Very interesting article, but I wish you would have taken a step back to interrogate the etymology of the term and development of the concept. While the word dates (in French) to the 18th century and refers to a method of printing, the use of it as a metaphor in English dates to at least 1922 via Walter Lippmann.
But I believe it is far to ask - is the concept of "stereotype" as we now generally understand it even useful? Does it illuminate more than it obscures? I'm not sure that it is does. It is a recent development, not an ancient intuitive understanding, after all. It is essentially just another word for "generalization," except as your article ably outlines, it functions to cast disrepute on generalizations and suggest they are inherently bigoted as applied to humans. But we know what (true) generalizations about large sets can and can't tell us about individuals. The effort to foreclose the matter entirely is flatly anti-science.
Very interesting article, but I wish you would have taken a step back to interrogate the etymology of the term and development of the concept. While the word dates (in French) to the 18th century and refers to a method of printing, the use of it as a metaphor in English dates to at least 1922 via Walter Lippmann.
But I believe it is far to ask - is the concept of "stereotype" as we now generally understand it even useful? Does it illuminate more than it obscures? I'm not sure that it is does. It is a recent development, not an ancient intuitive understanding, after all. It is essentially just another word for "generalization," except as your article ably outlines, it functions to cast disrepute on generalizations and suggest they are inherently bigoted as applied to humans. But we know what (true) generalizations about large sets can and can't tell us about individuals. The effort to foreclose the matter entirely is flatly anti-science.