Looking at the Label

Picking up a recent issue of The Vanderbilt Hustler, you may have been surprised to learn a few things about yourself that you never knew before. 

For example, did you know that you “misunderstand” individual people and their stories in favor of large, fabricated stereotypes and generalizations? 

Did you know that you have “constructed walls” around yourself, presumably to isolate you from those other kinds of people who aren’t like you?

And I’ll bet you never guessed that instead of “getting to know each other,” you’d rather just take the easy route and apply a label to each one of your friends and acquaintances.

I was just as surprised as you were when I was greeted, on two separate Wednesday mornings last month, by the smiling faces of two people and a command from The Hustler to “Meet Jean,” and “Meet Cresson.”  Upon first glance, I thought The Hustler might be showcasing Vanderbilt’s student leaders, or recognizing some sort of achievement or honor bestowed upon these two students.

It didn’t take long, however, to realize that “Looking Past the Label,” however well intentioned it might be, is little more than a poorly constructed attempt to battle the stereotypes that we apparently all subscribe to in our daily interactions with others.

The fundamental problem with this feature is not that it showcases an individual’s personality or unique traits. Nor is the problem that, in printing this feature, The Hustler is claiming that stereotypes exist on Vanderbilt’s campus. This very publication, last semester, ran an article hailing the efficiency of using stereotypes to make decisions regarding people you do not know and most likely never will due to the simple fact that “it is impossible to evaluate every person as an individual on such a large scale.” What, then, is the fundamental flaw with using the individual to combat generalizations?

Let’s consider the two “labels” examined by The Hustler—the Asian-American and the Sorority Girl.  According to The Hustler, “people might think” Asian-Americans are “math geniuses, fresh off the boat, and shy, docile, or submissive” and that they “love rice, can’t speak English, and know karate.” Sorority Girls, accordingly, “love to go frat-hopping,” are “obsessed with sisterhood,” “want to be burred in [their] Sperrys, pearls, and some ridiculous polo,” “get trashed every night of the week,” and “spend hours getting ready before [they] leave their room.”

Perhaps most the most troubling text in the feature is the following:  “Only by facing our own misunderstandings,” The Hustler says, “can we begin to break down the walls we have created.”  “It is important to get to know each other in order to make this big world a bit smaller.”

Thank you, Hustler, for telling me that I need friends.

But seriously, the “people” referred to are obviously the readers of The Hustler, and that would mean that the misunderstandings mentioned are therefore their own. Following that line of logic, The Hustler is implying you, and I, subscribe to the set of frankly ridiculous stereotypes they constructed.

What The Hustler feature fails to recognize is that just as individuals can be selected to disprove broad generalizations, so too can they be used to further reinforce those same stereotypes. Therefore, any effort to prove the contrary is weakened. Imagine what the “Looking Past the Label: Conservative” feature might look like. “People might think,” the article may read, “I am a white, God-fearing male who enjoys country club sports and reading The Wall Street Journal.”  Why, in fact, I am, and I do. The point is, that to use an individual as a counter-example to any group is to appropriate that individual’s unique traits for social “progress.”  Cresson’s and Jean’s stories are certainly interesting and worth hearing. But to place them in the sort of context that The Hustler did is counterproductive to what is most valuable—the celebration of the individual.

That celebration, of the individual’s unique differences, is something special. It is something that each of us witness on a daily basis when we interact with our friends and acquaintances. However, the reason these personal differences are special to us is that they affect us in very specific ways—ways that cannot be communicated on a macro level from the pages of a print publication. Think about one of your own friends—most likely, regardless of who that person is, or what their background is, there is something unique about them that interests you and causes you to like them. Using in that individual as a counter-example of—or a representative for—an entire group of people serves to discount their uniqueness by molding it into a symbol standing for or against something, rather than what it should really stand for—itself.

Hopefully, “Looking Past the Label” would cause readers to stop and think about how they view the world. While that is an admirable achievement, at what cost is it earned? Respecting the wonders of individual uniqueness should not come at the expense of implying that an entire campus only relies on stereotypes when confronting individuals in their daily lives. One only has to look around Vanderbilt’s campus to witness a gregarious, friendly bunch of students who may very well hold and apply stereotypes to other people, but nevertheless seem to have no problem overcoming those “walls” and forging friendships across socio-economic, racial, religious, Greek, and gender lines. The very existence of stereotypes, and especially the ease with which they are shattered, only prove to highlight the value of the individual person and the importance of taking that person for who they are—a unique individual.