Happy hump day!! Today’s post comes to us from Stephen. Thanks Stephen!!!
An interesting media, academic, and political phenomena is the constant references to certain groups as a singular unified force while employing words which separate and divide other groups which have become so ubiquitous that the vast majority of people fail to even notice.
In particular, let us examine the black community. No, you missed what I meant, read that again. It is the words themselves, “the _____ community”, the adjective is merely the target, of the other words. Just how many times have you heard people talk about “the black community” in news articles, academic journals, or political speeches?
“Community” is singular, and when combined with the definite article, “the” reinforces the idea that this is a singular unit, indivisible, distinct, identifiable, an objective reality of existential being: “the community”.
Why would anyone then be perplexed by the treatment of all black people as virtually identical and interchangeable? Why is anyone surprised that black people vote 90% Democrat yet long before that they voted almost 100% Republican?
Once you accept that there is a single, nationwide, unified black community, then black people in urban Detroit and rural North Carolina must have identical interests, problems, face the same challenges, listen to the same music, eat the same food. After all, they are all one community.
They are not the only “community”, every so often you will hear of “the Jewish community”, “the Muslim community”, “the Sikh community”, “the Homosexual community” or some other minor, fringe leftist minority. You don’t hear of “the Baptist community”, or “the Pentecostal community”, you hear of “the churches” or “church communities”.
Contrast this with the oft mentioned “rural communities” where all of those various conservatives are scattered about. When was the last time you ever heard of “the rural community” instead of “rural communities”? Those rural peoples are many, diverse, scattered about hither and yon, the Appalachian and Ozark hillbillies have nothing in common with mid-western farmers or Montana ranchers.
It even extends to “women” or “feminists” as a singular entity spoken of often as a uniform whole while men receive qualifying adjectives like “some” to make sure that you know there are differences among men but unity among women.
While the general trend is that those who support leftist or liberal causes are typically spoken of as a singular, unified block while conservatives are disjointed, disorganized, and scattered, it is not a universal convention. Oddly enough, you sometimes hear of “urban communities”, but then other times “the urban voter” so they are sometimes a singular unit and other times diverse groups.
Other times all of these other groups may be referenced as plural or singular against the general trend, though it is often noticeable when it occurs because it runs against our collective expectations and just sounds a little odd to us not because it is wrong, just because it is unusual.
Psychological studies have demonstrated for a long time that outward symbols of similarity have a profound impact upon the behavior of individuals. For example, something as simple as similar t-shirts will immediately cause a group of random paint-ball combatants to act with noticeably greater group cohesion and cooperation.
If a simple visual cue can have that dramatic of an effect upon strangers, what do you imagine the effect of decades upon decades of a pervasive verbal convention will have on the culture of the identified groups and how they view themselves, as well as how the culture at large views them?
Black conservatives can tell you how much of an outlier they are made to feel for expressing beliefs and opinions which run counter to “the black community”, how they are told that they are “acting white” or being “an uncle Tom”, or many other insults telling them that they are getting out of line by moving away from the group-think.
Millennial liberals who have dared to question the status quo of the college communities can tell you how much they have been ostracized, insulted, and despised because they left “the group”, being corrupted by the right.
There is a subconscious drive to enforce group unity once you have built your very identity as being part of the group. Loners don’t have this hang-up.
What does it mean growing up as part of “the ____ community” as opposed to being a member of just one of the many “_____ communities”? We know that the singular community demands greater conformity of its members, and that is constraining, but is the converse true?
Is being a member of one of those scattered irregular communities liberating, or is it isolating? Is it both? It is difficult to be unified with people with whom you are told you have only a passing similarity. Just as the singular communal identity brings people together, the plural diverse identity helps keep people separated.
Perhaps this helps explain the tradition of cohesive unity in the Democrat party and the habitual party disunity of the Republicans about as much as any other explanation.
What created the unity in the German people for centuries was just that, that they were “the German people”, until political movements reflected this sentiment to bring the German peoples under the banner of a single nation.
Is our own nation any different? The fireside chats of Roosevelt always began with “my fellow Americans”, and this phrasing helped bring together and unify a nation. Of course, at the same time he was fighting “poverty in America”, specifically rural America, and thus really pushing the urban rural divide we now see.
We cannot deny that we are all affected in our perspectives of our place in America, our sense of belonging and with whom we belong by the very language used to describe the various groups each of us is by choice or circumstance a member.
Can we let such simple words herd us into groups which think and act alike, or herd us into various groups separated by such labels? Can we really avoid it merely by choice based on our conscious desire alone? Does it matter what you believe if everyone else chooses to place you in that group?
The real question becomes, is this all some nefarious plot to divide and control the population through the coordinated control of such a simple and obvious part of our language, to herd people into groups and empowering their unity or encouraging their division?
Frankly, no. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, perhaps even more so. (Except him, and we all know who he is.) However, this is from the media, academia, and politicians, and in all honesty, they are just not really smart enough to pull this off.
It is a force of habit that we all fall into without thinking about it, and we all help perpetuate in our day to day conversations because a certain phrasing feels familiar and correct. Oh, I’m sure there are a few people who consciously observe and carefully plan their words, but they are too few and too far between to have the type of impact I’m sure they believe that they have.
But, the sad truth is that every time people like me write, or speak, we reinforce the normal view of groups as a unified identity or a disparate cacophony with little reflection of how that expression becomes a self-reinforcing perspective. We also reinforce the same view when we behave consistent with our identity as standing together or standing independent. Neither is of itself good or bad, but it is a way society herds people by the groups associated with them.
