The Menace of Stereotyping

A need to label, or resort to stereotyping seems to be part of human nature - must have something to do with the way our human brains are wired. Television and the internet have, inevitably, spread more and more examples of stereotyping to a much bigger slice of the population, to people who wouldn't, or couldn't, have thought them up for themselves. Yet TV and the internet also offer evidence, if sought, that stereotypes are nothing but misleading and potentially dangerous generalisations.

Generalisations are not always a bad thing. Wiki tells us: "A generalization (or generalisation) of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria. It is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning..." It's easy to forget, though, that a generalisation is just that, and, human nature being what it is, a generalisation often contains, or gathers in the re-telling, embedded exaggeration.

An article carried in the UK's Daily Telegraph some years ago raised my hackles at the time sufficiently to post a wee rant. Helen Kirwan-Taylor's We're Having a Special Relationship discussed Anglo-American marriages.

I have personal experience of one of these, but the way the article portrays the situation is nowhere near reality for me, nor, I guess for the majority of people in Anglo-American marriages. The piece was filled with class-ridden, pretentious stereotypical nonsense. But then, I don't live in New York, and have never lived in London, both cities figured prominently in the article. Some Americans, and Britons, need to be reminded that New York is not America, and London is not Britain. The writer needed enlightening that hardly any US Americans or Britons fit patterns described.

The article, in common with many, leans heavily on stereotyping for quick, easy thumbnail sketches of people or situations: it's nothing but lazy journalistic shorthand. A tiny grain of truth may be present, but smothered beneath misconceptions, exaggerations and generalities. Using stereotypes saves the writer extra words and extra effort. This kind of shorthand stereotyping encourages readers and listeners to form opinions which can eventually develop into prejudice, then lead to discrimination and worse: dangerous, unless we remain aware of exactly what is going on.

In astrology proper, archetypes replace stereotypes. The existence of archetypes imprinted within the human psyche was proposed first by Carl Jung. There's a set of short pieces about Carl Jung's theories written in layman's language, by the Zodiac Master.

In everyday astrology the danger of stereotyping clearly exists. Referring to someone as "a Libra" or "a Leo" etc. is misleading, and saddles that person with a stereotype, which could be quite unwarranted. I've found it preferable to describe someone (if someone needs to be described/labelled in a couple of words) as "a Libra-type" or "a Leo-type", but even that is stereotyping. Once past the Sun sign stage of astrology it's practically impossible to indulge in any kind of shorthand - each person is unique. I think this is why I continue to cringe each time I read a "a Virgo" or "an Aquarian" etc.

The difference between archetypes and stereotypes is vast. I tend to think of a family tree image to clarify the differences : an archetype is placed in the topmost position; related icons through the ages on the branches immediately beneath; below them come a variety of stereotypes; lower still are the jokes, prejudices and bigotry encountered, thanks to stereotyping. Archetypes represent the original, perfect example of any given aspect of human experience - the pattern, the template, recognisable to all humans. The stereotype represents an opinion, often an over-simplification or caricature emphasising particular factors which support whatever prejudice the writer or speaker upholds.

I recall once reading an observation that: "An archetype is Marilyn Monroe, a stereotype is the dumb blonde." But to be accurate, Marilyn Monroe isn't the archetype, she is the icon of an archetype, an icon belonging to 20th century and beyond. Earlier icons: Cleopatra or Helen of Troy ? The textbook label of the archetype these women represented was, I think, "The Temptress". The "dumb blonde" stereotype (played up by Marilyn for the cameras) has fuelled countless jokes about blonde-haired women, fairly harmless, I guess - unless you happened to be a golden-haired beauty with a science (or any other) PhD.

From French philosopher Jacques Ellul:

“(Propaganda) proceeds by psychological manipulations, character modifications, by creation of stereotypes useful when the time comes - The two great routes that this sub-propaganda takes are the conditioned reflex and the myth”

and from former US Representative Tim Holden:

The Holocaust illustrates the consequences of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. It forces us to examine the responsibilities of citizenship and confront the powerful ramifications of indifference and inaction.

