Remember the toy of pegs & holes? The game was to tap round pegs; square pegs; and triangular pegs into their proper holes?
It taught us all, early on, to think of disparate things as components of categories. It is a useful way to think. It is generally true; it is never absolutely true.
The confusion between generally, and absolutely, is not easy to resolve. Especially when it is not noticed.
In our time it has led us to believe that Blacks, Women, Episcopalians, and Poker players are all like-thinking members of their very own, “communities”. Round pegs in round holes. It’s
a convenient calumny for those who would mislead. For others,
it goes without reflection.
In truth, we are all different to such an extent that any notions dependent upon communities of like-minded thinking will never be reliable. That’s not a problem for the misleaders;
it should be for those who want to think clearly.
When I consider the, “community”, of fish in the sea,
I observe that they are all busy trying to eat each other. I could take advantage of this by baiting a hook and throwing it to them. More efficiently, I could scare them into grouping for safety into a net I have prepared just for this purpose. Are the denizens of the sea much different than citizens equally misled?
We are all communities of one. When we don’t recognize this, we mislead ourselves. Oddly enough, when we look out for ourselves, we do good for others.
First, it makes us tolerant of other individuals looking out for their own good. Second, it leads us to understand that while individuals have needs, groups, communities), have agendas. These agendas may, or may not, be good for us, or anybody else.
The practice of group-think is rarely good for anyone.
“Community” is only one variety of tenuous categorization.
The Zoologists efforts to classify animals into distinct categories has produced some odd turns, and many dead-ends. The earliest of these were the armchair musings of Aristotle. After him, there were several Medieval Bestiaries that included Dragons and Unicorns in their categories of real, living animals. Modern taxonomy begins with Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). Better than before, but not without ongoing misnomers.
The Panda was first considered by zoologists to be a cytptid (imaginary) beast, until a hide from one was delivered to a French missionary in China (1869). For the next some 100 years taxonomic experts argued about how it should be classified. Was it part of the family of bears, or the family of racoons? Current consensus is that it is a member of the family Ursidae, (Bears). The Lesser Panda was thought to be part of the racoon family (Procyon lotor) because of its long ringed tail. Now the Lesser Panda has been awarded its very own taxonomic niche (Ailuridae). All this due to the revelations of DNA examination.
Had anyone, during these long years of controversy, asked any child to identify these creatures, they would probably have said, “That one is a Panda. The other one is a lesser Panda”. True enough, though every Panda is different from every other Panda and so is every Lesser Panda.
Categories have limited authority.
Categories are useful when we treat them with suspicion. They become a problem, or a waste of time, when we regard them as untouchably definitive.
Is it a round peg in a square hole, or a square peg in a round hole, or something altogether different? Does it matter what we decide? Sure, but it matters more to know the particular characteristics of whatever phenomenon we are considering.
It is well enough to lump certain similar things together; but it is important to remember that all categories are composed of unique parts that are never entirely alike.
Most of the abuses of specious categorization happen in social engineering projects. There are others in Media, Movies, and music, as well.
That said, one type of category has proven wildly successful. In 1869, Dimitri Mendeleev, a Russian chemist, developed a table of elements arranged according to atomic mass. He called it a Periodic Table.
He had a theory of how these elements were formed.
This theory allowed him to predict that many more elements would eventually be discovered. He left spaces in his chart for these future discoveries.
These spaces were not randomly placed. Dimitri ordered his table by the increasing number of protons in the nucleus of an atom. When any next element in his table jumped by more than the expected addition of protons, he left a space for the element he assumed should exist.
The modern version of his table is now called the Periodic Table of Elements. It is a mainstay of chemical science. Mendeleev’s holes have been filled in, and many more elements have been added.
Why was Dimitri’s model of categorization so successful, while so many others have failed? Well, he started with substantive information that he then organized into a pattern that anyone could clearly understand. Unlike so many social engineering schemes that are based on what the social planners think ought to be - as opposed to what is.
Reality cannot be molded by theory.
Square pegs can be pounded into round holes, but neither the peg, nor the hole is really happy with the results.
Every one of us belongs to a category comprised only
of our self.
A category of one.