Profiling good and bad

THE word, “profiling,” has a bad connotation in the US

that is severely torn by conflicts due to issues of race, gender,

reproductive rights, politics, ideology, etc.

            There in that supposed bastion of freedom and democracy,

profiling has meant that a person or a sector of people is stereotyped

and labeled, put in a box or straitjacketed. It simply means that

people are not respected for who and how they are.

            Of course, if profiling only means that, it should be

considered as something bad. It is completely discriminatory and goes

against the basic tenets of our human, let alone Christian, belief

that in spite of all our differences, we are all equal because we are

all brothers and sisters and form just one family of humanity. We are

meant to love one another. We are supposed to be responsible for the

others.

            But there is a good profiling also. And it is the kind

that we do when we want to understand better a person or a certain

group of people who share the similar qualities, like sex, religion,

age, generation, political affiliation, economic class, culture,

lifestyle, preferences, etc.

            If profiling is used as a tool to understand a certain

group of people, then it is good. It does not mean that everyone in

that group or sector is the same in every categorization we may make.

It acknowledges individual and personal differences while recognizing

that everyone shares a certain quality. It knows that equality among

ourselves does not mean uniformity.

            For me, this good profiling is useful especially when

giving a means of formation or when I preach. When I get confident

that I have a good profile of the people I will address in some

activity, then I feel that I can be more specific and proper in the

things that I need to say. As much as possible, I like to stay away

from simply mouthing mother statements and generic platitudes.

            We cannot deny that there are very observable differences

among the different generations. The baby boomers, for example, are

different from Generation X who are also different form Generation Y

and Z, the so-called millennials. It would be good if we take note of

these differences and act accordingly.

            As long as profiling is simply used as some guide without

stereotyping people, then it is good. That is why, it is advisable

always to take note of the more or less distinctive characteristics of

the different groups, sectors and categories of people, without

indiscriminatingly assuming these characteristics when dealing with

these classes of people. We should also be attentive to individual and

personal differences.

            Of course, life is a dynamic process, and we should not

think that our profiling work is a static affair. It will always be an

ongoing affair, and will always need some updating, modification and

revision, some deepening and widening, etc.

            What is important is that we sharpen our skill of

observation, taking note as promptly as possible of the new

developments. The motive of all this should be to help people, and not

for purposes of gossiping and fault finding.

            Yes, we have to be clear about our motives for profiling.

We even have to be more specific about the motive of helping people,

because there are many ways of helping people. And our idea of helping

people may not be altogether good or right, because it can be tainted

with self-interest.

            To truly help people is to help them get closer to God.

Short of this motive, we can suspect that our motivation is not pure.

When the motive is pure, no difficulty can stop our effort to help.

And our effort at profiling would be exempted of self-serving motives.