Is "Categorizing" Wrong?

A valid question but we have to ensure that when we are discussing the actions or comments of an individual and we identify him as a member of a "group" that his actions/comments are held by the majority of the group.

Is "Categorizing" Wrong?

One of the assertions that one commonly hears in discussions of race relations is that categorizing people is wrong. Apparently we should be blind to any group to which a person may belong.

This has an element of truth in it but is a vast oversimplification. The fact is that every word in our language stands for a category of some sort. When we talk about (for instance) dogs, we are using a category. Individual dogs may be small or large, black, white or brindle and savage or tame but we still need to talk about dogs if we are to discuss them. To forbid categorizing would be to forbid language.

And how could we do without the word "blue"? Yet it turns out that "blue" is a rather broad category. As any woman will tell you, there are many shades of blue -- Ming blue, Teal blue, Electric blue, Navy blue, Sky blue etc.

And the first step in any science is of course taxonomy -- which is just a fancy word for categorizing. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with categorizing.

What is true however, is that to describe any one individual adequately, we need to use many categories. To make useful descriptions, we often need to say "big old dog" rather than just "dog", for instance.

Note however, that the more complex description requires more knowledge. And the more knowledge we have about any given individual the better. Most dogs like to live in the house with their owners, for instance, but there are some dogs that are "outside" dogs and we might treat a dog wrongly if we assumed that it was an "inside" dog when it was really an "outside" dog.

But what if we are given a dog to mind that we have never met before? How do we treat it? We would seldom go wrong if we initially treated it as an "inside" dog so we would probably assume that and act accordingly. Is that wrong? Not at all. What WOULD be wrong is if we treated it as an "inside" dog once we had found that it preferred the outside.

So having in our minds and using generalizations and categories is perfectly right, proper and useful, even if it is not the end of the story. Generalizations -- such as "most dogs prefer to live close to their owners" -- are useful rather than wrong.

And the generalization: "blacks are very crime-prone so it is safest to keep away from them" is also a matter of fact and can be useful. And "white flight" shows that most Americans act on exactly that generalization. But once we have got to know an individual black person and found him peacable, it would be foolish to continue with avoidance behaviour towards him. So generalizations are proper and useful but are only a preliminary step in any reasonable interaction.

I discuss in more detail the use of generalizations and categories here, here and here.

And even Leftists understand that you need to use categories to express yourself. To take just one of zillions of possible examples, the "anti-Fascist" demonstrators against the "BNP ballerina" in London chanted: “We are Muslim, black and Jew, there are many more of us than you”. So categories like "blacks" and "Jews" are fine!

posted by jonjayray at 12:22 AM