To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
The idea of 'prejudice' is about preconceived notions of a negative nature and stereotypes. There has been a whole history of fighting against prejudice against black people, against sexism, LBGTIQ+, disability and any other aspects of difference. It is not easy because it appears that prejudice is deep seated.
However, while fighting prejudice is a difficult battle I would suggest that there is another angle. That is the way in which prejudice is usually projected onto others. I wish to suggest that, on some level, every human being has some prejudice and that is what we have to work with too.
I do believe that overcoming prejudice is important, and is an ethical ideal, so I am asking to what extent can we reach this ideal, in order for people to live more harmoniously with all others?
However, while fighting prejudice is a difficult battle I would suggest that there is another angle. That is the way in which prejudice is usually projected onto others. I wish to suggest that, on some level, every human being has some prejudice and that is what we have to work with too.
I do believe that overcoming prejudice is important, and is an ethical ideal, so I am asking to what extent can we reach this ideal, in order for people to live more harmoniously with all others?
Comments (169)
So I would agree, in general terms, that we all are subject to "prejudices", but I don't think these always are manifested the the specific form of prejudices against types of people, which is the sense in which I assume you are using the term. A prejudice is fundamentally a "pre-judgement."
When it comes to the common usage of prejudice today, I think that those specific types of prejudices are to a very large extent learned-taught behaviours. And I do think that, to the extent that our society becomes enlightened, they can and will be eliminated.
its an almost impossible task and i don't recommend the solution on me nor anyone. To approach the threshold of success, you and i would have to become literally homeless.
I would not say that any human being can live up to the ideal of being free of any prejudice, in the way that anyone can achieve complete wisdom. However, I do point to it as an ethical ideal worth striving towards.
You point to the danger of homelessness, in the pursuit. I am not sure of the actual connection. Many are on the verge of homelessness and I could become so at some stage in life, although I certainly hope not. But, what I am thinking is that homeless people are a particular group of people subject to prejudice. Perhaps prejudice against the homeless is a key aspect of this question.
I would agree with you that many prejudices are learned. The most obvious is that racism was more common in the past or in certain groups of the population.
When thinking about the question, you point to the way in which projection may arise, such as a person projecting on to the alcoholic having a hidden alcohol problem. What I would say is that there is also a lot of prejudice against people with alcohol problems amongst many who do not have any alcohol difficulties. There are all kinds of presumptions made about the person's life and lifestyle.
What I do believe is that prejudice is a subtle force. It is most obvious in obvious forms of discrimination against minority groups. However, that is the tip of the iceberg, ranging to the much more subtle. Where does 'dislike' end and prejudice begin?
Yes, I think it is important to excavate the true depths and nuances of "prejudice." Essentially, even something like the phenomenological reduction can be viewed as a kind of elimination of prejudice. However I think that you rightly focus on the social dimensions, as this is where prejudices do the most damage. Let's see what other ideas emerge.
thats fair.
But that's not what I think advocates of political correctness mean when they say prejudice. They don't really care if a politically incorrect opinion has a factual basis. Use of the term prejudice assumes that if someone were better informed, they wouldn't hold this view, but that's not necessarily the case.
This plays out in relation to things like stop and search, or profiling potential terrorists for searches at airports. It's decried as prejudice, but the facts are the facts; black people commit more crime, and middle eastern people commit more acts of terrorism. These may be completely inappropriate assumptions in respect of any particular individual, but we are not made safer by dispensing with heuristic assumptions.
I'd agree, but it's not worth flagellating oneself over an attitude one has on a subconscious level. If the prejudice becomes an actual belief then something has gone wrong and that belief needs correction, but if it's just instinctual then you're probably just normal. I think humans are instinctually pre-disposed to fear all outsiders to some extent, even if they're the same ethnic group.
I take on board your point of view, but the only thing I would point out is the way in which prejudices can become systemic. It is established within research that black people are often treated differently from white ones in the mental health system. What has been apparent and even recognised amongst mental health professionals is that certain individuals, with a similar presentation who are white, are more likely to be categorised as 'paranoid schizophrenic', rather than simply 'schizophrenic'.
