Back in the day, I followed a blog by a guy who was as in seminary planning to become ordained PCUSA. This was back when I had at least a minimal investment in the future of that denomination. Anyway, this guy had a buddy who commented a lot, these guys were like an old married couple. Their comments and opinions were virtually identical and they literally could finish each other’s sentences. One day I made the mistake of treating them as if they both believed the same thing about some topic. One of the few times they didn’t share virtually identical beliefs. Well, they both got really offended, and I apologized for my faux pas. What I learned from this was that it is usually a mistake to assume that people who belong to the “same group”, or who share some beliefs, automatically share all/most beliefs. From them on I realized that I needed to take the time to differentiate between what individual people say and believe, without assuming certain beliefs based on affiliation.
Why this is relevant is that I’ve recently noticed a trend of people making negative assumptions about individuals and their beliefs, based on perceived associations with a particular “group”. When I see this sort of thing, it reminds me of how intellectually lazy people can be (as was I back then), and how desperate some people are to cast negative aspersions on individuals based on assumptions based on other individuals. It’s simply cheap, lazy, and a poor attempt to establish some sort of personal superiority.
I try to avoid this, and I’m sure I probably fail occasionally. But I recognize the temptation and I try. When I see others do this, I usually ignore what they’ve said and chalk it up to laziness or stupidity.
As an aside, this doesn’t invalidate conclusions about beliefs that certain groups hold in common. It’s reasonable to assert, for example, that the DFL as an entity doesn’t believe that there is room in their big tent for anyone who espouses a pro life position. That is a generalized statement about a well documented, commonly held, belief shared by a significant number of people in that group. Where it becomes problematic is to assume that Bill personally holds that belief based on his association with the DFL. In the absence of direct evidence, that would be an assumption based on perceptions. This tendency has certainly become more pronounced recently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It can be tricky, sometimes, to know when speaking in generalities is appropriate versus when speaking with regard to individuals or smaller segments of the whole is the way to go. I'm not going to worry about whether or not I provide disclaimers regarding which I'm doing. If there's any confusion, simply ask and I'll clarify.
I think the general rule is to avoid attributing the views of an individual to them based solely on the views (real or perceived) of the group.
Absolutely.
Post a Comment