Earlier this week I spent a moment stopped in my tracks thinking about the difference between two binary descriptors. Honestly, I can't remember what the words were, but they might as well have been anything as it sparked a thought excursion into the world of binary relationships in language where no middle identifier exists; so let's ramble.
"Binary descriptors" might not be an exact term for what I'm thinking of, but I think it sums it up nicely. Think of the relationship between "good" and "bad" without any slang misguidance for the sake of argument. For most intents and purposes, these words are binary in nature and maintain a polarised relationship. However, when they do manage to come together, you get the zero sum of "neutral" that signifies the central point of the spectrum they might exist on.
What happens when there are words that have no neutral relationship and only ever remain at either ends of a binary non-zero sum relationship? This is what got me thinking, as it's something akin to studying discourse and the power dynamics of language (therefore, nothing new), but it's a worthy mental exercise either way.
I mean, it's worth remembering that our world is shaped by language in one way or another; simply because it's our primary method of complex communication. Of course there are other forms that could be argued for the number one spot like body language, but words make up a large part of how we interact with reality.
There are complications of course, but nothing is without some kind of mental gymnastics. It's easy to witness the power that language holds in our society, as there are words and phrases that we collectively deem to be offensive. The words themselves are nothing more than collections of our alphabet to represent sounds that we make, so there's nothing intrinsically powerful about them. However, we insist on assigning weight and meaning to words and language, as it ultimately has the power to impact our lives in meaningful ways.
Look at all the recent media coverage over different ideologies around the world and how they are portrayed. There are a number of ways to report the same story and we are continuously bombarded with tales told through silent biases that are often expected to be expunged for clarity.
I would argue that bias is inherent, as it's tied to perspective and subjectivity. Often we confuse bias with something negative, but it's only a bad thing if it's taken for granted. Recognising our own bias is simply a way of framing our perspective of the world and lived experience of reality. There's nothing wrong with me stating that I see the world from a perspective unique to me, as it's a basic fact of my interpreted environment. The same would be applicable to everyone in existence, but it should be obvious to us so we might recognise difference in our bias and act accordingly.
This is what lead me to the existence of binary words and how strong they can be, simply for existing at all. Keep in mind that the point of the bias thing is to highlight how we all have a different lens to see through; the trick is knowing that they could produce different results. As soon as we assign value to these differences and begin to judge them, our bias becomes a negative entity and should be noted.
With all that in mind, think about how we see the world and how language has been created to delineate differences. In a way it highlights shared bias for the way that we see the world, like we all got together and decided to agree on assigning nouns to things that contain differing properties. Imagine what the world would be like if we couldn't describe the things around us with words that talked about their intrinsic substance. My desk is made of wood, it's rectangular in shape, it's flat, and quite large as far as desks go. It makes sense because these words means something and help shape a picture of the world or the thing I'm describing.
However, most of our words are not weighted with power and value, because we don't need them to be. As I'm telling you about my desk, none of the descriptors I used had any judgement or value proposition assigned to them. The closest I got was saying that it's a bit larger than a lot of other desks, but that's only a value call if you deem larger to equal better.
Things get interesting though when we think about some other words, like "cat" or "dog". Some people have a preference over cats or dogs, so saying one or the other will assign their own biased value to one or the other. Ultimately, the words mean nothing other than a descriptor for each species, but we assign some relatively harmless and amusing values to them either way.
It doesn't have to be for bad reasons either. Perhaps you once had a bad experience with a cat, or they always make you sneeze because you're allergic. In that case, you might have a negative value assigned to the word "cat", that doesn't exist when you think of "dog". We can have bias fused with language that comes from benign and even useful causes. Carrying around a value judgement that cats are worse than dogs might be perfectly rational if your experience has shown you this because cats always make you ill or afraid.
So far it might seem silly to be talking about the value propositions of different domesticated animals, but it's important to recognise how pervasive bias can be. It doesn't always have to be a hot-button controversy for it to be relevant.
Now it gets interesting to me as we arrive at the existence of binary relationships between words that exist as opposites. Think of "male" and "female", as scientific descriptors that refer to the physical gender of an organism, but for arguments sake let's just stick with humans. It's pretty useful and rational to assign an understandable dichotomy between males and females, as it's a function of reproduction. If none of us understood the physical functions of males and females in a species, we'd see some pretty random reproduction results because we wouldn't understand how it all works.
Fortunately though, we're smart enough to know how babies are made (and even subvert that through scientific advances), but that's where the impact of language starts to raise its head. Despite being well aware of the biological functions of gender when it comes to reproduction, we have taken this useful bias and expanded it to the extreme of theoretical values.
Sure, it's no revelation to say that many of us assign a value judgement to words that describe one gender or the other, but it's important not to take it for granted. What do we mean when we talk about a "man" or a "woman"? I would bet that most people know that these words contain way more meaning than a simple biological construct.
Funnily enough, this is where it all begins to get subjective, and our bias earns the potential to get ugly. There are people who obviously think that one gender has greater value than the other, which is no real surprise when we look at history. However, I'm still shocked and surprised when I meet someone that maintains a solid belief that these words come with extremely differing sets of values. In fact, I take that back, it doesn't really surprise and shock me anymore, but it really gets me thinking as time rolls on and the harmful values of words are maintained.