I have great difficulty believing it's entirely due to racism - because that would imply a vast number of medically qualified professional people behaving in a completely unprofessional and unethical manner. But terrific example of the inadequacies of political correctness driven social science! Was it undergraduate level research?
I don't think that the matter is about 'flagellating oneself' about thinking about subconscious attitudes. What I am really saying is that often the idea of prejudice is seen as 'out there', rather stemming from the personal. I think that this balance needs to be readressed to some extent.
I am not denying the importance of prejudice in the real world but think that examination of it on a deeper level is the task for philosophy.
You point to the role of instincts and the way in which people are perceived as 'outsiders' and I think that this is at the core of prejudice. The fact that something is regarded as instinctual should not be seen as a basis for justification and could be seen as a naturalistic fallacy.
Let us hope that the mental health system is becoming more aware of biases, such as racism. I have worked in mental health care and there is dialogue. However, I would say that there are interesting dynamics going on in mental and care.
Having worked in a number of mental health care settings, I am aware that most of the consultant psychiatrists are white, while a certain of the more junior doctors are from ethnic backgrounds. On the other hand, many of the nursing staff are from black and ethnic backgrounds. However, I am aware that I am speaking from the perspective of working in England, so it may be very different in other parts of the world.
I really think this is where it is most important. Whether philosophically or socially, our unexcavated beliefs can be among the most powerful, and the most dangerous.
But those aren't beliefs; I'm talking more about instincts.
Why do you believe that overcoming prejudice is important?
Where does instinct end and where does belief come in? Where does emotion fit into the picture?
I don't know what to say, other than ask if you believe that prejudice matters at all?
A belief is something that you actually consciously believe. People aren't guilty for their instincts or fantasies, if they were the entire world would deserve to burn.
Prejudice only begins to matter when an egalitarian social order is being imposed on people.
I gravitate towards people from other countries and have discovered people of color from Africa are not angry towards Whites as people of color who lived in some of the United States may be very angry. I think we have a difficult situation in the US because anger is very part of the problem.
I think it is helpful to look for the beauty in people. Now that implies prejudice as we discriminate what is beautiful and what is not, but at least it crosses the racial barriers. So if I add things up, the musical performance, meeting very nice people from Africa, and enjoying beauty, I would not say I am not prejudiced against people of color, but I am careful because I am aware of how angry some people are. :lol: Loving to meet new people has meant stepping into good situations as well as some not so good situations. It depends on where the person comes from more than the color of the skin.
Finally, I have a great-grandson who has dark skin and black kinky hair, and obviously, he is one of us. The color of his skin does not make him someone who is not one of us. He is family and you can't be closer than that. We share the same genes for goodness sake. It seems obvious to me the color of the skin does not matter. It is just the color of the skin. In India, people have many shades of color and they are all one, Indian. In time the people of the US may look like the people of India. As long as they are democratic I don't care if some are White and some have permanent tans. What is most to me is the values of democracy, not the shade of the skin.
I would certainly say that people are not guilty for the fantasies which arise, but perhaps it matters how we react to our fantasies. I would see consciousness awareness of them as being the most important aspect, as processing them.
You speak of belief being conscious. I would say that this is true on the most basic level when we speak about our beliefs. However, this is only the starting point and the whole philosophy underlying cognitive behavioral therapy, which is one of the most recognised, effective forms of therapy is one which recognises that beliefs have underlying assumptions of which we are probably not so aware.
Well, people have - or can have - a degree of control over their habitual behaviours. The terms "instinct," "sub-conscious," "habit," are all constructs and there is not real evidence as to exactly what they correlate. But conscious attention for sure can modify motives and habits which may have only been operating below the level of conscious awareness up until then.
I understand that you are someone who is not racist. I was not brought up to be racist, but I grew up in an area which was white. I played with the children who were black or Asian but did see them being treated badly. One of my Asian friends got knocked unconscious while walking home from school.
I am also half Irish and when my dad first came to England he felt that he experience some racism against Irish people, so it is not straightforward entirely.
Can I add to what said my grandmother's rules because I think they eliminate social problems?
