Essentializing

Jack Bowen

He definitely cheated on his taxes. I went to high school with him and he cheated on his homework all the time. As the saying goes, “Once a cheat, always a cheat.” He’s just a cheater by nature.

John or Jane Doe

One commits the fallacy of essentializing when claiming that just because something was one particular way at one point, it will always be that way. It’s as though the arguer states something along the lines of “It is what it is” and then makes the illogical jump to “and therefore it will always be that way.”

This fallacy is also similar to the genetic fallacy in that it suggests things are a certain way simply “by their nature,” such as in the statement, “Men are naturally better drivers than women.” The statement is made without any reference to data or sound logic to back it up. This sort of error is often made due to one’s reliance on stereotypes and emotionally laden (and often negative) preconceptions that then frame an argument fallaciously.

For example, regarding prison sentences and recidivism, one may argue criminals should serve life sentences based on the premise, “Once a criminal, always a criminal.” While this may be enticing on an emotional level, one needs to provide more of a defense than what has been given here, as one has committed essentializing by claiming a criminal is, essentially, always a criminal and, based solely on those grounds, should therefore remain incarcerated for life.

Part of this fallacy relies on the metaphysical notion of determinism: that people are determined by their DNA (and brain, etc.) and, additionally, no amount of environmental factors can change specific aspects of a person. In some instances this is true: people with certain brain chemistry or a brain tumor in a specific part of the brain are much more likely to behave in a specific manner. But this would need to be defended and supported with data, not defended merely on essentialist grounds.

In addition, on countless occasions it has been shown that environmental factors can and do affect our actions, regardless of one’s particular brain composition and chemistry. That is to say, it is not the case that simply because a person did maintain a particular disposition at some point she will therefore maintain it always.

So often, when we rely on stereotypes and other non-scientific modes of thinking, we formulate a hypothesis and then perform a non-scientific (often emotionally laden) survey seeking to support our hypothesis, all done, for the most part, subconsciously. For example, one may hypoth­esize, “All drivers of race X are worse than other drivers.” Then, while out driving, one may observe a driver of race X committing an error and allow this to confirm one’s hypothesis, typically ignoring all non-erroneous driv­ing by members of that same race. We rarely collect data scientifically, for example accounting for all drivers and all errors, but, instead, allow our bias toward confirming our hypothesis to lead us to a fallacious conclu­sion - in this case, that members of race X are naturally worse drivers than members of all other races. This, then, provides support - wrongly so - for those committing essentializing. In a sense, one could argue that racism results from committing such a fallacy: by (wrongly) asserting that essen­tial to being a full-fledged moral entity is that the person must be a human who is a member of this or that race.

We might notice that some form of the fallacy of hasty generalization is committed here as well. For example, one could assume that because one finds a small subset of instances supporting the fallacious claim, “It is what it is and therefore will always be that way,” that this claim really is true. But we know that asserting a truth about the world requires more than just a hunch or how things seem to someone on a few occasions - it requires rigor­ous proof, with sound statistical data to back it up.

At times, deciphering essential properties helps us to make accurate predic­tions. Knowing something is a poison confers certain qualities about the substance, essential to its being called a “poison.” Because it is a poison, we know it will likely cause severe damage if consumed. In this case, the essential property of poison is exactly what is of interest: whether there is a harmful chemical in a particular substance. Likewise, the critical thinker will seek to utilize statistics and probabilities in the correct manner, thus leading to conclusions sometimes made not on a basis of certainty but, instead, on the basis of being “highly probable,” thus properly framing the conclusion. Lastly, awareness of essentializing motivates the critical thinker to delve into exactly what is “essential” to a certain entity maintaining a particular label. As in the case of avoiding racism, we realize having a certain skin color is not essential to being a human being - having human DNA is. Many animal rights activists claim that something along the lines of this fallacy is being committed when non-human animals are excluded from the category of “moral entity” on the grounds of their not maintaining the essential quality, “has human DNA.” They argue, instead, that something else is needed to be considered a moral entity (sentience being the most oft-proposed quality).

When seeking to defend a conclusion, one should avoid the inclination to claim something will always be the way it was. Instead, look at the data. In determining whether someone cheated, his character certainly may be part of the equation - that is, it may be relevant to the conclusion - but poor character at one time does not provide logical grounds for concluding poor character at a later time. Likewise, in examining something like recidivism or a particular subgroup’s driving skill, look at the data: examine the respective statistics regarding recidivism rates and driving records.

Much of this goes back to an age-old philosophical discussion as to the nature of things. Early philosophers argued on behalf of things and people maintaining essences; later this notion was rejected, primarily by existential­ists, as famously summarized by Jean Paul Sartre’s, “Existence precedes essence” - through our choices, we determine ourselves instead of coming “pre-packaged” with some essence.

So when you hear someone claim something like, “Boys will be boys,” as if to defend the deviant behaviors of a young male, you can recognize this as an instance of essentializing and ask him to provide more defense than just, “the essence of young male humans is that they act violently toward others.” As with all good, critical thinking, one must go beyond hunches and gut instincts when seeking to defend a conclusion. While things certainly do seem to be one way, that is not enough to demonstrate that things really are that way.