Generalization and stereotypes

The other day I posted a news about Sitar Maestro Ravi Shankar and Annapurna Devi on my Facebook page. A newspaper reported Ravi Shankar was uncomfortable with his wife's superior talent and that lead to the wife not playing publicly anymore. This was confirmed by the wife. I used that example to highlight a deep seated problem of masculinity which is to remain superior in a marital relationship. I thought I was being cautious while putting up the post as I lamented saying, "Why men, in general" instead of "Why all men...". It seemed later, I was not cautious enough. It caused some hurt around. Not so much with the male readers, at least not to the extent that they felt the need to defend their creed. In one response/reaction I was told, I was generalizing. I, on the other hand thought, I was pretty conscious, most of the time to avoid unnecessary generalization, based on isolated facts. In this case, I defended generalization. I soon however, remembered,  I get regularly upset with generalization. I  am now in a phase where I am consciously reducing my tendency to say, "I am different" (as I really am not) and trying a more politically correct "not all women behave like that" or "not all feminists think like that" or "not all NGO workers involved in corruption". It does not hide the fact well enough that I, myself get pretty hassled with generalization. (And worse is that I have tendencies to want to establish myself as a different from most of the womankind! One thing that I am working on, but that I will take up some other day.) It was only the other day that someone started testing me further on this and said, "As I have seen Mamata, Jayalalitha and Mayawati all behaving in a high handed manner can I deduce all women politicians are high handed?" I almost jumped to counter by saying that its too small a sample size and not statistically relevant. I could not, as all laughed as they could prove the point that I was averse to generalization. I laughed with them to. Part embarrassed. Part defeated. But, as I think now was that generalization? Or are we playing to the popular notions that are passed as "common sense" truths?

During these conversations, I also learnt about inductive and deductive reasoning. I was told that I apparently used inductive reasoning in my Facebook post as I used one case to deduce a large point. I did not! Ravi Shankar was the case in point. Not the "only" case. But who listened to me! :( Here I go ranting again! 

Now back to the question of generalization. When the point about generalization was raised and this time I was the one who used generalization, I decided to read up. I wanted to understand if generalization is as bad as it feels. Is it generalization that is bad? Or is it a particular type of generalization? I then looked up some definitions. And here is what they say. "All statements of fact or truth require generalization." (Surprise! Surprise! for me as well!) "A generalization is a statement based on a finite set of observations and experiences and yet which claims to hold true for the larger set, even for those cases that have not been seen or experienced. All generalizations, then, can be said to be theoretical. They offer a theory about how things are in general." 

For example, the statement "All trees have leaves" is a useful generalization, though no one person has ever been able to validate it by inspecting every tree on earth or every tree that has ever existed, and no one knows what trees will be like in the future. And of course most trees do not have leaves at various times of the year, and some trees are evergreens with needles instead of leaves. 

Here is the twist, though. Generalization originates in a rational effort to categorize, not in an irrational effort to oppress. This sentence might be a cue to understand generalization, better. The function of the generalization is to allow people to work better with trees, not to harm trees. The effect of the generalization, however, is to increase people's ability to manipulate nature to human ends, and so like all acts of knowledge this one affects the power balance between the one who knows and thing known.

Another and a more relevant example for our case. I read in the UNFPA report on Sex Ratio and the Gender Biased Sex Selection, "the very creation of the Census for the counting of the Indian population by the colonial state was fueled not just by Malthusian discourses of population or the need to fix caste and community boundaries, but by the wish to demonstrate its civilizing mission to combat ‘violence against women’ through addressing female infanticide via the counting of men and women, boys and girls (See Bhatnagar et al 2005 cited in Purewal 2010: 12). Certainly we see that, in 1911 and 1921, the Census divided north Indian castes into two groups based on the numbers of males and females – according to the figures put out, overall sex ratio figures were below 800 girls/women for 1000 men/boys among several Rajput castes, Jats, Ahirs and Gujjars in the north and north-west. Castes could thus be categorized according to how they treated their women, and marked as deviant accordingly (See Sen 2002; Malhotra 2002)." Entire castes marked as deviant! Generalization is thus widely used in natural as well as social sciences. In this case it has later, decades later actually, helped us to concentrate our efforts to curb the practice of sex selective elimination of female fetus. Without these generalization it would have been difficult to explain the dwindling sex ratio in the population with Indian origin in countries as far as Canada and United Kingdom.

Generalization would thus be important for scientific deductions. After reading quite a bit, I realized that we all would have to live with generalization and look for the scientific spirit behind it. I also realized, what all of us get disturbed about is a particular kind of generalization, a subset of generalization which, is called stereotypes. Many a times, we want to point out stereotypes when we cry "generalization!". Lets understand stereotypes now:

1. Stereotypes originate within and are caused by a history of socio-political struggle between unequal groups within a region, nation or society.

2. Stereotypes present generalizations which function to create or sustain inequalities of value, power, and/or wealth among socially constructed groups (by race, age, sex, class, religion etc.).

3. Stereotypes circulate repeatedly and systematically in a culture so that they are accepted as "common sense" truths by many people in the culture, even those who are the object of the stereotype.

4. Stereotypes appeal to the prejudices of the audience, exploiting these by attaching them to emotions of pleasure or hatred that are reinforced often by casting stereotypes within frameworks of entertainment.

The third one is my favorite. And if one of you wanted to call me out on my sense of humor, be careful! Read number 4, again. :) Therefore, "friends, Romans and country(wo)men", no respite here. I would keep "generalizing" to highlight important issues, especially related to gender. All the exceptions you present would be dutifully acknowledged. I love exceptions. They keep my hope alive. In the meanwhile, I would also keep talking against stereotyping. Not ending it here.

P.S.: I am thankful everyday for so many knowledgeable friends around me who compel me to read more, know more, direct me towards the right book, share the latest information and keep me updated. I am thankful I can turn to a friend, before I turn towards a library.