When Generalization Becomes Discrimination
Individuality must be taken into account before proceeding with assumption. Therefore, interaction must seek to understand the individual from a position of equality without the stress of sameness. Valentine proposed, “Individuals and groups have multiple identities, occupying positions along many separate lines of difference at the same time.”[1] When one interacts with those who differ from their belief system, gender, age, disability or lifestyle, one must approach them from the position of an unbiased ethnographic perspective. The observer must strive to understand the person, not the projection of the stereotype. This occurs, by allowing the identity of the individual to overshadow personal assumption.
The author discusses the topic of gentrification and its adverse consequences on minorities, women and elderly. However, I tend to wonder if Valentine is making a vast generalization of this topic, and perpetuating discrimination based on personal bias. When one states that gentrification is mainly done through white young men, one makes a universal claim in regards to a white man’s status compared to minorities and women. Is this right? Is this presumptive? Valentine stated, “The effect of gentrification (by mainly young white professionals) has been to drive up rent and property prices and to increase the incomes (mainly blue-collar workers, the elderly and ethnic minorities).”[2] This type of generalization does not serve to eradicate prejudice, but to form judgements based on a person’s “otherness.” It is a discriminatory presumption to suggest that the color of one’s skin denotes the amount in one’s bank account.
To assume that minorities are the only ones being victimized by redevelopment, is to assume a racist stance. Valentine goes on to state, “Just as social identities are no longer regarded as fixed categories but are understood as multiple, contested and fluid, so too space is no longer understood as having particular fixed characteristics.”[3] Relativistic principles and practices must occur when interacting with those who differ in opinion, belief or lifestyle. One must seek to see others through the scope of the individual’s mores, not in light of one’s own convictions. When we interact with those of a different race, gender, age or creed we must view them from an unbiased perspective, where communication is based on fact, not fictitious presumption. Equality must consider contextualization.
Who is the subject of our research? What makes them stop and stand in awe? What makes them different than our data results? All these questions challenge us with the task of seeing the individual. They ask us to step away from generalized perception and seek to understand the one under the microscope. They ask us to seek out the person, not the project.
Valentine guided us on an extravagant journey through diversified lives – giving us a glimpse of their souls in the hallways of prisons, homes, schools, cities and rural communities. He revealed that life outside of our perspective can differ; both in personal conviction and presentation of self. Valentine suggested that globalization requires us to have an interdependency on one another – a diversified patchwork of various views, nationalities, perspectives and cultures that add to the holistic story. [4] Whether it be in ministry, scholastic endeavors or family life; one thing is certain: God’s Image is diverse and displayed in varied hues.
[1] Gill Valentine, Social Geographies: Space and Society (New York, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 2001), 3.
[2] Gill Valentine, Social Geographies: Space and Society (New York, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 2001), 96.
[3] Gill Valentine, Social Geographies: Space and Society (New York, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 2001), 4.
[4] Gill Valentine, Social Geographies: Space and Society (New York, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 2001), 327.
About the Author
Colleen Batchelder
I speak at conferences, churches, companies and colleges on intergenerational communication, marketing, branding your vision and living authentically in a ‘filtered’ world. My talks are customized to venue needs and audience interests. My passion is to speak with organizations and bridge the intergenerational gap. I consult with companies, individuals, churches and nonprofit organizations and help them create teams that function from a place of communication that bridges the generational gap. I’m also the Founder and President of LOUD Summit – a young adult organization that presents workshops, seminars and summits that encourage, empower and equip millennials to live out their destiny and walk in their purpose. When I’m not studying for my DMin in Leadership and Global Perspectives at Portland Seminary, you can find me enjoying a nice Chai Latte, exploring NYC or traveling to a new and exotic destination.15 responses to “When Generalization Becomes Discrimination”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Colleen,
You make a valid point that in making an observation as a critical thinker, one must seek to know and understand an individual as an “unbiased ethnographer” and not see them through the lens of a stereotypical presupposition. But, even knowing this how many people make a serious effort to practice this. Prejudices are so embedded in one’s thinking processes. Even so, I do not believe Gill Valentine is making a sweeping generalization from a personal bias regarding young white males and gentrification. Although I do not know what age Valentine is calling “young” but it is my personal experience that the author is basically correct in this assessment. Perhaps, objective research is required to clear up this matter.