TYPING can be dangerous

A plate of warmed-up re-hash today. I wrote the original in early 2007.

Why don't writers and entertainers drop the insidious habit of stereotyping? There's a lot of nonsense thrown around in the media, and on the internet. Some people, myself included, have learned this from experience, and make allowance for it, becoming cynical in the process. Stereotyping on the basis of nationality, age, gender, class, ethnicity, and profession abounds. Hardly any American, Irish, British, French, German etc. folk fit the stereotypical patterns attributed to them yet they are still regularly churned out in the name of journalism or entertainment. It's common in astrology, too, for those who haven't managed to escape from a Sun Sign mentality. A good example is the jokey list of "How many Librans, Leos, Virgos....etc. it takes to change a light bulb". Stereotyping par excellence! It's funny, as long as we keep in mind that it's a joke, not a fact.

In astrology proper, archetypes replace stereotypes. The existence of archetypes imprinted within the human psyche was first proposed by Carl Jung. Theres a list of traditional archetypes and characters who seem to portray them HERE.

There's a clear difference between archetypes and stereotypes, but they can sometimes be confused. Archetypes represent the original, perfect example of any given aspect of human experience - the recognisable pattern, the perfect template. A stereotype represents an opinion, often an over-simplification or caricature emphasising particular factors which support whatever prejudice the writer or speaker upholds.

Stereotyping provides a quick and easy thumbnail sketch of a type of person or situation - it's journalistic shorthand, which may contain a tiny grain of truth but almost always a lot of misconceptions and generalities. It saves the writer many extra words and much effort. In the process, stereotyping encourages readers and listeners to form opinions which can eventually develop into prejudice, and lead to discrimination. Stereotyping can therefore be dangerous, unless we remain aware of exactly what is going on.

Imagine a family tree with archetype at the top , icons through the ages on the next branches, spawning beneath them a variety of stereotypes, these in turn giving birth to prejudice & bigotry, the terrible twins.

I noticed that at Yahoo Answers an enquirer was offered the opinion that, in a nutshell, an example of an archetype is Marilyn Monroe, the stereotype would be the dumb blonde. I understand what was meant, but it's not quite accurate, in my view. Marilyn Monroe is not the archetype, she is the icon of an archetype recognisable in the 20th century. Earlier icons would be Cleopatra or Helen of Troy. The nearest classic archetype of these women, I guess, is The Temptress. The dumb blonde, as a stereotype, was fuelled by an act Marilyn Monroe liked to put on for the cameras. This stereotype has now fuelled a whole set of "blonde jokes", relatively harmless - unless you happen to be a blonde beauty with a Ph.D in nuclear physics.

"The Wildman the Earth and the Stars"

Some years ago I bought a book I'd seen mention of on a message board or magazine article: "The Wildman, The Earth and the Stars" by Daniel E. Lowrey (1994). It's said to contain "a revolutionary new system for interpreting the astrological chart.....and is important for those seeking to understand the male psyche....."

"Male psyche"? Why not human psyche?

I believe that humans are humans are humans. While authors and presenters carry on presenting content specifically for males, or females, or black people, other colored peoples, or gays....or whatever....the species will never feel united, equal, or feel empathy for one another. Placing the sexes and races in boxes isn't at all helpful to my way of thinking.

I've noticed the book featured on several "gay" websites, so perhaps it was written with gays in mind - I don't know, but if so - another black mark, for reason given above.

Four archetypes form the basis of the "revolutionary new system": The King, The Lover, the Warrior and The Magician, together with the four quadrants of a natal chart, these produced by the ascendant/descendant and midheaven/nadir angles.



