CATEGORIZING TO A FAULT

        

Over a number of postings, this blog has shared with readers the thoughts of various writers on those factors that contribute to the existence and strength of tribal thinking.  The purpose has been to shed light for the benefit of civics educators and other interested parties of the detrimental effects a polarized political landscape has on the promotion of good citizenship.  This posting continues that effort.  It attempts to turn the attention of readers to a related natural, psychological tendency humans have.  

It turns out, humans have a strong natural bias that encourages tribalism.  An early writer who presented a cogent argument regarding this human disposition is cognitive linguist, George Lakoff.[1]  He points out that it is natural and functional for people to conceptualize – that is, to form categories – in their attempts to make sense of reality.  Without that ability, the mind would be overcome by all the factual bits of information a person encounters. 

Categorizing allows one to make “information boxes” in which perceived information can be organized.  But following the tradition set down by Aristotle, people seek definite definitions for those categories or concepts, and this is problematic.  Why?  Reality is not that conducive to being defined in such a definite way or to such a definite degree.  Lakoff, in effect, complains that this practice leads to thinking and speaking pattern that assumes sharp distinctions within and among the meanings of those categories and usually those distinctions are not justified. 

The problem is that reality is simply not so simple.  And no area of interest is this truer than when one considers human behaviors, roles, expectations, attitudes, knowledge, or values.  In previous postings, this blog has argued that the inability of the social sciences to replicate the successes of the natural sciences has to do with the number of variables affecting human behavior.   One of those postings made the comparison to trying to predict the weather. 

Adding to the number of factors involved is the practical limitation posed by this overwhelming challenge to define those factors, variables, or concepts – what do those boxes mean?  Take any category, say one dealing with roles, and see if one can clearly, unambiguously define it?  For example, “boss” or “manager” can be simply defined as one who supervises those under his/her authoritative responsibility.  But can a boss be a mentor, a father/mother figure, a friend, an enemy, a rival, or ride to work? 

And as that person fulfills one or more of these functions, does that affect his/her bossing behavior?  Add to that the methodological practice in the sciences to reduce analysis of those variables under study, one can see how this abstraction can be problematic. 

[Idealizations] are never visible in pure form, but are no less real for all that.  No one has ever actually sighted a triangle without thickness, a frictionless plane, a point mass, an ideal gas, or an infinite, randomly interbreeding population.  That is not because they are useless figments but because they are masked by the complexity and finiteness of the world and by many layers of noise.  The concept of “mother” [or “boss”] is perfectly well defined within a number of idealized theories.[2]

So, as one can see, this ailment hinders all sciences and is part and parcel of reductionism.

          Of course, this is not an argument to do away with scientific methods or conceptualizing, but to hold them with some reservation or nuance.  And further, short of the higher standards of scientific thinking, in everyday thinking that people practice, this problem is further magnified.  That is, the human tendency to put things – really ideas of things – into boxes has its shortcomings especially as humans tend to fall in love with those boxes.  Afterall, that’s how they see things. 

On another level, one can call them stereotypes and those can be based on a variety of types.  Of most relevance to the topic of polarization is racism, but there are other types.  There is sexism, xenophobia, agism, and now there is even “maskism.”  Oh, if one wears a mask during the pandemic, one must be a Commie.  This tendency feeds the beliefs underlying the motivational forces that leads one to be on one side of the polarizing divide or the other.

Steven Pinker identifies this stereotyping as a “bug” in one’s cognitive or mental software.  And here is a common line of thinking that bolsters the unreasonable results that such thinking generates.  One might observe a correlation – when X happens, Y happens – and, therefore, either X causes Y or the other way around.

Yes, there can even be statistical verification for the results that a stereotype promotes.  Negative examples of this can be cited, but to make the point, a positive example is better.  It turns out that people from high income families are much more likely to attain higher educational degrees.[3]  X can be income and Y can be education.  Therefore, being well-off causes a person to develop those attributes that lead to acquiring higher levels of education.

Is one justified to form the conclusion that since Mr. X is from a higher income family, he, therefore, will attain a higher degree?  No, that would be unreasonable (yet rational).  It is attributing a group characteristic to an individual.  It also conflates various factors that interact to cause the cited result that might not exist in a person or a subgroup within the overall population of those who represent one or the other factor or both. 