Claire,
Thank you so much for your encouragement and your thoughtful contribution.
There must be an unbiased view when weighing our observation; however, we all come to the table with various backgrounds, perspectives and beliefs when assessing situations. Too many of us seek to understand culture from the position of an audience member, instead of a participant. We don’t step into the footsteps of those around us. We simply make assumptions based on our interaction with stereotypes, rather than individuals.
Gentrification can take on all forms of influence. Lakewood, NJ is one of the largest areas occupied by Orthodox Jews. We have kosher delis, supermarkets, pizza parlors, and hospitals that are specific towards those who are Orthodox. Religion can be a form of gentrification. It can be a changing agent to societal norms, traditions and cultures. Many of the areas in Lakewood, NJ were homes to interracial neighborhoods. However, the influx of Orthodox Judaism within the community has driven many to relocate. Many Rabbis will purchase homes within the area and tear them down to construct apartments sold only to Hasidic Jews. Is this wrong? Should they be penalized for creating their own community? Gentrification drives out others to form their own culture. This can occur within religion, race, age or gender. Superiority abuse can take on all forms of humanity.
One of the problems that I see in our guided tour of institutions is that the church is missing from this list. It has influenced geography especially the social one for thousands of years. Why do you think she left off of her research this element of society?
Like you, one of the things I saw in the book was sweeping generalization which I can see as basically true but the one thing I noticed all through the book was the word culture. Do you think culture plays a role in these generalizations that you see? Can the culture affect the “unbiased perspective?”
Are we biased at times because of the culture that we have grown up in? That the author grew up in? I know she took a lot of time to research and quote multiple authors but what is her cultural viewpoint? My assumption would be that it is not a Biblical culture that she grew up in but I might be wrong. I don’t know her space and society. Interesting read don’t you think?
Kevin,
That’s a good point! After reading through this week’s assignment, I would surmise that Valentine holds to a more secularized viewpoint and anthropological voice. However, in her pursuit of truth, she tended to flavor the text with blatant opinion. Many of the chapters leaned to a more liberal perspective, which colored her portrayal of injustice, rights and convictions. It would have been interesting to hear her views in regards to the church and how religious institutions have affected the lives of individuals and groups from a nonspiritual outlook.
I also found her perception of heterosexual relationships interesting and highly conservative in functionality. Valentine goes on to describe her perception of the home being a place of heterosexual norms without diversity. Why does she view heterosexual relationships as traditional? This type of perspective in biased and incomplete in assessment. She fails to give attention to heterosexual egalitarian relationships. What about marriages who function with a wife who works outside of the home and a husband who stays at home to care for the kids? Is this traditional? No. Is it a subcategorization of heterosexuality? Yes. Valentine comes with her own set of biases. Paul and Elder suggest, “We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view which tends to privilege our position” (Paul & Elder, 107). I believe Valentine’s perception of the church is tied to conservativism. It is my belief that her views on religion are tied to experience and she views the church as an oppressive force that boxes in gender, race, age and sexuality. It’s interesting to read an author’s work and find the bias outlook by which they see the rest of the world. It is my guess that Valentine fears the church and sees it has a constraint from being self-actualized.
Wow–your post brought me up short, Colleen. I have never thought of gentrification as anything OTHER than wealthy-white-folks-moving-into-a-neighborhood-and-pricing-out-the-people-of-color-who-used-to-live-there. So your post made me do a little more reading about it. I wonder how much one’s own context influences how one understands it? In my city (Portland, OR), there is a terrible history of the African-American communities’ being displaced from their neighborhoods–or redlined out of living in other neighborhoods. There is ongoing grief when a funeral parlor is turned into a pub, for example–people have so many memories of the funerals they attended and the lives those funerals represent, it feels disrespectful to see that transition, especially when the pub is full of people who look so different from the friends and family who used to attend the funerals. So in this context, gentrification IS defined in the way Valentine puts it. I don’t see that as an *unsupported or unsupportable* generalization on her part, more a statement of fact. I do notice some other authors are careful not to assign race to it, but merely economics–which does suggest the connection to race may not be universal in every city/context. Glad you are watching for generalizations, since we will certainly be watching for them in your work! 🙂
Thank you, Laura. Have African Americans within the community been able to address this problem or change the gentrification process through governmental assistance? Yes. I definitely believe that it differs based on the area of the city and the purpose of the individuals who desire to change the land. Lancaster, PA is filled with Amish customs and traditions. Their culture and religion has influenced a whole area of one state and forced non-Amish out of the area to make room for more shops and tourist attractions. This is a form of gentrification. A religion has displaced men and women from jobs, homes and farmland. What other forms of gentrification have you seen in Portland, OR?
