In an advanced society of statistics, it is interesting to come across various categories of performance. Due to my enduring fascination with sociology, dealing with stats and categorization almost comes naturally when reading, observing, or critiquing groups of people. It is not that I want to judge people as much as I am measuring their path to success and independence, accordingly. After all, that is what I studied in an American University.
Although I have been taking pathways to try and understand groups of people according to varying attributions, I have concluded that there is so much diversity floating around, that it is nearly impossible to categorize ALL living things. To start, biology appears to be the starter level, while sexuality may be the most elusive. And yet, throughout all this research, it appears no one can come up with a conclusion on how groups of people should function, act, and live, accordingly.
The so-called system does a fine job in not only using military and first responders to assess various situations, but in reaching various institutions regarding societal living. In my current job helping disabled adults, a recent seminar on cultural diversity explained that all people in the U.S. should be respected despite biology, culture, gender, family, age, race, nationality, language and viewpoints, or rigid beliefs. Yet, the same organization which categorizes people according to their ability, or disability also does not want to judge, or stereotype people according to those traits just listed.
In a way, societies are made to uphold not only these categorizations, but prejudices. Sure, the information above, which pertains to interacting with a person who has a disability, is useful in determining what type of treatment a client, or patient may need in a field which assists said persons. Such said person may lack communication skills, health needs, or even behavioral management, which can and is attributed to varying factors, such as some of the ones already listed: biology, race, gender, age, etc.
In my trying to figure out how societies work and produce, and what most people might believe in, it is interesting to see the different levels of playing fields. Of course biology, age, disability, language, and even customs might have an effect on how certain individuals are treated by groups of people. And, it is great that the U.S. has laws to protect people from being discriminated, or possibly even harmed. However, how is it that majorities still pick on those from a socio-economic, cultural, religious, or even racial background? How is it that the beliefs of certain people, or that person's criteria to gain acceptance and tolerance developed? These questions have also been part of my studies and observations to attest to how cultural conditioning and childhood development may lead to such prejudices and intolerance.
My only conclusion at this time is that most of us tend to be hypocrites! Most of us will spout our tolerance and acceptance for all people, or even all living things; yet, we will go back to daily habits that contradict what we say, or represent! When we see a situation where a person, animal, or environmental factor is being harmed or harassed, most of us will simply ignore the situation instead of jumping with both feet in and becoming a savior of some sort!
It is not that most of us want to mind our own business, or were brought up to put self and family first, it is that exposure to various environments, people and situations may have been limited. It is that family traditions have dictated how we act and respond to others, and it is also socio-economic, childhood, environmental, nutritional, and even biological factors. We all differ, and I have no idea why some advanced societal systems want to categorize each and every group of people to the point of cultural assimilation.
Next Read: Independent - how to be a free-thinker
COPYRIGHT: 2017 SD Liz - No reproductions or re-use of published work.