Now, one can apply these unreasonable qualities to any stereotype and if one considers the above nuances, ignoring them can generate beliefs that have led to tragic consequences.  If one reviews the arguments of hate groups, this is the type of thinking that leads them to believe in the negative characteristics they attribute to minorities and further are used to justify their hateful activities usually aimed at individuals.  It undermines swaths of people from being able to be accorded their rightful level of integrity.

On this point, Pinker writes,

But sadly, some stereotypes may be based on good statistics about real people. … Ordinary people’s estimates of these differences are fairly accurate, and in some cases, people with more contact with a minority group … have more pessimistic, and unfortunately more accurate, estimates of the frequency of negative traits such as illegitimacy and welfare dependency. … [A]ctuarially sound but morally repugnant decisions about individual cases [are made].  This behavior is racist [for example] not because it is irrational (in the sense of statistically inaccurate) but because it flouts the moral principle that it is wrong to judge an individual using the statistics of a racial or ethnic group.[4]

And more than likely, the true causes of any positive or negative attributes are misidentified by using the most obvious correlations.  Wealth, in itself, does not “cause” intellectual prowess, but it does afford the attaining of those factors that do.  Race or foreign ethnicity does not cause crime, but poverty and its related conditions do and unfortunately too many members of minority groups are denied the opportunities that lead to acquiring higher income levels.

          So, in sum, humans tend to categorize – it makes life easier, at least in the immediate situation.  Unfortunately, these categories tend to be poorly defined.  People also grow emotionally attached to those categories especially if they are attained during formative years and are associated with other symbolic elements of one’s life like family, ethnic group, geographic area, educational institutions, sports teams, etc. 

          Using those categories, in the form of concepts or factors and variables, one can form cause and effect relationships, but since they tend to be poorly defined, they also are the source of poor theorizing, i.e., inaccurate cause and effect statements.  And even if there is statistical verification of some correlational relationship, one can be led to inaccurate conclusions that promote unjustifiable treatment of fellow Americans or of foreign populations, especially as the relationships are applied to individuals and subgroups.

---

[1] George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1987).

[2] Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1997), 312 (Kindle version).

[3] Nick Morrison, “Higher Education Gap between Rich and Poor Reaches 10-Year High,” Forbes (December 17, 2019), accessed August 6, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2019/12/17/higher-education-gap-between-rich-and-poor-reaches-10-year-high/#6c8b09fc749a .

[4] Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works, 313 (emphasis in the original).

THE MEANING OF “UNUM,” Part III

The last two postings presented the essence of Arthur M. Schlesinger’s argument[1] bolstering an assimilationist approach to immigration policy.  This was described in counter position to a multiculturalist approach, especially as expressed by critical theorists.  According to that historian, the multicultural position would have immigrants rejecting the central American culture – one which is based on Western cultural tradition – and be able to maintain their various cultural modes of behavior and belief structures in defining their social and private affairs.

Schlesinger sees this as depriving the nation of a central cultural base which if maintained would serve to functionally establish basic expectations in social intercourse.  Rounding his argument, he reviews a list of attributes an alignment to a single, Western culturally based tradition should have.

First, that tradition is/will not be a solidified orthodoxy but more of a cultural process by which the effects of incoming traditions of current and future immigrants are incorporated into the dominant way of life.  “It is an ever-evolving philosophy, fulfilling its ideals through debate, self-criticism, protest, disrespect, and irreverence; a tradition in which all have right of heterodoxy and opportunities for self-assertion.”[2]

Second, to acknowledge the essentially European origins of the American culture as, one, a historical fact, and, two, an origin that allows – Schlesinger seems to say invites – for the acceptance and accommodation of various cultural traditions.  It does not disdain other traditions but allows for evolving views – a one step at a time – of acceptance and selected adaptation of beliefs, values, attitudes, and styles from non-European traditions.

Third, a cultural commitment not based on the notion that it is better for all humans, but better for the American people.  It is history that has given this nation this tradition and that does not just mean an accidental fact, but a fact that has a complicated, extensive, and thorough defining effect on the American people.  In short, it provides the nation its identity.