Colleen,
Loved your perspective! I like how you used Valentine’s text and turned it on itself when dealing with prejudice. reflecting on the issue, in what way(s) do you think we as christian leaders can reduce generalization stemming from prejudice as we minister to our community?
PS – I still can’t get the chicken and the cooked chicken head out of my mind. big time props for taking the dare! 🙂
Aaron,
Thank you! It was a fun experience interacting with Valentine’s text for the purpose of refuting some of the conceptions.
Good question. I think the best ways we can overcome the temptation of prejudice is to evaluate people on an individual basis. Valentine talked a lot about addressing people who differ from us as “others.” She sought to reveal that all of us judge one another. None are exempt from this phenomenon. If we agree and advocate for a person’s rights, we make that judgement in light of our own sense of freedom and liberty.
There was an interesting study done in communistic countries. The researchers followed individuals for a number of years and evaluated the response from those who had lived through a democratic shift in politics. As Americans, we are fascinated with the word “freedom.” We live for it. We die for it. We uphold it as necessary. However, after observing these countries who had experienced democratic takeover in government, they found that our concept of freedom became their concept of prison. They didn’t know what to do with the amount of choice. They found it overwhelming and encumbering. To them, freedom came from a minimal amount of options.
We as Christian leaders need to understand both the cultural context and the personal perspective of individuals. If we’re planting a new church or starting up a new ministry, it’s imperative to understand the potential audience.
P.S. My inspiration for the chicken head was to think of one thing and one thing only: Water Features 🙂 haha
Colleen – as someone who has occupied the space of a person who is female for somewhere around 30 years, how have you experienced being treated stereo-typically, and what would feel like being regarded more fairly?
Marc,
Thank you so much for the great question and for giving me the opportunity to share my experience.
I grew up in conservative churches – places where women were seen and not heard. During preschool, I started sharing the gospel and revealing my love for Christ through speech during circle time. This took place at a Christian school; however, the teachers felt that I should be quiet and not discuss my faith. I always knew from an early age, that I was called to preach and to pastor; however, I had been told by the church and those around me that women could not hold a position of leadership. There were two options for females: pastor’s wife or missionary. During Bible College, women were encouraged to get their MRS degree. This was our only option. We were forced to remain silent, unless we married within the ministry and even then, we were told to hide behind our husband’s faith. I remember graduating from Bible College and loving Christ, but despising the church. I was tired of my faith being questioned, because I wanted to minister. I was tired of being boxed in and being told that women did not have a calling. It was abusive, but a blessing. It gave me the opportunity to witness the oppression that still exists in so many denominations today and have the chance to be a voice to those who are being physically and verbally abused.
Years ago, a group of us were discussing theology and I had posed a question to one of the newly engaged women about her take on a subject. She turned to me and told that her fiancé would have to answer, since he was now the leader of their spiritual walk. I was flabbergasted and frustrated. Sadly, her response was not abnormal. It was taught as godly within many of my classes at Bible College.
I would encourage every pastor and ministry leader to read 10 Lies the Church Tells Women, Jesus Feminist and Lean In. These books give leaders a glimpse at the stereotypes that many women have experienced and reveal that God’s heart is for equality of race, age and gender. The most important thing we can do when creating an environment of equality is to see the individual. Not the gender. Not the age. Not the assumption. All women are different. For those of us who are born leaders, I would encourage pastors and ministers to walk with us. Don’t lead above us or walk behind us. But walk right beside us and see us as sisters in Christ who have been called by the same Savior.
