it to apply for non-people “things” though; I just think the word and its use has shifted so far (due to progress in the field of confronting and attacking negative stereotypes) that that element has almost been redefined out of existence in the minds of most people.
I watch a youtube channel where a male asian streamer grew up being a semi-notable streamer in his community of skyrim mods. Some of which are a bit adult in nature.
In real life, he’s Chinese. And through that streaming “career” he met, and has been dating a korean woman. That all happened 6-7 years ago.
Since that time, they spend all day, everyday recording and editing youtube videos where they react to various reddits. Some are cute, like /r/aww, and some are just basically adult content that they have to censor for youtube, but show on patreon.
If you just watch one video, you’ll just see a video with clickbait thumbnails/titles, and 30 minutes of random content. Usually with an ad in the first 2 minutes.
However, if you watch over the coarse of a month, or a year, you begin to pick up on their personalities. First off, their reactions are either fake, or they have bad memories. Either one is plausible. I’ve seen them react to a video, and a year later the same content video gets reposted on reddit. They then react to it again. Completely unaware they already did this one.
You also pick up on the fact ghat Henry is completely unable to identify animals. And at this point I think he leans into the joke. There was a possum on screen, and he says “Look at that racoon!!!”
I mean it started off with him getting obscure animals confused, but now he’s at the point where he needs one of those toys where you pull the string, the spinner spins, and then “The cow says, MOOOOOOO”. Otherwise he might see the cow, and call it a rooster.
The other thing you notice is his girlfriend Geanie is REALLY bad at basic math. Whenever they have to do basic math, Henry has low self esteme, and assumes Geanie will smarter than him. Only for her to give an answer so dumb that her own boyfriend openly laughs in her face, as she sinks into a blanket.
Essentially, they’re both really talented at creating content. Henry is really good at manipulating the google/youtube algorithm. He’s also really good at managing a small team of editors, streamers, and content production. Decent at cooking.
But ask him to do basic tasks away from a computer? He’s lost. He has no idea how to tie a tie. Geanie has no idea how to be social to the point she relies on Henry to do all her public talking. Henry even fell for the “blinker fluid” gag.
But these aren’t featured parts of their streams. Its just things you pick up on watching over time. They’re great at streaming on twitch. They’re great at youtube content creation. They suck at living.
From Oxford:
a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
Is a driver a type of person? Maybe. I think it’s generally prudent to be cautious as a pedestrian, regardless of the rationalization or mnemonic. I don’t think assuming drivers don’t see pedestrians is a stereotype. Maybe it is.
Fixed and oversimplified seems to be doing a lot of work here. “Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”. That’s an oversimplified idea.
“Asians are good at math”. An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.
a woman driver probably doesn’t see pedestrians
A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.
Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
I agree with this definition. :)
Is a driver a type of person?
Why wouldn’t they be? Also note the or thing at the end there. A driver can refer to both human drivers and autonomous vehicles. But either way, every driver in history has been a person or thing.
“Asians are good at math”. An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.
Positive, yes. Constructive, as I ask in my post, no. There is a reason I worded the question the way I did. Positive stereotypes might seem flattering, but they place undue pressure and expectations on individuals, which can be harmful. This isn’t a counterexample so much as an example that is not valid, and glad to see we agree here.
“a woman driver probably doesn’t see pedestrians”—A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.
So, we have to weigh the pros and cons. While such a stereotype might encourage cautiousness around women drivers, the perpetuation of patriarchal values that result in violence and exclusion against women is far more harmful. Therefore, applying gender to road safety is not constructive because the negative impacts significantly outweigh any potential benefits.
Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?
A mean way to end this, come on man. :( Let’s remember to follow community rule 1: “be nice and have fun.”
Sorry, I don’t think “driver” is a “type” of person for this purpose.
Maybe if you decided drivers are foolishly for being drivers and therefore in a different arena, say gambling, can easily be buffed against. “Drivers are risk takers and therefore it makes sense to bluff against them in poker”. That’s a stereotype.
To say drivers, while they are driving, don’t look cautiously enough, or whatever, you are simply making a statement about drivers. Not about drivers in a different context. Not about a type of person who in the situation is a driver… I don’t think it’s a stereotype. You’d either have to be unjustly discriminating against a type of driver or judging drivers in a context outside of driving.
“Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”.
The subject of the stereotype (red berries) even in your own example is still kept within its normal context (consumption). I will be keeping my own original understanding of “stereotype” for this reason. :)
I don’t like your example. You aren’t telling your kids that drivers have bad eyes, or are blind, or are bad at situational awareness, you’re telling your kids to assume that they’re in the driver’s blind spot. That’s not a stereotype.
If you were telling your kids that they should be more cautious around women drivers because they’re bad at driving, that would be a stereotype (but not a constructive one).
Sounds like your definition of stereotype innately excludes instances not involving demographics, such as gender or disability. While I think it’s valid to have this definition, it isn’t universal and isn’t the definition that I am applying my question to so there isn’t anything I can glean from this. Thank you for your response.
I don’t think a stereotype can ever be constructive because it will always involve the need to be restrictive and limiting in order to be a stereotype.
I guess we need to question who benefits from the constructive stereotype.
“drivers can’t see you” is constrictive for pedestrians, and also drivers, but it’s not constrictive to the graffiti tagger who is trying to go unseen by passing cars (not that a tagger is being constructive in the first place)
The statement “a stereotype can never be constructive because it will always involve the need to be restrictive and limiting in order to be a stereotype” suggests that stereotypes inherently confine individuals to a set of predetermined traits, limiting their full and diverse expression.
However, stereotypes can be context-dependent and their restrictiveness can vary. For instance, in some contexts, certain conservatives might falsely believe that exposure to trans identities manipulates people into becoming trans, which is a restrictive stereotype. Yet, in other contexts, these same individuals may engage with trans identities through media consumption (fetishization; pornography), which contradicts the initial stereotype.
This example demonstrates that stereotypes can shift and are not universally restrictive. The fluidity of stereotypes based on context suggests that while they often limit and confine, their impact can vary, revealing a more complex and sometimes contradictory nature.
As far as the car example, of course the graffiti tagger is no longer going to hold the same stereotype true when they cease pedestrian activities—because the context has changed.
