It's worth to make a few distinctions before tackling this issue.
First, stereotypes are not inherently harmful; they're an easy heuristic we use to make sense of things in situations of limited information; stereotypes, in that way, are a useful tool. So what is harmful is not holding a preconceived idea of X in general terms, but holding to that idea
even while dealing with an specific X that challenges it.
Stereotypes, as such, are morally neutral, but the rhetorical and political uses of them can be pervasively harmful (because of their general application rather than as an individual tool).
Strictly speaking, stereotypes are a
statistically prevalent trait from a certain human group. For example, I could stereotype
anyone on this site in a certain way, based on my years here; that doesn't mean any single individual would prove that stereotype as absolutely true, but it
would be more likely to apply to that individual than to someone of another site I know, which I could stereotype in a different way.
The important thing is to consider stereotypes
as a jumping point, as it is deployed when approaching an individual belonging to a group, and from there correct our assumptions as it goes (which is useful because it's both inevitable and preferable to not having information about the person), unfortunately, many people fail to see through these distinctions post-fact, be it by malice or confirmation bias. Those are the problem,
not the stereotypes.
Second, identities are very complex, multifaceted and subjective issues, with myriad ramifications; we're literally talking about what makes
you what
you are, both in a collective way and an individual way, and that makes it something very tricky to talk about.
To add more problems, how can someone objectivize a subjective experience such as identity so it can be
properly understood by other people? identities, thus, are a negotiation of two aspects, the subjective and the objective, in accordance to a common sense; but, being a negotiation, it is rarely one or the other, not always fully subjective nor fully objective, which will not leave some people happy on either side. And that's the best case scenario.
I bring this up because the concept of identity that's usually called when discussing sensitive and heartbreaking subjects like gender, sexual and racial identity is taken entirely as stemming from the individual, when it is not so simple a matter in practical terms.
What's identity worth then? And if our identity is inconsitent, and I'm sure it often changes depending on the situation, then what's the point?
As I said, identity is the internal perception of one's role in different social contexts; it's what makes you,
you; I'll assume you like being you, so I'll just point to that positive expereince of Being to show what identity is worth; similarly, I could point to all the cases where subjective identity
isn't recognized and allowed, effectively
not letting people be, often with serious consequences. That's important, therefore worth something.
Moving on, identity isn't inconsistent; I mentioned the different social contexts, and that's what makes consistence possible; someone can be a mother and a wife and a sexual being (as much as we children hate to think about it) as well as an empolyee and a boss and a sister and an aunt and a secret cat burglar; all those identities, all those collections of traits and conducts are deployed in contexts where they make sense to be used, and not in those where they don't.
That said, identity
can be, not inconsistent, but conflicted; a person can be torn between two different identities when the practical demands of the social roles conflict; a mother could be divided between caring for her child or working, or going out for dinner with her husband or taking that
lovely unguarded diamond from the Museum of Rare Jewels. In those cases, an identity will have to reassert itself, even if only in practical terms; the same conflict might happen many times, never with a satisfying (or even the same) result.
So what's the point of identity? That's simple; if you weren't you,
what would you be? could we even talk about "you" in that case? "you" only exists opposite to "they/he/she/them", it's the One and the Other, the distinction between our own consciousness and another consciousness that isn't ours. Identity, then, is what signals our consciousness to other consciousness...es.
From this, we can say that identity is two things, then: what makes me,
me and what makes me
not you. Simple enough. Of course, then we leave the lofty space of consciousness and dive into the thorny aspects of how we use and see identity every day; here's where the much maligned stereotyping comes to play.
How do you act when you have no information about something? you can't, right? I mean, you
could take shots in the dark, but a shot in the dark is as likely to be harmful as beneficial; you could just as well do nothing. It works in a similar way with people. When you see
something you identify as another consciousness (people in this case), you can't avoid stereotyping them, in the absence of specific information; that is, you assume a number of traits and identities of the person based on the context you see them or outward clues or known information; as an example:
We're in Pokebeach; I therefore can assume we all in this site like pokemon. Am I wrong in this? maybe, but that wouldn't be very likely, maybe less than 1% chance of being false. So I judge it worth the risk of being wrong.
