Profiling

If we were to take out the elements by which we profile people in America, specifically race, how would we start to categorize people?

One of the arguments for racial profiling is that we often profile people so that we perceive those who are similar to us as non-threatening and those who are different as threatening. It's some kind of evolutionary development so that we can protect ourselves (because trying to be on the defensive all the time would be too taxing on the brain) by simply and easily categorizing people based on an in-group and out-group mentality. In-group people are non-threatening and thus approachable while out-group people can be threatening and thus must be approached with caution. This defensive mechanism with all the negative media portrayals of (mainly) black men as criminals and suddenly this group is automatically the out-group.

I use my experiences from living in Korea as a standard of measure to see if this is something that could translate in Korea and if so, how it would play out. It helps give me perspective on whether or not there's validity in such biases.

Korea has a fairly homogeneous society and culture. One BIG caveat that I want to bring up is that despite its homogeneity, there is definitely a wonderful underground culture that pushes back against these norms in surprising and creative ways. This is something I had to come to terms with because I always thought Koreans mindlessly followed trends and what Society taught them to do. This is very much not the case and there is very much an active engagement in mainstream culture (honestly, I feel like there's a more active dialogue between mainstream culture and how it is consumed in Korea than in America). But such discussion is for another day.

Going back to this in-group/out-group thing, racially, there is very little diversity in Korea (yes, there's a fairly large ex-pat population, but Korea cannot compare to America in the sheer number of ethnicities represented; it's one of America's distinguishing qualities).

So, if we were to apply the in-group/out-group mentality to Korean society, where race is not a determining factor of whether or not someone is threatening or non-threatening, what happens?

I realized what Americans do for race, Koreans do with dress and facial expressions. Let me elaborate.

If you dress like a thug, Koreans will assume you are a thug. I got kicked out of a jewelry store at the age of 14 because the employee (very possibly the store owner) thought I looked suspicious. I was going through a phase (in the 90s when this was cool) where I thought over-sized jerseys and baggy pants were cool.

I looked like Aaliyah in the top left, except... y'know, Korean and 14 years old.
From http://hip-hop-fashion-evolutionx.blogspot.com/2013/04/90s.html

I looked suspicious based on the way I dressed and the guy at the store read that. I also walked with a slight swagger and I was also wearing a bucket hat, which covered my face (the more I explain this, the more I realize how ridiculous I looked but that's all in the past...). I can understand the guy's suspicion, but at the time, I was simply and innocently shopping for a gift for my sister and it was incredibly disconcerting and infuriating to be judged solely on what I wore.

That takes me to the next criteria of judgement in Korea: facial expression. That's an oversimplification but I haven't yet decided on a good way of describing this. Koreans read people's expressions but this is combined with how one carries oneself as well as one's resting face (so the resting-bitch-face problem would be far worse here). There's this belief that one's personality and/or qualities as a person is manifested in a person's face. I don't mean if you've been having a bad day and you have a sour expression on your face, someone will look at you and think you're a mean or bitter person. If someone has been through a lot of hardship and has a marked bitterness or strength (bred through suffering) in their face, Koreans detect it (or try to) and use this as a way to determine whether or not someone is threatening, friendly, hardworking, etc. I think the idea of the vibes a person gives off kind of encapsulates what I'm getting at. While it's an imperfect practice, I've noticed that this way of determining in-group/out-group worked. I wonder if this could be a better way of determining how to approach someone. That man in the store couldn't see my face because I think he would've realized my age and my intent and maybe would have approached me differently. However, looking at my form and dress, he had to come to the conclusion that I was a threatening entity in his store because someone dressed like me did not buy jewelry.

I do realize that there are a lot of problems with doing this too. At the root of it, no one wants to be judged and no one wants to be perceived as threatening or as a bad person. However, there are people out there with bad intentions and to blindly withhold judgement from such people is, in my opinion, foolish. While I like to think that all humans are capable of good, I don't believe many choose it.

The opposing argument may go something along the lines of "it's better to withhold judgement so that people aren't hurt and there won't be the vicious cycle of judgement, negative reaction, etc." There is truth to this, especially in light of all the distrust between police and the black community. However, one must also realize the stakes. If person is walking toward me is dressed like a gangster and looks like he or she is carrying a concealed weapon and examines me like he or she is going to rob me, I'm going to cross the street. All the more so if I'm with people I don't want to see get hurt. (It's a defensive mechanism, remember?) However, notice how race is not a factor in my scenario; the person's dress and carriage has me on high alert. I wonder if this is something that police training can embed. There are obviously larger issues with all of this, but I wonder if this is one of the many ways we can change things.

