I had a conversation with a friend who was horrified at the idea I would treat someone differently based on their appearance. The examples we used were “appears homeless” and “looks like a thug”.
My friend and I both agreed there is such a thing as someone who looks homeless, and someone who looks like a thug, so let’s not argue about defining those terms. Honestly, the discussion isn’t even about that, but whether making judgments about people based on their appearance is morally wrong in the abstract sense.
The argument was mostly about the police. He argued that police officers run the risk of developing racist tendencies because of their largely negative experiences with minorities. He argued that cops should never consider someone’s appearance when deciding whether a situation is suspicious or not. I argued that someone’s appearance can be useful information when deciding whether a situation is suspicious. My friend stopped short of calling me a racist, but the conversation ended abruptly and he made it very clear he was deeply disturbed by what I told him.
In response to that discussion, I decided to make this poll. Maybe he’s right and I am a monster and just don’t realize it. It’s up to you guys to convince me.
I think it’s very difficult not to make judgements about people based on their appearance. That’s one of the ways we, as humans, navigate our way around this world.
What’s important, I think, is to realise that those judgements may or may not be right.
People send messages with their clothing and demeanor. Those messages are deliberate more often than not. If the message is “I’m a thug,” then it’s wise to pay attention to that–quite likely the person is telling the truth, or at least wants you to think he is. Of course, it’s easy to manipulate this–someone whose appearance broadcasts “charming, smooth, urbane” may want to win undeserved trust or respect. But it would be silly to totally disregard the messages people send on purpose.
People do not send messages with their racial characteristics. Where you guys are tripping up is in confusing race with deliberate costuming.
People express who they are in part through how they choose to present themselves. Someone wearing a suit and tie is going to give a different impression than someone covered in tattoos and wearing a Harley Davidson t-shirt. It’s natural and appropriate to make a judgment about someone based on their appearance, at least to some extent. However, it stops being appropriate when the judgment is based on race, gender, or some other innate characteristic that can’t be changed.
Of course, the mindset of the “judge” will be a factor in their assessment of the judge-ee, using the above example of suit-and-tie wearer and Harley Guy, my view would be;
Suit-and-tie guy; insufferable, self-important prat at best, scumbag, not to be trusted at worst (assuming the SATG is wearing the SAT voluntarily, not due to job requirements/dress code, if SAT is a dress code, no judgement is applied)
Harley guy; regular, everyday guy, nothing special, tattoos are a slight negative, if it was just Harley clothing with no tattoos, regular, normal guy
Voluntarily wearing a SAT to me is a bigger negative, it implies the wearer places more value on what they appear to be, not who they are
(then again, I am negatively biased towards anything with a necktie associated with it, so my view may not be the most impartial)
I agree - the question for me is whether the person has control over the aspect of appearance. If you didn’t bother to comb your hair this morning, that says a lot about how you feel about the people you expect to encounter today. If you’re short or female or black or freckly or whatever, you have no control over that, and it sends no message about what you’re like or how you wish to interact with those around you.
You’re using your senses to judge dangers and size up your relation to everything in the environment. Why should you exclude visual clues about strangers? You see them and put them in the closest matching group in your memory. The more data you gain over time the better you know what they will do, but first impressions are what you have learned are right the majority of the time and are important for your safety.
Yes, it is. Appearance is a form of communication on any level - every decision that someone makes about their appearance is meant to communicate something. The lack of a decision - simple neglect or just passivity toward an element of appearance - is equally a decision.
Many years ago, my Dad and I were driving through his very high-dollar lake front neighborhood in Michigan. This group of houses was pretty out-of-the way, no retail or services anywhere near by.
We saw what looked like a homeless man wandering through one of the yards, and I commented on how he must be lost.
Dad said “No, that’s Bob Seger, he owns the house with the seven garages.”
Is it wrong? I third (or fourth?) DangerMom’s post. But it’s also important to remember that it’s more likely to lead you to an incorrect conclusion.
I agree, for things that are changeable, like dress, you are sending a distinct message. If that message is “I don’t have enough money to buy clothes, or a home,” well, I’m not sure anyone can be blamed for picking up on that. And fifth, or whatever, the assertion that one should always keep in mind that one can be mistaken when making judgments based on appearance.
On race, gender, etc: This is something I’m torn about. On one hand, consider me. I have a job that mostly involves working with computers and that does not involve decisions that are either split second or that have serious direct consequences having to do with people’s lives. Obviously it would be completely wrong for me to make judgments about, say, a client of our company based on something intrinsic s/he can’t change. In particular, if I wrongly do NOT make a judgment (“I think that woman is stupid because her eyes are too big, but I will discount my probably prejudiced tendencies” and then she actually does turn out to be stupid) there is really no penalty.
But for people in, say, law enforcement, the penalty for wrongly not making a judgment could potentially be a lot higher. What if, by focusing on the “probable” criminal, you could save lives, and if you instead spread out your attention equally among several possibilities, more people will be hurt or killed? (And is it different if the probable criminal is someone with red hair rather than someone of a particular race or gender? What if it’s white people who are more likely to be criminal, is that any better?) At the same time, I fully realize that it’s not fair to judge based on something the person can’t change. I don’t know what the right answer is in these cases. As a starter, I’ll say it’s wrong to make a blanket judgment about a whole group of people without context (“The guy I just met has red hair, therefore he is probably crazy”), but in context (“A suspicious character with red hair was reported, so the guy I just met with red hair may be a criminal”)… I don’t know.
Clothing is a choice. Race isn’t. That is why judgment based on clothing isn’t racist.
Whether it is right, wrong, rational, or irrational, are different questions. Assuming someone is homeless because he is wearing sweat pants isn’t too smart. Assuming someone is homeless because he is wearing a garabage bag is a little more accurate.