The Truth About Stereotyping

Upon reading chapter 5 “Stereotyping and the Politics of Representation” of Mingshui Cais book Multicultural Literature for Children and Young Adults, Reflections on Critical Issues, it struck me how some of the pro-stereotype arguments were ones I have used in the past.  I do my best to not stereotype people, especially in my writing (I have a degree in Creative Writing from the University of Wisconsin-Madison), but I have thought before, “well, the stereotype only exists because it is based on truth.  It wouldn’t exist in the first place unless that’s how it started.”  This is not the best view to take.  In fact, it is highly flawed.  Mingshui Cai’s fifth chapter discusses why.

Similar to my naive thinking, Cai gives the says, “When stereotypes in books for children and young adults are criticized, a typical argument put forward in their defense is: Aren’t some people in real life like that?  It implies that if the images exist in reality, it is then legitimate to present them in literature” (Cai, 74).  What he is saying here is that some authors use the excuse that if you’ve seen a stereotype once, it is okay to reuse it, it is a legitimate way to represent a character.  It therefore reinforces the stereotype and creates an “other” identity for the group being portrayed.  Cai says, “It should be acknowledged that stereotypes are partially true, but partial truth is not the whole truth” (Cai, 74).  And therein is where the danger lies.  Partial truth is not the whole truth.  A partial representation is not the whole representation. 

A stereotype is created when a person or group is referred to in a specific way over and over and over.  Without this repetition, a portrayal cannot become a stereotype—it is not an overused representation.  It is only one form of a whole story and the group can be seen in many other lights.  When repetition occurs, though, the group is seen in only that one way.  From then on, anyone in the group can be connected to the overused representation, whether the circumstance that created the stereotype applies to them or not.  This is all theoretical and vague, so I’ll give an example.  A cop eating a donut.  One story about a copy eating a donut is not a stereotype, but if another author decides to use that representation in their story to portray cops, the dangerous cycle begins.  When the stereotype is created, even a cop who does not like donuts is grouped with cops who do.  That example is on the “lighter” side of stereotypes that exist.  Most stereotypes promote violence and segregation between groups (the idea of “the other”).  For instance, the stereotype that all black men are dangerous is absurd and completely untrue.  The stereotype has just lumped a whole race together without considering the quality of the individuals.  Cai says it best when he says, “The reason why partial truth can be imposed as reality is because the people who impose it hold the power over representation through control of the media and the publishing industry” (Cai, 75).  Those in control have the power to promote or tear down stereotypes.  We should stop encouraging them and start looking at why the stereotype was created – most likely as a form of control – and why the stereotype has continued. 

This week many of my classes talked about stereotyping.  In my intro to cataloging class, we discussed social injustice.  One slide was on stereotyping.  It brought up the idea of Barbie and how stereotypes can have a hyper and hypo affect.  There is bad stereotyping and "good" stereotyping.  By good I do not actually mean good, but rather something unreachable.  Something so good that no woman (or at least not most women) can achieve.  On this slide contained the over makeup-ed, ultra thin, perfectly-busty-and-curvy-in-all-the-right-places Barbie.  That's when I realized that stereotypes exist in so many other ways that I've never thought of.  The media creates stereotypes that, for the most part, are “invisible” or subliminal.  We see them so often they start to become “the norm” for how we see ourselves and others.  Barbie is one of many.  There is a long way to go before we can actively identify what is a stereotype and what is real.

This week, ironically, on top of so much discussion in classes on stereotyping, a friend and future art teacher came in while I was working at the reference desk and brought up the idea of good stereotyping in a positive (or rather funny) way.  The way she talked about her cooperating teacher, to her, portrayed him in a stereotypical old, out of touch, laughing-at-his-own-jokes type of guy that she interpreted as a positive stereotype.  She used the term “stereotype” herself and talked about it as if stereotypes had a good side.  This thought provoking idea of “good” stereotypes led me to do some research.  In an article called "There's No Such Thing as a Good Stereotype," by Eric Horowitz, Eric says,

Because positive stereotypes seem relatively harmless, they are less likely to arouse skepticism and more likely to be accepted.  Yet at the core of every positive stereotype there remains the toxic idea that group differences are biological, genuine, and static.  The same idea resides at the core of all negative stereotypes.

Horowitz’s reflection on “good” stereotyping should strike a chord when you think of “good” stereotypes like “Asians are good at math.”  In a way, it is a compliment.  In reality, it creates the boundary within which “the other” exists. 

            With a quick final note on children’s books, I would suggest that librarians and teachers choose carefully what books they select for children.  It is important that the books we choose portray people as individuals, not as stereotypes.  And remember, Africa is NOT a country!