I notice that The Zodiac Master, "Dr. Z", an astrologer whose writing I've always enjoyed and respected has described the book with a little more enthusiasm than I have so far mustered. The link to
Dr. Z's article "What's Your Angle"

You know, I think that Mr Lowrey (whose website seems to be defunct now) could have had a good thing going with his theory if he'd approached it differently, a tad more simply, and without the "male" specialty. I've often pondered that the traditional zodiac is too well-defined, and people are not, on the whole, well-defined. We're a mish-mosh of all kinds of stuff. I think I once wrote in a previous post, which I can't now identify, that a zodiac of 4 sections could be a clearer and cleaner proposition, blending the signs/part signs as they fall, in each person's individual chart, within each of four segments.

Dr.Z writes that Mr. Lowrey's book is now out of print, but as he says, used copies are probably available, for anyone who feels it may be of interest. A new approach to an old subject is always worth looking into, even if later the thought that "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" surfaces.

Stereotypes and Archetypes

An article from the UK's Daily Telegraph this week raised my hackles. Under the heading "We're having a special relationship", the article purports to be about Anglo-American marriages. I have personal experience, and I propose that the way this article portrays the situation is nowhere near reality for the majority of people. It is filled with class-ridden, pretentious stereotypical nonsense. Of course, I do not live in New York, and have never lived in London. Some Americans and Britons need to be reminded that New York is not America, and London is not Britain. The writer of this article needs to be told that all, nay, hardly any Americans and Britons fit the patterns described in this misleading piece of writing. (Can you tell I didn't like it?)

The article which has irritated me so much relies heavily on stereotyping. This is common in newspapers and the media generally. Stereotyping on the basis of nationality, age, sex, class, ethnicity, and profession abounds. It's common in astrology, too, for those who haven't managed to escape from the Sun Sign mentality. A good example is the jokey list of "How many Librans, Leos, Virgos....etc. it takes to change a light bulb" - stereotyping par excellence! It's funny, as long as we keep in mind that it is a joke, not a fact.

Stereotyping provides a quick and easy thumbnail sketch of a type of person or situation - it's a kind of journalistic shorthand, which may contain a tiny grain of truth but almost always a lot of misconceptions and generalities. It saves the writer many extra words and much effort. In the process, stereotyping encourages readers and listeners to form opinions which can eventually develop into prejudice, and lead to discrimination. Stereotyping can therefore be dangerous, unless we remain aware of exactly what is going on.

In astrology proper, archetypes replace stereotypes. The existence of archetypes imprinted within the human psyche was proposed first by Carl Jung. There's a set of short pieces about Carl Jung's theories by the Zodiac Master . These are written in plain English in a style easy to understand.

The difference between archetypes and stereotypes is vast, but I believe that often they are confused. Archetypes represent the original, perfect example of any given aspect of human experience - the pattern, the template, inherently recognisable to all humans. The stereotype represents an opinion, often an over-simplification or caricature emphasising particular factors which support whatever prejudice the writer or speaker upholds.

In "Yahoo Answers" an enquirer was offered the opinion that, in a nutshell, it could be said that "An Archetype is Marilyn Monroe, a stereotype is the dumb blonde." I understand what was meant, yet it's not quite accurate, in my view. Marilyn Monroe is not the archetype, she is the icon of an archetype recognisable in the 20th century. Earlier icons could be Cleopatra or Helen of Troy, I guess. The true archetype of these women can be termed, I think, "The Temptress".

"The dumb blonde", as a stereotype was fuelled by an act Marilyn Monroe used to put on for the cameras. This stereotype has fuelled a plethora of "blonde jokes". It's fairly harmless, but if you happen to be a blonde beauty with a Ph.D in nuclear physics, you might well feel annoyed.

The image of a kind of family tree hovers in my mind now, the archetype at the top , icons through the ages on the next branches, spawning beneath them a variety of stereotypes, these in turn fuelling jokes, prejudices, bigotry etc.

It's a fascinating subject, more thoughts may follow !