The Stereotype
Social psychology defines a stereotype as a generalized belief about a particular category of people. Another definition states it is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. It can be an expectation about a group's personality, preferences, appearance, or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate.
Quite the introduction I suspect. I can only imagine, based on individual life experiences, how each of you initially reacted. As a member of the LGBTIQA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning with the plus denoting a second “A” representing “allies”), I’ve had several stereotypes tossed in my direction after almost 54-years of living.
One of the more difficult aspects is being self-aware enough to acknowledge there is an iota of accuracy to them. We strive so strenuously to disassociate the negative connotations when they are used to such an extent, a level of cognitive dissonance develops. As the definition dictates, “…when ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.”
In some cases, one can be ostracized amongst their own sub-culture for acknowledging differing perspectives. I liken this to many of the harsh observations I toss against my own country, the United States. I am a veteran and do love my country albeit not blindly. Not acknowledging the good, the bad and everything else in between, leads to fanaticism and myopic allegiance. I articulate harsh criticisms because I want my county or whatever is currently on my radar to be better. Amazingly, even after mentioning the latter, people can be so blinded by outrage, they see nothing else but traitorous behavior.
What I have written up to this point is merely contextual and fits well in to being a self-check before sitting down to create those succinct or verbose character backgrounds. Those of you who have followed me for any length of time are abundantly aware by now, my views on how to properly respect and treat characters no matter the platform. The kill characters to simply kill characters because we think it is what keeps content consumers coming back to our content era is beginning to wane. Now, if we can convince science fiction creators, time travel and/or alternate reality content is no longer a thing, I will be a happy camper.
In my opinion, writing has been and always should be about getting people to conceptualize the world around them in a different way. It does not matter what genre content creators choose to dabble. Do you have a specific message to convey? If so, stretch those creative wings and take the less obvious approach. If you are stumped, look at how fellow content creators are conveying their messages. Take a moment to evaluate what is the latest and greatest content, consuming everyone’s attention. The most recent iteration of Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel, Dune is a prime example.
All too often, I have seen content creators, who come from marginalized groups, create characters who continue to perpetuate the very stereotypes they are railing against. In previous posts, I have pointed to a variety of content guilty of creating the expendable gay where the introduction of said character is hailed as the best thing since sliced bread by applicable LGBTQIA+ outlets, only to rarely see them in episodic content and when it comes time to sacrifice a character for the greater good of the story, the revolutionary gay character is the one served on a golden platter.
As it relates specifically to this month’s post, many gay characters, especially if they are male, are still conveyed as overly sexual, i.e., promiscuous, and generally display destructive behaviors. They typically have some sort of mental issue, are overly flamboyant, sassy, and have a natural affinity for interior design. Although I threw the last observation in the mix for good measure, it feeds into how some stereotypes are accurate. My husband and I often joke about how the gay gene almost skipped me entirely because I cannot coordinate an outfit to save my life, have a terrible eye for design and still do not understand iconic references to Judy Garland or Bette Davis.
Obviously, what I am referencing; this syndrome to create characters and content, which checks all the boxes of our inherent biases, is not intentional – for the most part. Unless we have taken the time to develop self-awareness, the content we create will emulate the typical. This is not to say good content cannot come from quintessential characterization but if you want it to stand out, it will need to not only challenge your audiences’ perceptions but yours as well.
Another facet serving to compound the problem further are the machinations of publishing houses, literary agents, production companies, and media conglomerates such as Disney, AT&T, Comcast, Discovery, Hasbro, and ViacomCBS. It is not about creating quality content, which adheres to a proper story telling framework of plot, foreshadow, setting, conflict resolution, and characterization. These entities only care about their bottom line, which is volume over quality to maximize profit in the shortest amount of time. Many put on a good public face, articulating they care about the fans, but it is only the fans who purchase and view their content, while they continue to make bad content creation choices.
One example comes to mind when American Movie Classics (AMC) created the after show, Talking Dead, which is an ingenious way to help detract from the bad decisions of producers and writers. You get everyone together to talk about their feelings as to why a beloved character is killed off, thank the actor for portraying said character, have a big group hug, and continue with business as usual. This way it is easier to continue making bad decisions because everyone will begin to stop caring about the answer. It is the reason why my husband and I stopped watching both The Walking Dead and Fear the Walking Dead when we learned they were killing off Carl Grimes (Chandler Riggs).
Let me close with what most will say is a Duh statement. If you intend to highlight societal ills related to how certain groups of people are treated and want to be hard hitting, consider if using a stereotype will achieve your ultimate outcome; people thinking differently about the very things we hold dear. Although it may seem like an obvious choice, your implicit bias may sneak up on you and come in for the kill.
Feel free to post your questions or comments. I will respond, if need be, when I am able.
Resources:
Cognitive Dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Dune (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)
Implicit Bias (Perception Institute): https://perception.org/research/implicit-bias/
Stereotype (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype
