(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 agree with this definition. :)
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
It’s also the FIXED portion. Everyone has seen people est and enjoy some times of red cherries. Yet, presumably, if you got new data showing drivers do actually pay attention and being a pedestrian was relatively safe you would adjust your beliefs.
A belief based on unbiased data (“being a pedestrian where I live is dangerous and this may be due to a lack of awareness by drivers”) is not the same as an unfounded, fixed belief based on no data, unrepresentative data, or data that does not reflect the root cause.
I actually often see drivers smile and wave at me, disproving that they are unaware, and nevertheless I do not adjust my beliefs in the context of maximizing my road safety as a pedestrian.
I’m with you here, Neptune’s definition seems to overspecify the extract from Oxford they presented.
If we boil stereotyping down to its core components, then it appears to simply be an instance of correlation using subjective and non-complete data: “This individual exerts traits a, b, and c, which means they are highly likely to also exert traits x, y, and z.”
Or: “This individual is operating a car (unique trait/type of person), therefore their visibility and attention capacity are likely reduced or under strain (overgeneralization as driving might come natural to them, and fixed as I might assume that no one is a natural).”
^This is, of course, an oversimplification, as I’m going purely by Neptune’s words and my own understanding, and have not looked up additional sources.
Useful stereotypes can help a person avoid danger.
Unknown mushrooms don’t have to be poisonous but being careless with them can lead to a grisly death. Drivers don’t have to be unaware of me but it takes just one who is to put me in mortal danger if I’m not careful. A man following a lone woman at night where nobody else is around doesn’t have to have ill intent but she’s still better off being prepared for the case that he does.
Does this discriminate against mushrooms, drivers, and men? Yes, but that’s the point. It’s essentially an informal safety guideline and it deliberately overreaches just like real safety guidelines. The 999 times someone doesn’t need that handrail don’t outweigh the one time they do; not in OSHA’s eyes. Because someone might die if the handrail fails that one time.
This whole thing becomes problematic when it gets over-applied. Avoiding canned mushrooms in the supermarket won’t protect me from poisoning. Assuming that all drivers are blind and irresponsible will not improve my behavior on the road. Being afraid of all men in all situations will not make that woman’s life better.
Like always, Paracelsus is right: The dose makes the poison. (And like with poison, some stereotypes are so toxic that any dose of then is bad for you.)
Love this explanation, thank you!
And some of the determinants of what makes valid- versus over-application are knowledge, cognition and time.
I am interested to know if there are other determinants as well. :)
excellent breakdown 🙂