When does self-identification compell responsibility?

Great Debates
1

Historically, some people have been real jerks. This, of course, is still true today. When an extreme bigot self-identifies as a Christian, when socially oppressive people adopt the name of fiscally responsible politics (“conservative”), when priests molesting children makes the front pages, when terrorists proclaim that they are Muslim… at what point do we get to shift the burden? If I say something like, “Muslims are terrorists” I’d rightfully be called out for a rather pathetic generalization. Not all Muslims are terrorist. Or someone would say, “I’m a Muslim, and I’m not a terrorist.”

But there are a few out there making headlines, and more than a few forming a support network. Jokes about priests molesting kids have never been uncommon in my lifetime (and in other people I know of various ages and nationalities), so apparently there’s some sort of collective stereotype there that people have been aware of for some time. History stands as a testament to atrocities committed in the Christian God’s name. Is it safe to say that others who self-identify as Muslim, Christian, Catholic, etc., are free of the burden of getting those people out of the headlines?

Mostly, I consider myself an atheist, but that’s probably because it isn’t worth getting into my metaphysical views which change fairly rapidly whenever I come across new ideas and new information. But it seems to me that if I cared enough about my views to slap a common name to them, then there must be a point where I accept responsibility for keeping that name good.

As an American, I am more or less proud of my country and its short history. More or less. But if the rest of the world starts stereotyping Americans as brash, arrogant, power-hungry, imperialists, etc.… well, doesn’t it become incumbent on me to either remove that label from myself, or do something (like vote differently, become more active in politics, etc.) to make the label “American” mean something more positive, something closer to what I think it means?

I don’t think I can simply disregard the accusations leveled against Americans by the world at large just because the policies that brought those accusations about go against my own opinions. “Oh, yes, some Americans are like that.” Were I a Catholic, it would shock my very soul that these scandals are coming out (no one knew?!).

But it seems that we don’t take the name back, we let it fade into meaninglessness by fracturing. Christians become Catholics+Lutherans+Methodists+Protestants+…+Baptists. There are various fractures in the Islamic faith, in Hinduism, in Buddhism… Conservatives are “social” and “fiscal”, and now there are NeoCons which describes who knows what.

When should a group of people take their name back? When is it no longer the “fault” of the generalizers?

2

I’m sorry, can you rephrase the question?

3

I want to reply to tell you it is almost always the fault of the generalizers. Anyone with the barest trace of intelligence knows it’s just not possible for everyone in a specific group to fit that group’s stereotype. I also understand, however, by posting that I’m just arguing semantics.

In the interest of offering a valuable answer, I’ll say it becomes increasingly difficult to blame the generalists when a significant number of a specific group proudly embrace the stereotypes, especially the negative ones. It doesn’t even have to be a significant number, just the loudest members of the group will do. When this happens, the quiet members who reject the stereotypes fade into the background and become increasingly hard to see against the busy/crowded foreground of those who continue to perpetuate the stereotypes. It is easier to broadly ascribe the stereotypes to all members of the group and assume that someone who doesn’t fit them is somehow outside of the norm.

While I said it becomes increasingly difficult, I still cling to the notion that stereotypes are just that,

4

Anyway, to finish my thought, stereotypes are not truisms and generalizers should bear the responsibility of keeping this in mind. It can’t even be said that most Catholic priests are child molesters.

5

Quite. So Catholics, both administratively and self-identifyingly, have no burden to bear here? The idea I’m trying to formulate is that, by ignoring what happens from generalization, by fracturing over differences, a void forms, and who rushes to fill that void? --is it not the loudest people? Who is doing more damage to the Islamic faith, people who are naturally inclined to generalize, or fringe groups giving everyone an easy target? How clear should I be as a member of a muslim group that these fringe groups who happen to nominally share my label are wrong? If I don’t protect the name, and it is taken from me, how is that the fault of the generalizers?

I know it is wrong to stereotype or generalize in order to draw conclusions or make judgments, but is it really such a simple thing to brush away like that–just pointing out they’re wrong? I accept no responsibility when I call myself a Christian, or American, or join the military or peace corps?

