Unthinking Thought

From nobody.really on the Alas thread about “minority” and its casual deployment:

Some words evoke an archetypical (or “default”) image in my mind. This dynamic need not be related to power or oppression. For me, the word “bird” evokes an image of a sparrow, not a penguin. Intellectually I acknowledge that both are birds equally, but at some gut level I accord more “birdness” to sparrows than penguins.

I don’t know that I would regard penguins as “oppressed members of the bird community” as a result. But, of course, the fact that I think in terms of archetypes has consequences that can be oppressive. If I were to design public policy to promote the interests of birds, I might very well overlook the interests of penguins – not out of animosity for penguins, but out of ignorance and indifference. The power of being the archetype is the power not to be overlooked out of ignorance or indifference.

One sign that people are thinking in terms are archetypes is when people use adjectives to define only one part a continuum. I hear the term “unwed mother” but not “wed mother”; a “wed mother” is the unstated archetype of mother. Similarly the term “date rape” is more common that “stranger rape.” The term “Upper Peninsula” is more common that “Lower ??? [Michigan]” The term “working poor” is more common than “unemployed poor.” Etc.

The archetype need not be a member of a majority. My archetypical human is male, even though I believe that women outnumber men. My archetypical rape is committed by a stranger, even thought I believe most rapes occur between acquaintances. My archetypical person of color is black, even though I believe that the number of Hispanics has surpassed the number of blacks in the US. Thanks to lobbying, the archetypical person who pays an estate tax is a family farmer, even though I believe the vast majority of people paying that tax are stockmarket heirs.