So stereotypes are not born from the vacuum, they require something previous; for example, what is... let's say my favorite movie?
Unless I actually tell you that, you wouldn't know, would you? anything you would answer would be a shot in the dark. However, you
could pick up information you have about me and based on the stereotypes, form an assumption about my answer. It is just an assumption, but it gives you
something to go on, you just have to be careful of putting too much stock in it or refusing to adapt it if it proves wrong.
Think about it; if you worked without data (since I never stated explicitly here what is my favorite movie)
or assumptions (if you never saw anything that could give you a clue to base your assumptions, or somehow refused to stereotype me) you'd have to list every movie I could have reasonably seen ever, and that would be tiresome; stereotyping me will help you narrow the field
enormously.
Of course, stereotypes can be negative, too, but there's a difference between false negative stereotypes and true negative stereotypes, although that trueness/falsehood is to be sorted out empirically.
If I was to say that bodybuilders are prone to sudden attacks of rage, for example, that
would be a negative stereotype. But the thing is, some steroids
do make it more likely to get bursts of rage, and many bodybuilders use those (another stereotype, and more than likely true) so it's still useful, regardless of if it applies to the individual bodybuilder I could be hypothetically talking to.
And of course, to say that gay people are more prone to be child molesters would be a negative stereotype too, but in this case a false one; that distinction between true and false is one we should trust in science and our own experience to make, rather than assign the burden of falsehood to the
concept of stereotypes.
So then, stereotyping is a useful tool that allows us to navigate social situations where we lack enough specific information by going from the general to the particular. Obviously, this matters because in any interaction I know who I am, but
I don't know who the other person is, and I should know that, or at least approximate it, if I'm going to build a common sense between us; as I'm stereotyping the Other, the Other stereotypes me; that's something many people seem unaware of; that as much as we might complain about being stereotyped (rightly sometimes, since because they're external and general, stereotypes blur a person's subjective identity), we also stereotype all the time, we just don't realize it; to not stereotype would mean to blindly blunder into each social interaction; a blindness borne out of honesty, perhaps, but still blindness, and as I said, no better (and even worse) than the risks we take with stereotypes.
In this interaction beween the other and myself is where identity is negotiated; assumptions are made on both sides, and corrected if necessary; I could ask a guy about football, for example, and he would tell me he doesn't watch football; which is great, because I couldn't care less about it and I was just being polite, assuming he would like football based on his being a man. But, more than likely, he'll like football.
Similarly, he could assume I know about... oh, the swan dress Björk wore to the Oscars that time, like my teacher assumed once, stereotyping me as someone who actually cares about Björk or the Oscars. She wasn't wrong in stereotyping me, mind you; I bet at least half of my classmates would have known what she was talking about; she just happened to pick out the one fashion student who doesn't care much about the Red Carpet.
But following that mistake, her information about me changed; she now knew I knew about Elsa Schiapparelli's work and the Surrealists, but that I didn't know about the swan dress. Aspects of my identity,
as she understood it, changed. This happens
all the time, for everyone, on both sides of the assumption.
Now, you might be thinking right now that all of this talk is... unnecessary? unimportant perhaps? after all, stereotypes
are still used for hate, and our current discussions of identity revolve around serious, even life-threatening violations of it, and that's all that matters; disrespect for religious or racial identities, cultural appropriation, denial of sexual orientation or gender choices,
those are the serious issues, and I'm here talking about "negotiations" while people die out there dammit.
Those
are important issues indeed. But more, they're important applications of everything I've mentioned so far; an axiomatic, self-evident acceptance of identity issues is a sign of as much narrow-mindedness as its (admittedly more harmful, at the moment) dogged denial. To be able to take a nuanced view of how far identity reaches, how it develops in oneself and how it might be perceived by others is to be able to comprehend it better in all its aspects, and hopefully, to be able to have a greater clarity when confronted with these issues instead of just stating something without a deeper support of it, purely on principle.
And this was just some preliminary clarifications. Did I mention it is a most complicated subject already? because it is a most complicated subject.
From what I've seen, youth in the 21st century are afraid to showcase their identity, and also afraid of other's identities.