6

If I am understanding you correctly you are asking two things. First of all is when should a self identified member of a particular group take responsibility for cleaning up the name of that group. Secondly is there any point at which generalizers about a specific group can be relieved of blame for making generalizations about that group.

First I’d have to say: always. If you belong to a group by choice, then you have the responsibility to portray that group in a favorable light. That is, you have the responsibility to live up to the standards of that group. You don’t necessarily have the responsibility to send a letter to every paper which prints an unfavorable story. You don’t necessarily need to start a thread at every new revelation of wrongdoing within the group. However, you do have the responsibility to correct misconceptions about your group as the opportunity presents itself. More importantly, however, you have the responsibility to present yourself as a “member in good standing” of that group. Whatever that may mean.

Secondly I think there is a point at which generalizers can be forgiven for their generalizations. After all, thats what the group is for in the first place. If there were nothing which differentiated muslims from non muslims, we would not need the word. However, I agree with JuanitaTech’s sentiment that stereotypes are usually just that. They tend to be over simplifications and thus wrong in many ways. I think that the line tends to be somewhere between honest inquiries and judgemental accusations. That is, we can debate whether or not most muslims really attend services as often as they claim in a factual way. As soon as someone says anything like “Most muslims are …” we have crossed into the stereotypes.

Finally, I’d make one more comment. You mention headlines, so I’d just like to remind everyone that newpapers are notoriously bad sources of information. While they often get things correct, basing any ideas on headlines is dangerous at best. Even worse is to extrapolate a new stereotype from a recent spate of headlines.

The recent catholic priest child molestation scandal is neither recent nor nearly as pervasive as it seems if you judge by headlines. Preists are drawn from a wide population base. They will therefore usually demonstrate all sorts of human frailties. However, it is not in the newspaper’s interest to report about a couple hundred successful marriage counsilings, a few thousand inspiring sermons, nor the many many charitable works that the catholic priests in a city have done in the last year alongside the one or two stories of molested children.

Instead, they trumpet each and every development in the molested children stories so that they are all we hear about. Worse yet, these sorts of stories generate “legs”. They take on a life of their own and soon the story is about the story. So, instead of the latest victim to come forward, or the latest indictment to be handed down, we hear about opinion polls on the “catholic crisis”. These amount to opinion polls taken of people who formed their opinions about an issue from headlines in order to make more headlines. Its insidious.

7

No, they have not. Why should they, in your opinion?

No. The formation of different opinions/sects about a faith have nothing to do with what you identify under what you name here “the loudest people”.

I don’t see how you manage to shift the blame for generalising from those who do the generalising towards those who are the cause that people start to generalize.

Of course it is. If you start talking about some group or some religion with the intention to blame the whole lot of them for what a few who identify themselves with that group or religion, is that the fault of the group or the religion?
Why do you shift once again the responsibility for this, and now onto the victims of the generalisation?

No you do not.
Do you think because I am Muslim, I should feel somehow “responsibility” for what other people who also call themselves Muslim think, write, say, do?
Do you think it is my responsibility that other people whom I do not know start to act as if I am part of the mindset and/or actions of other people I do not know, only because these other people call themselves also Muslim?

If you reason like that then you can blame the whole of humanity for every crime no matter which single human commits and say the whole of humanity should “do something against that”.
Salaam. A

8

But in some small way isn’t this true? I understand that we should not put the entire planet in prison for a single jay walking incident. But if people are commiting murder, don’t we as member of the human race have a responsibility to do something about this? Isn’t that why we generally make laws against murder in the first place? Because we (as the non murdering members of the human race) want to stop it?

9

  1. The name “conservative” can also apply to social practices, interpretation of written constitutions, etc.

  2. Since when did “fiscally responsible” become “tightwad”? Are liberals “socially responsible” now?

10

This is exactly what I’m hamhandedly trying to get across. What is a greater testament to humankind, how hard we rally against crimes, or that there are criminals? We put forth a lot of effort in Western civs to promote culture and individuality while seeking to eliminate those that would act against the sanctity of such things.

