essentialism

Something that struck me as interesting in this weeks classes was Susan Gelman’s idea about essentialism. The idea that within a category there is some underlying “essence” that is universally true for members of said category. I think this theory is very applicable to children’s problem solving, and categorization, and is even evident in adult ways of thinking. The underlying essence is not something that can necessarily be named. For example cats and dogs share a number of different features, from the role they play in people’s lives to their physical appearance, yet we are very comfortable differentiating between them. For example, my mom has a Great Dane, who is very similar prototypical dog in appearance and behavior, my best friend has two cats who are very similar to the prototypical cat, and my sister has a toy poodle who looks and acts more like my friend’s cats than my mom’s dog (similar to the bat and bird example used in class). She is little and soft, she sits on laps, she jumps up on things most dogs wouldn’t be allowed to, and even eats out of cat dishes and wears cat collars because of her size. Yet we call my sister’s poodle (Tobie) a dog, not a cat. Of course, as adults we can look at Tobie and say that she was breed from larger dogs to be little, looking at the Standard poodle that she was breed down from and we can point to her genealogy to prove that she is in fact a dog, not a cat. The essentialism article talks about this kind of adult categorization; “Adults sometimes refrain from classifying together things that seem superficially the same but in theory-relative properties” (343). But little kids can’t do things, and none of them label her as a cat. This implies that there is something about Tobie’s essence that is canine, because her being categorized, by children, as a dog is obviously not based on her looks or behavior. In fact, Gelman points out that while children do this, they might not be able to tell you why they do. They would consistently call Tobie a dog, but if asked why Tobie is a dog, not a cat, they might have a hard time coming up with an answer. The Gelman et al article states that adults and especially children will sometimes use the theory-based classification without knowing the theory, and this accounts for why they can’t always explain why they categorized something the way they did. According to the article, essences don’t have to be observable at all, this is certainly true in the Tobie example, the reading used the example of a whale not being a fish.
There was some dispute in the essentialism article about whether or not adults still categorize things like this. I think that they do, at least to a certain extent. It is a more modernist perspective to use this type of cemented thinking, that there is some underlying defining feature in any classification. While it might be important in childhood classification, it can quickly become a limiting way of thinking in adulthood. If one doesn’t allow more fluidity in categorization they can make unfortunate assumptions that can lead to problems. For example race or gender issues. If people believe these constructs to be more concretely defined we may run into problem of unfair grouping, or the exclusion of members that don’t fit in to any category. Essentialist thinking can lead to misguided thinking. We talked about some anecdotal examples in class about thinking you will get personality traits of an organ donor, or believing that people of one race are more genetically different from another race, but these and other examples of essentialist thinking in adults can be dangerous. It can lead to assumptions about abilities biased on race, gender, or some other category one might happen to be a part of. Postmodernism has tried to combat this way of thinking, but more work is needed. It is important to think about where we get these types of ideas, because I would bet we are all guilty of categorizing things and assuming things based on our categorization, with little proof to support our assumptions. It is really interesting how something that is so important in childhood can linger into adulthood in a less positive way.