1. We respect all people because we are respectful people. It doesn't matter who the other person is because no one determines how we behave but ourselves.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
2. We do everything with integrity.
Then there is the commandment, look for God in everyone and "there but for the grace of God so I". We are all in this together so it behooves us to make things as pleasant as we can. :wink: I will do what I can to get to kumbaya-happy.
Just because something can be modified doesn't mean that it necessarily will modify in terms of instinct. We don't really control our immediate responses. Sure we can try to do things to change them but there's no guarantee they'll succeed. Personally, I've had immediate negative instinctual responses towards members of my own ethnic group as well as others so I guess I'm just basically racist against humanity at this point.
I remember hearing constantly about the violence between the Irish and the British and it seemed all around the world people somehow people imaged a difference between themselves and "those people".
It amazed me! It still blows my mind. Even when people look the same they can imagine there is an important difference between people. Like if they go to war, how do they know who is one of us and who is one of "those people" when everyone looks the same? That is very creative isn't it, to believe they are not one of us? It certainly is not logical. We all share this planet and it will be as we make it. Why would we choose war over brotherly love and @baker word kumbaya? :brow:
I would say that prejudice is about visible and invisible differences, as well as beliefs about superiority.
As George Orwell said in 'Animal Farm':
'ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.'
I believe reason and culture override instinct. We can all learn virtues and good manners if they are taught. That was the original purpose of education, and we need to get back to it.
Civilization means to make others as ourselves and since mankind sat around campfires they invent mythology and passed it on from one generation to the next. The purpose of mythology is to create a uniting story and transition youth to adults. Education for technology does not transmit a culture, but education for democracy does. May I suggest we return to liberal education with the goal of creating a better human experience for everyone. Technology is important. We could not support the huge earth population we have without it, but it is not the only thing that is important. Learning to live with each other is also important.
It's a good thing to reflect upon those instinctual thoughts and dispel them upon reflection. That's part of being a good person - you don't just identify yourself with your immediate, instinctual thoughts; you're instead capable of dispelling them upon reflection and reaffirm your commitment towards a different worldview.
You advocate the idea of reflection and dispelling of 'instinctual thoughts'. Do you think that the majority of people, and I am not just speaking of members of the forum, but the wider population, do this? I think that what you are saying sounds easy in principle but, is much harder to put into practice, even with the best human, or even, philosophical intentions. I do see it as a worthwhile goal.
The little boy saved his town by sticking his thumb in the hole of the dam. :grin: Oh dear, I think it is the matter of the heart and that I was blessed with a heart full of love. I was blessed by my grandmother who was a school teacher when teachers believed it was the purpose of teachers to help each child discover his/her talents and interest. Democracy is about everyone working together and each one of us has an important part to play, even if the best we can do is stick our thumb in the dam until someone gets there and to fix the dam.
We used to tell our children moral stories or what some call folk tales, so they would learn virtues and moral thinking. Perhaps science can help us here? The very big things like huge trees or elephants depend on very small things, such as microbes and insects that manage the environment and make life possible. We all have a part to play.
I am not sure to what extent people sit down and tell stories to young children no , spelling out wisdom and morality. I would imagine it varies a lot, but I do think that young children are probably starting to spend more and time on computers. Perhaps people on the forum who have children, or work in education, may be able to speak about this.
You Make Your Own Heaven And Hell Right Here on Earth
by The Undisputed Truth
Born into this world a baby
You're mind is clear as the air
Time passes
You learn to walk and talk
Time passes
You learn right from wrong
Time passes
You leave home seeking a life
Of your own
I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heavens and hell
Right here on earth
I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make you own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
On earth, on earth, on earth
Time passess
And your values change
Life becomes a strange, confusing game
Suddenly you want the finer things in life
But you find it takes a lots of hard work and sacrifice
(There ain't no such thing as something for nothing, can you dig it?)
Now you're standing
At the crossroads of life
To satisfy your personal wants
Will you do wrong
Or will you do right?