So I guess what I'm gleaning from this and other times that I've been judged by my appearance is that when you take race out of the equation, other things start coming into play that perhaps are more indicative of whether or not someone is threatening or not. I don't think that the solution as simple as saying "well look at his/her expression, carriage, dress, etc." but I think that there's something to be said about how things can change beyond just looking at someone based on race and gender (I know I didn't say anything about gender but that's because that's something else I'm marinating on and it's a slightly different conversation). To say "stop judging" is to ignore an automatic function of the brain. However, how we react based on our judgments and whether or not we choose to let certain flawed biases control our reactions is where real change can happen.

The complexity of humans

Somewhat of a half-baked thought, but people are often so confused by those who think and think a lot.

When one realizes the logical fallacies of society or of one's philosophy of existence, one must necessarily revise one's thinking.

To be confused by a person's ideological inconsistencies because they have changed their approach to life is to forget the complexity of the human mind.

People like Gaskell or Barthes (I'm helping a friend write about Barthes' work and she mentioned a similar kind of confusion that people have with him) are complex because they are thinking beings. They have a depth in what they see and feel and others cannot comprehend what they do or why they seem to contradict themselves because they cannot grasp the underlying reasoning behind it.

I think they are the ones that observe society and see it for its flaws and do what they can do revise, reform, or inform the world. They try to make what changes they can.

People have a hard time understanding this because complexity does not fit easily into defined boxes and there is a tendency to want to compartmentalize everything or to understand the trajectory of thinking.

Sometimes, I think that it is nigh impossible to understand people and then there are moments of clarity.

Presence

Today's thought project is, as has been before, time.

I had mentioned that time is currency that can never be gained back. Reliving memories costs us the present, regardless of whether those memories are good or bad.

So I've been reading this book called Presence by Amy Cuddy. She gave this famous TED talk on body language and finally came out with a book.

While I'm only in the beginning of the book, when she was talking about having presence, I couldn't help but to also think about being present (i.e. being in the moment). I kept thinking of how people are often engaged or disengaged with the world and how this changes the person we become.

I was also thinking of what I was talking to my friend about earlier today too. Even as we strive to be better people and we're aiming to become a certain way, we mustn't forget to accept ourselves as we are now and that who we are now is still someone that we should not be ashamed of.

I suppose what I mean is that in trying to become a better person or to strive for a "better you" (sounds like a bad Dove advertisement), one should not reject who they are now. Even if we want to become better, we still are who we are at the present and that "who we are right now" is still someone we should embrace.

Time is still not my friend and my mind still doesn't cooperate with me. However, perhaps I am trying too hard to follow a mold that I do not fit into and I need to make things work for me, in my way.

Hidden meanings and things not seen

Most of what happens, happens in our heads.

Obviously the events that we are surrounded by are things that happen to us and are external from us, but the experience of such events is seen, felt, and understood by the individual alone.

Memories are fun to recount with others that one has shared with because they are always remembered slightly differently.

“Remember when…?”
“Oh yeah! Didn’t you…?”
“I completely forgot about that!”

And so forth.

Sometimes the disparity of the experience is great, especially if the worldview of the individuals involved is different. A child and a parent can have incredibly different memories of the same event. The purity of one's experience can also be tainted by the recollection of another, who has a different perception of the same event. It's unfortunate that past events, which should be fixed by the very nature of it being in the past and done, can be recalled in so many different manners. What one experiences at the moment and then recalls later can also differ. It's funny, how our minds change what seems to be an unchangeable past. The perception of a person can poison past events (Oh, my alliteration kills me...).

And then intentions change everything.

Perceived intentions all the more. My intent might have been good or harmless, but if my action is seen to have malicious intent, the receiver or observer of my action will see the action as harmful.
And so misunderstandings occur.

Language sometimes alleviates such misunderstandings but even when people are speaking the same language, the meaning that is understood by the individual can be different.

Body language, cultural language, industry-specific language, and so on. Everything has a language, yet sometimes, I find it short of miraculous that we are able to understand one another.

The dilemmas of the day

I want to wear flip flops but I don't want to get my feet dirty.

I don't want to wear sneakers but I want to keep my feet clean.

Oh the troublesomeness of socks and close-toed shoes...