This type of leadership will look different for women than men. Female leaders are diverse. My mom decided to homeschool me through high school and I loved that about her; however, not all women are called to homeschool. Women who want to lead in business or in the church need the support to lead well and lead differently. Some will have a nanny, some will have daycare and some will chose to work from home. However, there needs to be tolerance to all women and all forms of motherhood. Many mothers will have to find care for their children when they work outside of the home. Valentine talked a lot about the pressure of traditional lifestyles within the home. J. Lee Grady expounds on her stance and states, “We insult women when we spiritualize condescension by suggesting that God created Eve in order to provide Adam with a maid, cook, and laundress. Regardless of how a Christian couple decides to provide for their financial needs or how they will divide childcare and household duties, the important issue is that they listen to the Holy Spirit’s guidance and seek His will for their situation” (Grady, 31). The best way that the church can support leadership in women, is to invite couples and singles to seek personal guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Colleen – thank you for trusting us with your story. As a male I apologize, and I’m glad you’ve had the internal fortitude to push through. You will make me more mindful of my attitudes. As someone taught me years ago; there’s no gender connected to spiritual gifts in Scripture.
Colleen:
Appreciate your thoughts. You said, “When one interacts with those who differ from their belief system, gender, age, disability or lifestyle, one must approach them from the position of an unbiased ethnographic perspective. The observer must strive to understand the person, not the projection of the stereotype. This occurs, by allowing the identity of the individual to overshadow personal assumption.”
In light of Valentine’s presentation, do you think that your position is possible? I agree with your premise, but Valentine seems to present that we are preprogramed and change is very difficult, if not impossible, to take place.
Phil
Thank you, Phil!
We are all preprogrammed; however, all of our programming differs. Being raised in Central New Jersey has certainly influenced my interaction and perspective of various creeds, races, genders and ages. Growing up in a multiracial/interracial neighborhood, programmed me to be very comfortable with differences. Caucasian is actually the minority in my area, which has proved to be a refreshing experience of living in a community that’s diversified without racial superiority.
When I worked in Florida, I was good friends with two sisters who happened to be African American. This was normative for me. The majority of my peers were from all over the world. However, for these two young women, their lives were very different. I found most of the neighborhoods within the state were segregated and were fearful of integration because of the prejudice that still existed there. My two friends turned to me one day and asked me why I was their friend. They didn’t understand how I could be comfortable with different races and treat them with equality and respect, when they had experienced so much hate and animosity from Caucasians. We were all programmed. We all came to the question that was posed with various views, expectations and assumptions; however, healthy programming proved to be a form of unification. Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.” When we instill in our children and community a sense of respect, honor and love towards those who are similar and different than ourselves, we are training up a generation who sees others as made in the Image of God. My prayer is that we would program future generations with the hope of Christ that unifies all humanity.
Hi Colleen. I can never thank you enough for waiting for me at the airport so we could split the Express Train and bus to the hotel! Truly a wonderful way to start a friendship. Thanks!
I really appreciate your post and perspective. My favorite quote of yours:
“Valentine suggested that globalization requires us to have an interdependency on one another – a diversified patchwork of various views, nationalities, perspectives and cultures that add to the holistic story.”
Reminds me of when Rev. Steve Miller told us that most of the cars sold in the U.S. will be manufactured outside of the U.S. This made me uncomfortable. Angry! I want jobs in America! But I think you and Valentine are correct in saying that globalization requires a new type of interdependency. I have a hunch this new interdependency requires a major shift in power structures. I like how you relate that to gentrification. In my home town of Sunland we have a strange inverted gentrification. Many Christians move to Sunland because they can afford to buy a house. However, they choose to commute 30-45 minutes outside of town to worship at a church. For me, everyone loses when this happens. Am I correct in assuming, millennials tend to want to worship in the town where they reside?
Colleen, Thank you for your post. During our sessions in HK, we were taught that getting familiar with the author before we read a book is a helpful first step. Following that advice, this was the first time I took time to research the author before I read the book. Initially I assumed the author was a man, until I googled it. I’m under the impression that you also thought that Gill Valentine is a man. You said, “He revealed that life outside of our perspective can differ.” Did you realize that Valentine is a (white) woman professor in England? I thought you would like to know. Who knows, maybe knowing the author in advance may affect the way we experience the book.