I'm not about to get up on a soap-box about gender equality, so I'll leave that one for another day and simply say that equality is the most desirable place to be.
Instead I've just been thinking about the words and how limited we are in discourse when we have to keep adding more qualifiers to binary descriptors, just to avoid negative value associations.
Maybe I'm aware of my inherent bias toward anything that has a favourable impact on me directly, so I try not to be self-centred by employing a bit of empathy for others. Rather than simply thinking about what's good for my own reality, I recognise that perhaps we all benefit equally if I attempt to consider other experience in addition to my own. With that in mind, if I simply say "I am a man", that doesn't seem to really cut it, as I'm aware of the bias others have for this statement.
Immediately anyone hearing this declaration will assign a few traits to me, often with a value judgement tied in. When I say that "I am a man" it's clear that my physical form probably has a bunch of unique reproductive functions that someone who "is not a man" would not have. I think most of the time that would be a rational assessment, as it is the simplest definition of the word. Then again, perhaps I don't have all the typical reproductive physiology of a man, but I still identify myself as "male" because we are only given a binary choice of descriptors. With only two options, I'll just pick the one that fits me best, even if it's full of inaccuracies.
Eventually we start assigning less concrete values and attributes to the statement "I am a man", as we might assume something about my personality, or my behaviour. Often we will assign a sexuality, as most humans will be sexually attracted to their opposite. Additionally, you might think that I respond more to visual stimulation than intellectual; I'm also probably more aggressive than nurturing; a hunter instead of a gatherer; any number of associations we have that we tie to gender.
Happily, I do find that most people are aware of the wide breadth of human experience and understand that all these attributes are only common stereotypes, instead of intrinsic realities. However, I would say it needs to go a step further and be treated as a result of our language and discourse, instead of unavoidable dichotomies.
What I mean is that I always get a bit deflated when someone argues that gender is anything other than a learned state of being. Note that I'm not assigning value to the idea of it being learned, but I think it would benefit us all if we recognised that gender has plasticity. If a man is prone to violent behaviour because men are genetically driven to act aggressively, then my natural state must be aggression. Imagine all the unacceptable behaviour I could excuse simply because it's a program I have to execute without choice or reason behind it. I don't get mad at my cat for scratching me with its claws when we play, because it naturally wants to dig in and have fun. There's no malice involved, so how can we assign malice to violent behaviour from men, if men are supposed to be intrinsically aggressive?
For me, the answer is that we can assign malice because these are all learned traits that have nothing to do with genetics, and everything to do with environmental learning. Again, this isn't the place to get into it, but I will note that I spent a few years studying this stuff at university, because I feel the need to qualify these statements with a small bit of credentials.
Consider then that if these are learned states of being, how do we learn them in the first place? I use the expectation of violence from men as an example, because it's one bias I've been on the receiving end of in the past. There are others that apply to each and every one of us and have varying impacts of all sorts. I'm a complete pacifist when it comes to violence and aggression, so when someone assumes I am probably a little bit violent or barbaric, it bothers me and feels unjust. Think what it must be like for other assumptions about strength, intelligence, intention, motivation, or anything other value that we assign to stereotypes.
The reason I've been thinking about this and why I've just rambled on a whole bunch, is because I recognise that these are dangerous elements of social discourse. There are repercussions for the values and attributes we assign to language, so it pays to be aware of the impact we may have on others.
Assuming that we all want to benefit equally and prosper through mutual evolution and advancement, there's really no place for defining difference with value. Describing characteristics is useful and serves a purpose, even values judgements have their appropriate time and place. The trick is realising when they are useful and when they can be damaging. If I describe myself as "white" or "Australian", it's useful to understand how I experience the world and the culture I identify with. Add a value to either of those descriptors and suddenly they're being used to determine if I have more value than someone with difference words associated with them.
I guess the reason I was thinking about all of this was because I'd love to find a way to explain it to everyone in the world, but even that is fraught with disaster. After all, why is this perspective any more valuable than another? I like to think it's because it promotes equality and therefore harmony and prosperity, but maybe that's only applicable to my own experience. It's hilarious to me that trying to tease out the solution to negative bias, is in itself an act driven by association of values.
The only reason I think negative bias and valued discourse needs to be adjusted and met with a dose of cynicism is because the opposite would be welcomed in my little reality. Who am I to say that defined gender roles are not appropriate for the many parts of society that function adequately enough within that structure?
I mean… that's basically the fundamentals of ethical philosophy, which is another area of study I'm fascinated with, but let's leave that for another time.
Honestly, I think even with all the qualifications and recognising that this post is from my own perspective with my own bias, I think it's a useful thing to think about. Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, but it's important to let the argument run its course. We don't all have to agree, but we'll probably benefit from having the discussion either way.
Oh, and like, creativity and whatnot… look at the pretty doodles… (I know these posts are off on tangents lately, but these thoughts inform creation, so it's kind of appropriate. I guess).