She was such a Molly. Imagine her marrying a bishop’s kid…
May 28th, 2007 by Fenevad
While we often talk about stereotypes as a bad thing and are encouraged to get rid of them, as a folklorist I find stereotypes fascinating. They encode a lot of cultural knowledge that is useful (either practically, or for purposes of understanding culture). If one take the evolutionary position of memetics, these stereotypes persist because they do something useful and are thus reproduced over other stereotypes/notions that aren’t as “fit.”
(This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of memetics for the purpose of making a simpler argument. I don’t really want to get into the controversial topic of memetics here, but if you want to know more, check out the Wikipedia article I linked to above). I’m curious what readers think about why certain stereotypes persist in the Church, such as Peter Priesthood and Molly Mormon, the wild bishop’s kid, and the wannabe AP. What do these stereotypes mean to you and why do you think they retain such currency?
It seems that missions abound with such stereotypes, from the afore-mentioned wannabe AP to dating districts, party elders, and snakes (what Brazilians call girls who want to marry American elders). What other stereotypes have you encountered?
Stereotypes are definately useful, often wrong, and sometimes funny. Although no one really likes to see themselves as stereotypical, perhaps it’s useful to do occasionally. I also think a person has to learn to stereotype others, it doesn’t come naturally. You have to meet a lot of people to start seeing similarities, both obvious and subtle.
As for the funny ones, I think Singles Ward or other LDS movies point them out in an amusing way. My husband always likes to make fun of the guy in any singles ward who bears his testimony on Sunday like this, “Hi, I’m Kevin and I’m running for Elders Qurorum President.”
I’ve also noticed that I’m starting to stereotype children, which I didn’t actually realize until I started writing this comment. There’s the girl in Primary who answers all the questions, and if she’s ever wrong, she bursts into tears. Then there’s the little boy who runs around like Tarzan and yells into the microphone and climbs through the chairs (yeah, he happens to be my son) and everyone wonders if he was born in a barn.
It’s tricky when it comes to children, I don’t think it’s as useful for them to be stereotyped, nor for us as adults to treat them in a way that pushes them further into whatever box we see for them.
Sorry about the rambling, but thanks for an interesting thread.
Jessawhy, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the danger of stereotypes. Nevertheless, despite our recognition of the danger, we still persist in holding stereotypes, which suggests to me that they serve a function (good, bad, or something else).
For what it’s worth, I have a little Tarzan too. It‘s very difficult as a parent to see past the behavior some times, to see the good points. I have an interesting story about doing that, though, that might be relevant:
A couple of months ago I took my children to a concert of Zimbabwean music put on by an ensemble directed by a friend of mine. My youngest son sat transfixed the whole time. My daughter was very self-conscious about being seen to have fun. My middle child (the Tarzan) quickly found a chalkboard to one side of the room (this was in a lecture hall) and started drawing all over it. My initial reaction was to stop him because he wasn’t paying attention, but as I watched, I realized he’d drawn a bunch of horizontal lines (like a music staff) and was making marks on it that imitated the movement of the marimba players’ arms and mallets. Rather than ignoring the music, he was drawing it! In other words, he was reacting to it in a different way (albeit a perfectly valid one) than I expected. Letting him draw all over the chalk board made the music more meaningful to him. If I had let my (internal) stereotype of him—that he is a wild kid in need to discipline—rule the day or if I had gotten too concerned about what others would think of me as a parent for letting him “misbehave,” he would have had a miserable time. Instead he had a great time and thoroughly enjoyed the music.
I think in general the “unknown” is a scary thing. It feels much safer to live under the illusion that we have it all figured out. I think that stereotyping plays a valuable role there (in fact, I think that most pre-packaged traditional information plays an important role there — I see this as one of the main functions of folklore).
Fen, I know some people from Zimbabwe. One of them used to be in a band there. If/when you know of future Zimbabwean music performances, please let me know at the email I entered with this comment. Thanks.
I think it is important to be very careful with people from Zimbabwe. I donit think they even have a temple there yet.
But more to the point, this post has not recieved the attention it deserves, and those who have commented thus far seem to have strayed far from the main point. It does not matter in the Lord’s eyes what we use. What matters is what comes out of it. The list of appropriate options are as follows:
1. Mormon Tabernacle Choir (I despise it when people try to shorten that to be “hip” by calling it “mo tab.” That sounds too much like “Mo Town,” and we all know the dangers in that),
2. Afterglow,
3. anything by Janice Kapp Perry
4. Kenneth Cope (or any other EFY-sponsored artist, as long as they don’t stray in to rock and roll.)
5. Primary Children’s music (sung by real primary children — it is especially cute and heavenly when they strain at the high notes and sing with a slight lisp).
There may be a few that I am leaving out, but no respectable Peter Priesthood or Molly Mormon would listen to anything else, regardless of their stereo type.
I just posted on Jeffrey Holland’s “The Tongue of Angels” but there was a section in his talk that fits into this idea of sterotypes, I think.
I am going to paste two paragraphs here. I have removed the gender-specific pronouns but pretty much kept the rest of the language as is. Can you tell which paragraph is addressed to the women, and which is addressed to the men? Could either paragraph work for either gender given our traditional undertanding (i.e. stereotyping) of gender roles? What sterotypes (if any) are being reinforced here?