(Chapter I)
When I talk of social constructs, nothing is right or wrong. Notions that we have learnt unconsciously through our social environment constitute a part of our personal life. Notions like, ‘a woman will always favour her daughter over her daughter in law’, ‘no woman will ever regret experiencing those defining nine months’, etc, I do not wish to assert that they are all correct, but just that there is a possibility of them being wrong also. The idea here is to consider alternatives. These notions pose a problem when they get converted into absolute ideologies which we start practicing in our public and private spheres. I think that these social constructs are what give birth to stereotypes.
When I talk of social constructs, nothing is right or wrong. Notions that we have learnt unconsciously through our social environment constitute a part of our personal life. Notions like, ‘a woman will always favour her daughter over her daughter in law’, ‘no woman will ever regret experiencing those defining nine months’, etc, I do not wish to assert that they are all correct, but just that there is a possibility of them being wrong also. The idea here is to consider alternatives. These notions pose a problem when they get converted into absolute ideologies which we start practicing in our public and private spheres. I think that these social constructs are what give birth to stereotypes.
What interests me about the study of psychology most is that it studies behaviour from a very subjective perspective. Unlike other sciences, it believes in individual differences. Two people might not have the same reason behind the same action or they might, but that does not prove that the third one will too. In some way I believe, psychology defies the idea of a majoritarian statistics giving space to minorities and exceptions. It is inclusive yet exclusive. It gives space to choice.
Coming back to stereotypes, let us take the example of love, the ‘idea’ is that love is conditional. My point is there is nothing universal about it. It could be conditional and yet ‘true’ love. (Or it could not as the obvious suggests) Life is more about what things are rather than what it should be anyway, right? And when people sign up for their actions attributing different causes to their behaviour, how universality matters, I fail to understand. I am not against generalization. There are a lot of universal laws pertaining to life – Rape is wrong, for example, nothing can justify it. But when I talk of subjectivity, I am talking of things which are more artless and emotional in nature.
No matter how much statistics argue against, we need to look beyond the obvious. We need to look at all possibilities. The general idea is it might make you broad minded, the subtlety lies in its ability to make you close also. See subjectivity?
This post may come off as a paper or textbook material, it may come off as boring, it may come off as a disappointment or a revelation even. Different people might have different things to take from it or nothing at all. Exactly my point, ma’am.
8 comments:
Only if we realise that experiences differ, perceptions differ, and our responses vary, can we be able to appreciate differences. We are so obsessed with what we consider to be obvious that we chose to ignore the fact that our 'obvious' could be an absolute absurd from somebody else's point of view. 'Common Sense' is not that common.
What if white is really black and we're delusional? What if death is actually the life we're all moving towards? A lot of rhetorical question and no definite thoughts to to clarify them.
Sharp post, Nidhi. Wanted to read more on this. Let me know if you write more on this.
You have mentioned that Unlike other sciences,psychology holds space for the exceptions. That isn't true. Every science has a place for the minorities, as you mentioned. I study medical sciences and I for one know how different each individual is. A disease caused by one bacteria manifests in so many different ways and it is the art of understanding the symptoms of the 'minority' that separates a good doctor from a great one. The exceptions, someone make the rules.
Im just drawing an analogy between two sciences.
Also. Good post. Some points need to be elucidated more.
Take care.
X
Somehow*
Maybe, thank you. : )
But what I was bringing out was the differences between generalisation and individual differences.
And thank you Astha and Sourav.
This was a sudden wave of thought. I look forward to writing about it more. : )
Post a Comment