Breaking Down Boxes

In the language of psychologists, they're called heuristics, mental shortcuts that we all use to make sense of the plethora of information thrown at us on a daily basis. Most people will be familiar with what is possibly the most famous of these heuristics: stereotypes. And most will agree that stereotypes are Bad--with a capital "B". Then again, the dictionary defines "stereotype" as "a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. " In a speech, or writing, for example, a stereotype can serve as shorthand to evoke a particular memory or emotion, and can be enormously helpful. Professionals use what are essentially stereotypes on a daily basis: the lawyer deciding what sort of case they may accept, the doctor determining what sort of disease their patient most likely has, the police officer deciding whether or not the person they just pulled over for speeding is also transporting drugs.

There is absolutely no question that stereotypes, and other mental shortcuts, can be helpful, particularly when you are overwhelmed by information. As human beings, we like to make sense of things, and if you can apply a cut-and-dried label to a particular person or situation, you are much more likely to know how to deal with it. Of course, this assumes that cut-and-dried labels actually work, and perhaps they do for certain discrete situations, such as when defining or describing a large group. In that situation, generalizations are either necessary or impossible, and so if you have to describe a group (like politicians or lawyers), you're going to end up painting many individuals with the same brush (like corrupt or materialistic). Chances are there is enough truth to those stereotypes that you are going to be right at least some of the time, even if you're also wrong.

Things get tricky when you wander out of the world of description, from which bad (and good) jokes are made, and into the world of prescription (how to live/structure your life). When you base the prescription for a certain action or certain behavior on generalizations, you end up hurting people that you probably intended to help. It is, I'm afraid, a situation I've run into far too many times, especially within the Church.

I don't mean to imply that Christians are particularly bad about this sort of thing, or that they are not (as a body) thoughtful people. I only mean that when Christians stereotype, they are not applying that generalization to one category, but to at least two, and generally those categories are so integral to a person that to say, "You do not fit my stereotype of how X sort of person behaves" is also to say, "You are not a good [X], and also not a good Christian." In short, you are saying that the person is not fulfilling God's expectations for how a [fill in the blank] Christian is to live. For someone whose deepest desire is to follow God and to do His will, this sort of criticism cuts right down to the bone.

Since this is a blog about how faith intersects with feminism, among other things, I'm sure you all see where I'm going with this. One of the most insidious generalizations that Christians can make apply to men and women as discrete groups. I cannot say this strongly enough: while a person's gender affects much, if not most, of what they do and think and say, that person is first and foremost a human being, an individual, and secondarily a man or woman. "Male" and "female" modify human, and not the other way around. We see this in the very beginning, in Genesis, where it says that "male and female God created them." It does not say that God created men, and God created women, as though they are different species, although I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say that it certainly feels that way sometimes.

Why is this even an issue? Because when we define roles for men and women so strictly as to disallow all God-created individuality, we set ourselves up as gods over others. And no, I do not believe that language is too strong. For example, when we run across a woman who clearly has the gift of discernment, who is a talented speaker and preacher, who has the wit and wisdom to lead a congregation, and we say to her, "Your role as shepherd of a flock is an offense to God," we are assuming God's role, and negating God's call on her life. When we say to a man, who is an effective nurturer, who is gifted in raising and rearing children, and who desires to be a nurse, or a stay-at-home father, or other not stereotypically male job, "You are in violation of God's call for all men to work outside the home and provide for his family," we are negating God's call on his life.

I hope that you can begin to see what this sort of response does to a person. It does not simply say, "You are a bad man/woman," but also, "You are a bad Christian, and a bad person." This sort of perspective is disastrous, because it forces people into roles they are ill-equipped to take on, while also demanding that they be something they are not. Moreover, it leaves many ill-equipped to deal with unexpected situations that crop up: a woman suddenly called to lead and care for her family, because she has lost her husband, doing things "a woman is not supposed to do"; a man who is suddenly thrust into a position of a single father, or a caretaker for his disabled wife, doing things that "a man is not supposed to do."

And, because we are a community of believers, and not simply a group of individuals, such a viewpoint also acts to stunt the growth of the body as a whole. If it is true, and the Church is a body, injury to one member is injury to all, and if we do not nurture and develop the gifts of one individual, or a group of individuals, we stunt the body as a whole.

What is really irritating is when our culturally assumed stereotypes become "God-given truth," rather than being seen for the culturally driven myths that they are. For example, the idea that women cannot lead because they are too emotional, and too easily deceived, or the myth of the male libido--that all men want sex all the time and cannot exercise self control. Not only does that do a disservice to women, telling them that they "need" someone to make decisions for them because they certainly cannot make decisions on their own, but also to men, by placing the burden on their shoulders for the actions and decisions of the women in their lives. Telling men that they can't control themselves frees them from personal responsibility in the area of their sexual desires, but it also places a burden on women to avoid inciting men to sexual desire or violence because the men cannot control their responses. And it ostracizes women who have strong sexual desires by making it appear as though they are abnormal.

These are simply two gendered stereotypes often found in within the Church. I could probably write a book on it, and certainly others already have.

Once we do away with these culturally enforced stereotypes we see these myths for what they truly are. All people have blind spots, and some have less discernment than others--men and women. Knowing our weaknesses, we can go to the Church, to the body, for support and guidance, trusting that God and our brothers and sisters will strengthen us. When we realize that sexual desire falls on a continuum, that some are more prone to stumbling in this area than others--male and female, we can encourage personal responsibility, and act without censure to shore up those who may be inclined to fail.

When we break down boxes, when we do away with stereotypes within the Christian context, we can begin to see individuals as God created them to be: complicated, interesting, no one the same as the next. We can celebrate gifts and shore up weaknesses. We can help our fellow brothers and sisters to reach their God-given potential, and forge relationships that allow us to best serve the others in our lives. We can encourage both personal responsibility and true community, as each individual serves God and one another in Christ.

Just as we were created to do.