Because they chose the identification for a reason, they walked right into it. Clearly it means something to them. No one else could have the responsibility for making sure that meaning doesn’t get corrupted by a minority faction–and thinking that responsibility doesn’t exist only allows the factions to take it over, because they want the name, too.

Who is supposed to guard the goodness of a faith–me, an atheist? Or those that practice the faith by choice? I’m not a thief when I leave my car unlocked, but do I have no responsibility to myself to protect my car by at least locking it? I do not intend to shift the burden of a poor generalization–that burden can only lie with those that generalize–but I do intend to suggest that it takes more than someone inclined to stereotype to perpetuate a stereotype. (This only refers to identifiers one chooses; it would not apply to, for example, identification-by-birth such as blondes, blacks, males, or retarded people.)

Again, the responsibility for a poor generalization is clear. But it is also clear to me, as pervert succinctly mentions, that there is a good generalization one wishes to exist (else why identify one’s self as a member of a group?). It is not the responsibility of the “generalizers”, or even non-members in general, to protect that name. They have no stake in the claim.

11

These terms are meant to be examples of self-identification. I do not think it is wrong to suggest that fiscal conservatives say they are so because they consider themselves, in part, fiscally responsible. Whether you would consider them so is, of course, a political matter.

12

I’ve thought about this before and I think the best way to approach it is to view the person in question as having two competing interests: his membership in some group and his own, private life. As a member of a certain group he does have some responsibility to dispel myths about it (and since this, to whatever extent, mitigates the antipathy toward that group, it is beneficial to him too). However, no one is wholly defined by their membership in whatever group–they have other interests, hobbies, etc. and cannot devote their entire life to fighting for said group. So the person always has a choice: he can help his group or he can indulge in his own life. And, because his personality determines that choice, no one can tell him that he must do this or that even if the context is known.

13

I agree with you, sleeping, that any action taken to defend a group has to be weighed against the costs. But that begs another question. If the perception of a group becomes wildly out of control shouldn’t you eventually contemplate leaving the group? In other words, if a certain subset of a group regularly made headlines professing ideas which you (as a member of the group) took as antithetical to the group, how long would this have to go on before you considered no longer self identifying with that group? You may not expend any energy defending them (or not nearly enough, perhaps), you may still sympathize with those ideals of the group you used to. However, when a group “leaves you behind”, how far behind do you have to be before you leave the group?

14

I think this is probably, IMO, the only “honest” path one can take in such a situation (I put the word in quotes only to hopefully offset the very judgmental tone that would otherwise be there). Otherwise, one resorts to Humpty Dumptyism, where a self-identifying phrase only means what the person wants it to–something, I hope we agree, that renders such identification fairly useless unless one only has imaginary friends.

15

I’ve been trying to think of an example for what we’ve been talking about that has the judgementalism removed. Let me try this.

If I (as a caucasian American) were to decide that I wanted to belong to some group (or at least identify myself with it) that championed the accomplishments of Western European Americans throughout history, but I absolutely did not want to identify with racism of any kind (I know, partly self contradictory, but stay with me). How could I conscientiously identify with any of the white power, white seperatists, or KKK type groups that are out there. Even if I were sympathetic* to the claim of some of them that they are simply in favor of the white race as opposed to antagonistic to other races, it seems dishonest somehow, to identify myself with the KKK. It seems that the additional baggage attached to that group precludes any sort of reasonable attachment of otherwise innocent goals. Clearly if I want to identify with some sort of Western European historical society, I need an altogether different name besides the KKK.

If, on the other hand, I chose to identify myself as a KKK member or sympathizer, it seems I have to be willing to accept or defend against the idea that this group is basically a terrorist organisation. Unless my every mention contains the qualifier “I agree with them about the importance of the white race, but not about the irrelevancy of other races…” or something like that, and be ready to defend such a statement, it seems there is no way to make the self identification without dishonesty.
I suppose we are not generating much of a debate. But this is a very intriguing idea. Thanks for the OP, erislover. I haven’t thought about philosophical things along these lines for some time.

*Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not now nor have I ever been sympathetic in any way to the KKK or anything they have ever said. If they ever come out with a press release claiming that the sun will come up tomorrow, I’ll think about it. And most probably invest in flashlights.