What a difference a “the” makes.

We recently read on the letters page that we have plenty of oil, but “the environmentalists have the upper hand and we cannot drill to get it.” We were also told, “The Democrats campaign by telling you what they will give you … . The Republicans campaign by telling you what you can keep.”

In virtually every difference of opinion, actual or theoretical persons, especially those who do not hold our views, get classified into a group with an official or unofficial title preceded by the definite article: the Democrats, the Republicans, the neo-cons, the liberals, the environmentalists, the oil companies, the CEOs, the taxpayers, the media, etc.

When you see a “the” like that, prepare for a stereotype. Prepare also to be OK with it.

Most of the time, we make classifications because we have to. Though the word carries heavy negative connotations, stereotyping is necessary to sane living. It may be stereotyping to assume an object is a chair because of its appearance (seat, legs, back, etc.), but checking each one I use for non-superficial, weight-bearing chair functionality before having a seat wouldn’t leave me much time for important tasks like writing this column.

The original definition for stereotype refers to the practice of casting printers’ plates in one piece so the text to be printed couldn’t be changed. I’m sure this process was developed because of its usefulness, perhaps like a modern user’s read-only PDF file. Of course, the more common definition of stereotyping involves static assumptions about groups of people and things. Sometimes these are based on substantial evidence – sometimes not.

Stereotypes are also nearly always necessary for humor. Parody doesn’t work unless the audience has a generalized conception of the persons or situations being parodied. “That’s exactly what it’s like,” we say as tears of laughter run down our faces during “Saturday Night Live.” Successful jokes consistently twist how we would expect “normal” people or objects to behave.

Humor also demonstrates what a minefield stereotyping is; seemingly every month there is another entertainer who steps over the line making racist, sexist or otherwise insensitive jokes based on stereotypes. To make matters more complicated, the line is in a different place for everybody.

Words themselves are a sort of stereotype. Using only the term chair ignores the various styles, colors and purposes of individual chairs, just as racism and sexism assume homogeneous deficiencies which reality repeatedly refutes.

Thus, we must acknowledge differences and limitations in our terms. Many writers make use of dictionary definitions to prove that someone else is wrong; popular words include illegal, patriotic, science and faith. However, citing “the” dictionary (disregarding the many brands and dialects of dictionaries) often only proves that you and your opponents shouldn’t use that word with each other, since somebody clearly isn’t using it correctly.

The 200-word limit for letters to the editor encourages a level of generalization for the sake of brevity. Many letters still make room within that word limit for, say, “the Democrats and the Republicans” when “Democrats and Republicans” would have sufficed. I can’t put my finger on why, but the “the” seems to make a broad brush even broader.

Rather than letting that little word raise our blood pressure, though, let’s reconsider the innumerable platitudes about judging based on appearances. Sometimes appearances are all we have, and sometimes we have no choice but to make conclusions based on them. Sometimes, 200 words isn’t enough to do people the justice we feel is owed. And sometimes, perhaps, the other writer is limited by the same constraints.

I contend that stereotyping only becomes a sin when we are unwilling to change our conclusions and judgments when further evidence is available. It isn’t casting the printer’s plate or saving the read-only PDF that does the mischief but refusing to recast or resave when errors are discovered.

Building our awareness of stereotyping could be a key to having a courteous discussion about the ideas behind the words. Knowing that we do it and others can’t avoid doing it is helpful to people who truly intend to understand – even if only to refute – another point of view.

Generally, then, generalizations must be made. But, as always, I urge opinionators to steer clear of what can well be described, in the unedited words of one writer, as “ad-homonym garbage.”

You may have to judge the book by its cover when it’s still in the store and shrink-wrapped. But don’t forget to read it once you bring it home.