 |
| “Crowded Bunks in the Prison Camp at Buchenwald” (May 6, 1945) New York Times. Wiesel has identified himself as the face in the upper right hand corner. |
On the other hand, much intellectual analysis of human experience relies to some extent on detecting patterns in human behavior that depends on seeing unique individuals as representatives of larger abstractions (“women,” “Oklahomans,” “smokers,” etc.). Under what circumstances is it dangerous to see people as abstractions and under what circumstances is it helpful? (Consider: if Henrietta Lacks’s cells were entirely unique and did not resemble other people’s cells in any way, what use would they be to researchers?)
I think grouping an individual can be harmful when you only see them as part of that group and not as their character when you look at their life or want to know them as a person. If you always think of them as part of a grouping then they lose their individuality. However it is sometimes necessary for one person to be an abstraction. For example our government representatives, if they were just an individual instead of the vast majority of our voices and opinions then how could we have a democracy based government? Everybody has separate lives but is part of a whole when you step back and look. If Henrietta’s cells were unique to only her then all the discoveries the scientists made would only be useful to her body, not most humans. But when you study her more closely, you see there is a whole other individual story behind her life, not just her famous cells.
ReplyDeleteAshley Huhman
I personally think the two should be used together, if that's even possible. In Mr. Weisel's reference, all Jews were lumped together and seen as something less than perfect and therefore unacceptable. But when they branded you Jew or not, it wasn't based on your personal beliefs but your appearance and the physical stereotypes of Jews at the time. This was definitely an act of general grouping and not individual selection. If the doctors and scientists hadn't seen Henrietta's cells as unique their ability to widely aid others wouldn't have been discovered either....
ReplyDeleteThe sad fact is that, as humans, we're wired to label, classify and group things as we try to understand the world around us. Humans are also social creatures--and we have the ability to understand how we look to others, relative to our culture and time period. I learned first as a high schooler (remember cliques, guys?), second as a writer, stereotypes exist for a reason. They're a sort of "identity shorthand", explaining a great deal about a person just with a simple label. To me, this is why they're easily accepted. Stereotypes can also be used to gloss over things that we'd otherwise find difficult or unpleasant to contemplate--like, for example, the humanity of a killer or a torturer. To turn this around, and play devil's advocate a bit, I wonder if Mr. Weisel considered all German soldiers to be evil, after what was done to him. Maybe just anyone in the SS--and/or maybe only for a period of time? For him, that stereotype would be perfectly reasonable and understandable, although it contradicts his quote above.
ReplyDeleteI think it can be beneficial to view people as abstractions if one is looking to be in a relationship. For example, if a woman is hurt by a man, it is typical for them to be afraid of all men for a period of time. However, in order for such a woman to move on with her life, she needs to be able to view men abstractly. Every man has his own personality and not all of them are bad people. A situation where people except stereotypes is during ethnic gatherings such as pow-wows. Native Americans are more than happy to be stereotyped as an "indian" when they are all getting together for a dance or party. In the situation of Henrietta's cells, it was crucial for the scientists to view or group her cells and all cells as "the same". If the scientists thought her cells were unique, then they wouldn't have needed to keep them for research because no one would have had the same make up of DNA as her so her cells would have been useless.
ReplyDeleteThe abstract classification system used by most humans has its pros and cons. The simplest form of this I can think of would be a census. It is completely acceptable for a census report to say that thirty percent of the people living in this town are Native Americans. They are grouped because of their heritage and culture. Where it would be unacceptable to classify these people would be to say that because thirty percent of the town’s population is Native American, thirty percent of the town’s population falls under all the stereotypes of Native Americans. When people groups are classified because of their beliefs, things tend to get messy. Physical and cultural features are okay to group by, but just because they are able to be grouped because of one trait, it doesn't determine other traits.
ReplyDeleteWhat stereotypes about people like you do you find to be inaccurate? What might someone guess about you because of your age, gender, body type, the clothes you wear, the town you're from, the way you speak, that would be inaccurate, in your view? If you were a book, how might your cover mislead someone about the kind of person you are?
ReplyDeleteYou may choose to answer this question referring to a family member or friend of yours who doesn't fit the stereotype.