Thank you, Angus Nimmo, for a great question! I only hope that your assumption that we can provide an answer is well founded…
An assumption can be offensive precisely because it is an assumption. If you assume something about someone, it’s because you do not know whether what you are assuming is correct. Though your assumption may be the result of a very strong impression or intuition, if you haven’t taken the time to actually interpret the statement/person/situation in question, then your assumption may not only be offensive but also stupid. But then you could look at it from an evolutionary perspective and argue that it is impossible for us not to develop intuitions or impressions and that there is an evolutionary response that takes place beyond our control when we get these same impressions. Then again, it is also clear that our brain, despite being reptilian, has a cortex which allows us to override or at least learn new ways of behaving and therefore develop manners and learn to suspend our judgement.
Things are not exactly the same when we speak of a statement that is factually correct. In the words of Ricky Gervais, ‘being offended doesn’t mean you are right.’ Ideas and thoughts are embodied by people; and if it is true that we are all different, then we must all embody different ideas, which means many ideas will be incompatible. So, when I criticise a certain idea and that idea is embodied by another person, it doesn’t mean that I am attacking them; it just means that there is a communication problem which we must overcome.
There is an important parallel, here, between correct statements and generalisations. A generalisation can obviously be offensive if a person forcefully argues that it is true when it is patently false. But just because some generalisations are offensive doesn’t mean that all generalisations are problematic. Generalisation is a tool of communication; to verbalise is to generalise. ‘I like apples’ doesn’t mean ‘I like all apples and I know everything about apples and apples are the best because I like them cause I tried them all and I know what I am talking about all the time because I am the bestest.’ It just means ‘I like apples’, whatever that means to me as the speaker (memories, flavours, moments, lights, colours, tastes, feelings, people). Though language has productive effects, words are simply tools; they are not vessels of truth. No two apples are the same; yet we still have a concept ‘apple’, which helps us generalise about apples in order to communicate. Most generalisations do not seek to be absolute truths and, at the same time, most of our sentences are generalisations. Most conversations aren’t essays where every single word used needs to be defined and unpacked. There is nothing more debilitating to a conversation than having to stop to define every single word. When talking about his music and critics, Josh Homme once said something like, ‘I do not mind someone disliking me or my music, just as long as they actually understood what I was trying to do.’ This makes me think that the opposite is also true, paradoxically enough: if someone hasn’t really taken the time to understand me, why should I be bothered about their opinion at all? But even this question needs some context: How many times have you been misunderstood? How much are these people even willing to listen to you? It goes without saying that things can take a toll.
What do you think? Are assumptions offensive? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
I did a BSc in International Politics and then an MA in Continental Philosophy. My main influence is Nietzsche, who mentions that in order to properly understand not only humanity, but also the world we live in, we have to engage in the “naturalisation of humanity” and the “de-deification of nature.” Understanding this is crucial if we want to find better and more realistic ways of living alongside one another.