Generalization Versus Stereotypes in Society

In the article “Understanding Generalizations and Stereotypes” Sally Raskoff states that generalization is just a concept to make sense of the world and surroundings. Generalization is also used to describe stereotyping and differentiate sometimes with other objects or creatures. For example, some say that cats are dumber than dogs while others say that dogs are dirtier than cats. But the question that keeps coming into people in “general” is where do we draw the limit? Or is there even a limit? By now most cultures have experienced generalization and stereotypes among themselves and outside of their bubble. Even though generalization is sometimes dangerous and critical for some aspects, it is still part of human anthropology and development to becoming more aware of their surroundings no matter what it was. But rather the opposite for stereotypes since it can harm a community thought over other communities.

Some argue that generalization is just an excuse for being stereotypical and ignorant of others. Sally Raskoff said, “Stereotypes are overgeneralizations; they often involve assuming a person has certain characteristics based on unfounded assumptions..” she also described that judging people based on their sexual orientation or their color and ethnicity is just stereotyping rather than just generalizing based upon outside characteristics and society’s principles. She also discussed how Generalizing is used not only socially but rather more scientifically, because scientists base their knowledge analytically and they seek to be more accurate and precise. Generalizing is often used as a key component for capturing the everyday similarity of a certain group. While Generalizing can be changed over a constant input, a stereotype is closed once it was clarified. Generalizing can be often pursued in a descriptive and flexible manner while stereotyping is judgmental and rigid.

In addition, some characteristics of generalization can be completely the opposite of what overgeneralization is. Eduard Ezeanu said that Generalization is the process of extending the characteristics of a number of elements from a group or class to the entire group. He also said that generalizing is a very intriguing process, but can be often used as a way to separate certain things from its origin and vice-versa. Generalizing is a component of the human brain that can not be ignored or stopped since most of history is based on generalization and assumptions that could be used to manipulate a component without knowing everything about it.

Furthermore, stereotypes generally can be composed into six main points which are: stereotypes do not help people understand their differences, stereotypes leave little or no room for exceptions; stereotypes create categories that often dominate all other features of a person, not allowing for other characteristics to be seen and appreciated; stereotypes do not tend to change, even when proven wrong, which supports the idea that it is not backed by empirical evidence after all; stereotypes are also not formed by said empirical evidence, to begin with, but instead through anecdote or otherwise and, lastly, stereotypes pass judgment.

In conclusion, generalization can be conducted using evidence that is provided to understand a concept more, and even has the flexibility to be changed also based on a strong point that corresponds to the generalization. On the other hand, overgeneralization, which is the complete opposite of what generalization is can be based upon an unclear view that describes a component through one eye rather than finding out whether it is accurate or not. Generalization should not be accepted if it was based around none existent fact or point, but rather should be looked at from each perspective and judged based around the overall view. 

Works Cited

1. Ezeanu, E. (2011). Generalization: A Key Element of Human Thinking. Art of Wellbeing.
2. Raskoff, S. (2017). Understanding Generalizations and Stereotypes. Everyday Sociology Blog.
3. Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory's self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 40-62.
4. Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 366-385.
5. Schein, V. E. (2007). Women in management: Reflections and projections. Women in Management: Current Research Issues, 1-35.
6. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 476-490.
7. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 379-440.
8. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33-47.
9. Vescio, T. K., Snyder, M., & Butz, D. A. (2003). The impact of ethnicity and gender on the evaluation of achievement-related traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(8), 1653-1679.
10. Vorauer, J. D., & Kumhyr, S. M. (2001). Is this about you or me? Self-versus other-directed judgments and feelings in response to intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 476-493.