I'd say it's a little more complicated than that, P; it's very true that people are often afraid of showing their identity and also afraid of other peoples', but that isn't inherent to
this time. What is, however, is the enormous
importance we give to the showcasing of identity; Bauman has talked about the role of the market in shaping the new consumer/individual identity; he talked about how the many watch the few, in reference to the celebrities that act as guides and gurus to life in the liquid modernity; however, all the years between that moment and now have made a potential celebrity out of
anyone, via social media and the internet, so I don't think it's quite right to say people (youth in particular, being the most avid users) are
afraid of showcasing their identity, except in the obvious cases where we talk about specific identity traits in specific contexts; I'd say that most people are compelled to actively, and perhaps, even hurriedly, shape and showcase their identity because of an inflated value of the importance of their own individual identity, and group identity.
When we talk about the individual in the modernity bauman describes, we talk about a person whose comercial value IS their identity; an identity formed through the consumerism of the goods sold on the market,
especially of those goods that are specifically geared towards the construction of identities; who here owns a pair of Nike sneakers? or a pair of Louboutins? or has a social media presence? youtube channel, perhaps? blog? all that is the commodification of personal identities, either as the consumer or as the producer.
All this is to say that on these times, identity is celebrated, as one celebrates a product; of course there's a lot of discrimination on certain aspects of identity, but also you'll find dozens of spaces that make that identity, scorned in other places, the focus of their existence; I could cite Gay pride parades, the extensive trans presence in Tumblr, the Black Lives Matter twitter campaigns and protests, nazi communities on 4chan, 8chan, voat, reddit, etc (shockingly, pro-nazi spaces are just
thriving on the internet), and many more examples. Even fetishes both innocent and disgusting find their place in the modern world; the only question is how extensive (and physical) that space is.
In fact, you need to go no farther than this site, to the profile messages, to see the importance we give to showcasing identity even here. How many of those are statements thrown in the wind, for nobody, yet for everybody, to read (much like blog posts, tweets, facebook posts, etc)? true, they
might start a conversation or an exchange, but if they don't? you're still showcasing
your identity in an active, constant way, and, for what reason? because that's the system; to paraphrase Descartes, "I post, therefore I exist".
Also, P's mention of "who I really am" reminded me of something I should have probably included in the clarifications. The notion of "what I really am" is as well more complicated than pop culture and political claims make it out to be; in philosophy, that notion is called Essentialism; it sustains that every thing has a true nature, regardless of how it might present itself; obviously in the context of personal identity we take it to mean the subjective, deep identity that
must be upheld above the negotiation and the external identity, on account of its trueness.
You don't need to go very far to see where essentialism does you wrong; if there's a true essence of you, instead of a construction of identity over time, then you're born as what you are and won't ever change; the simplicity and determinism of this claim is useful politically, because it closes down avenues of countering the causes supported, but overall, it's short-sighted; identity is constructed every day by our actions, there's not really a "what I am", not, at least, as a constant in time; rather, there's several "I am"s, as well as "I was"s and "I want to be"s; this also ties in to Bauman, since identity is constructed by our actions, and buying is an action as well; I talked about identities being discarded for the Next Big Thing, and that's very real, and not "bad" as some might think at first sight. It's just how the system works.
If you don't feel like reading all that, I'll summarize it for you: Identity is more complicated than you realize. I haven't even gotten to the
really hard part yet.
Now, I'm tired, and this is too long already; maybe I'll continue tomorrow, maybe not; honestly, the thread is too broad for me to do anything but a careful summary; just look, lorde basically said "my friend is stereotyped" and P "you don't need to be afraid" in response to a question that was never quite made. Meanwhile, I write an essay, because I've been studying this for a very,
very long time and felt like doing that was necessary.
So, maybe I should have asked this before, but...
what are we talking about here? for now, I merely addressed some things I noticed could use some clarification, but beyond that, what is there to say? what question is there to be answered? are we talking specifically about the kind of identities that are subject to discrimination? lorde seems to believe so. Are we talking about the multiplicity of identities in everyday life? or about the challenge of the negotiation and the fear that comes with it in even regular "growing up" identity development, as P talked about?
Also the private ones are the one that are constantly being questioned by my own brain. Yay mental illness /sarcasm