Fourth, a central commitment to a political culture that is not based on group rights, as multicultural arguments seem to bolster, but based on a foundational commitment to protect and advance individual integrity through a respect for individual rights as defined by the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and democratic processes.  This is further advanced by a cultural disposition toward communal arrangements of social settings, from families to national and international associations.

And fifth, that cultural tradition provides reasonable expectations that in terms of any multilayered reality – which includes any reality of any consequence – allows for necessary efficiencies.  For example, as William K. Tabb points out, economic health depends on economic actors having some level of a predictive ability and be able to share general views about how the economy functionally works.[3]

All this poses a challenge for the nation to hit upon the optimal compromise between the nationalist bias toward exclusion of non-Western influences and the multiculturalist bias toward prohibiting efforts at enculturating the nation’s population to Western based cultural norms and standards.  This compromise needs happen to maintain and strengthen a true republic.

Our task is to combine due appreciation of the splendid diversity of the nation with due emphasis on the great unifying Western ideas of individual freedom, political democracy, and human rights.  These are the ideas that define American nationality – and today empower people of all continents, races, and creeds.[4]

And another quote; this one from an account of Abraham Lincoln’s last journey – his body being transported back to Springfield, Illinois – by the historian, Ted Widmer,

[The American people] trusted Lincoln’s vision of an America that aspired to keep the promises of the Declaration of Independence.  Even if they had lost him, they knew that “the Union is not assassinated,” as Whitman put it.  They were not naïve; they knew that the Declaration set a difficult standard, one that they would often fail to reach.  But to pretend it did not exist was to slowly become a different kind of country, with no moral standard at all.[5]

And that Declaration was a product of a long development of the Western tradition.

          This writer has indicated in prior postings that he accepts the basis of Schlesinger’s argument but takes issues with its finer points.  The argument rightly points out the dysfunctionality of a nation with disparate cultural traditions – beyond that of what Canada has with its dual cultural base between its British and French traditions – made up of cultural elements from around the world.  But this blogger feels he soft-peddles the lack of effort Americans have made to live up to its federalist values.

          The Widmer quote above mentions the difficult standard the Declaration sets for the American people, but how divergent does the record have to be before one just considers that proclaimed set of values as just a pile of words?  In a current issue of The Atlantic, Ed Young[6] points out how the current pandemic has laid bare the inequalities that exist.

And much of that inequality, in terms of occurrence, can be superimposed on the racial and ethnic divisions of the nation.  Yes, poverty is the culprit but if that poverty aligns inordinately along racial and ethnic lines, then one can readily see the implied inequality reflecting a less than enculturated commitment to the nation’s own stated principles and values.  Young writes, 

Latinos were three times as likely to be infected as white people. Asian Americans faced racist abuse. Far from being a “great equalizer,” the pandemic fell unevenly upon the U.S., taking advantage of injustices that had been brewing throughout the nation’s history. …

 Of the 3.1 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance, more than half are people of color, and 30 percent are Black.  This is no accident.  In the decades after the Civil War, the white leaders of former slave states deliberately withheld care from Black Americans, apportioning medicine more according to the logic of Jim Crow than Hippocrates.  They built hospitals away from Black communities, segregated Black patients into separate wings, and blocked Black students from medical school.  In the 20^th century, they helped construct America’s system of private, employer-based insurance, which has kept many Black people from receiving adequate medical treatment …

A number of former slave states also have among the lowest investment in public health, the lowest quality of medical care, the highest proportion of Black citizens, and the greatest racial divides in health outcomes. …

As of the early July, one in every 1,450 Black Americans had died from COVID-19 – a rate more than twice that of white Americans.[7]

Young goes on to point out a set of data points that adequately support the claim that minorities are not treated as white Americans when it comes to health care.

One can easily draw the conclusion that Americans are not meeting the “difficult standard” the Declaration of Independence stakes out.  That is, any meaningful definition of “Unum” demands more.

---

[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America:  Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1992).

[2] Ibid., 136.

[3] William K. Tabb, The Restructuring of Capitalism in Our Time (New York, NY:  Columbia University Press, 2012).

[4] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America, 138.

[5] Ted Widmer, Lincoln on the Verge:  Thirteen Days to Washington (New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster, 2020), 461.

[6] Ed Young, “How the Pandemic Defeated America,” The Atlantic (September 2020).

[7] Ibid., accessed August 4, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/ .