Well one thing you must admit
And you know it's true
The final decision
Is still up to you
I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
Let me tell you one more time
I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
Listen people
Life is a giant, invisible scale with two sides;
Good and bad
You and your beliefs
Are the weights
The things you do each day
Determine the balance
Your conscience is a flawless
Judge and jury;
The only question is what you want
As a parent with teenagers, Iād say thereās not a lot of time spent sitting down and telling stories that spell out wisdom and morality, but I think it does come down to the stories we choose for our children when they are open to hearing them. As parents, we made the effort to control and guide the content of āstoriesā our children were hearing from a very young age: television, music, books, computer games and internet. It wasnāt only about censorship but about balance of information, and the opportunities we had to discuss the wisdom and morality presented in a context that was relevant to where they were at in their experiences. We often referred to these efforts as their ācultural educationā. Our children, now 15 and 17, have seen a much wider selection of film and television, heard a wider selection of music, and read a wider selection of literature than most kids their age (we can vouch for this because we also work in education). They donāt cringe at the classics, but are open to the messages they offer. I find that movies are an easy way to bring up a discussion on wisdom and morality with teens - itās the ālanguageā theyāre most comfortable with, and it often ends up being time well spent.
Thank you for sharing your experience. Of course, I would imagine that you have made all conceivable efforts to educate your children as widely and carefully as possible.
I would imagine that there is so much variation. When I was growing up I think that there was a lot of variation on how much input children get on issues of social concern. I have to admit that I was rather shocked at some of the attitudes I came across in my school.
One thing I did not agree with was the attitudes towards hierarchical banding. One day, when I and a couple of friends from the lowest class were standing on a piece of grass which was technically 'out of bounds', I got called into the deputy headmaster's office and told to stay with the people in my class. I nodded but did complain of the attitude of the teacher to my fellow classmates, and they seemed to agree with the teacher that I should not be spending time with people in the lower band class.
Recently, I was in conversation with someone from school, who was in the lower band, and I heard how it was such a devastating experience being ranked in a low class. I am not saying that banding can be eliminated completely, but I think that there is a danger if ideas about superiority and inferiority are entailed. I do think it calls for sensitivity and that was not what I saw at school, especially in the way teachers spoke about the classes, especially as one was also often referred to as the 'remedial' one.
I don't know how banding systems vary and how much it has changed but I think that this can be a whole subtext of prejudice, as the people in the lower grades are likely to be the ones from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
I have gone off the topic raised by Athena, I am afraid. But I am sure that family attitudes and stories, and whole systems of values are so important. I probably would not be writing this post if I had not come from a family which valued questioning the social order.
I think removing the desire to attribute characteristics to entire groups as if the group itself was an individual is a good place to start. That way lies stupidity and bigotry. There is too much diversity within groups than between them to come to any rational conclusion about this or that individual by referring to any classification.
I would agree with you, but it is so complicated because certain attribudes are so deep. In particular, this thread is hovering next to the one questioning the deletion of one about a thread containing the word defect. From my point of view, I would never use the word defect to describe any other human being at all, because I see it as a term of abuse. However, other people see differently. So, what does one do? If people who use such language are prevented from certain expression it will surface in another way.
I think that prejudice arises in the collective unconscious and at this very time aspects of hatred are permeating the world, even this site.
That is what was happening in the time of Nazi Germany and, at the moment, I think we are on the potential brink of a new dark age. I am just hoping that it can be averted, or dissipated somehow. There are many positive attitudes and signs as well as the negative ones. Perhaps philosophy can help in this.
It is complicated, agreed.
I would argue censorship is one big problem. Not only does it deny the haterās right to speak it, but it also denies our right to hear it, ridicule it and prove it false. The Nazis were routinely censored up until they seized power and Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate speech laws. Such rules proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. And they used their own persecution as justification to persecute others.
So, in my opinion, prejudice of the type weāre speaking about needs to be met in the open and without fear.
Yes, I agree and I am even still getting into discussion on the term 'defect' in the thread I have spoken about. I believe in talking about prejudice without fear. I am not someone to wish to sweep it all into hidden corners. I suppose that the art is to be able to address it without it becoming overwhelming. So far, this thread has not been one into which people have thrown their prejudices and I am grateful for this, as when I composed this I was a bit fearful about what I might unleash.
If at any point this thread became swamped by prejudices, I would probably bow out of it, at least for some time, just to maintain my own sanity. But so far, the discussion is positive. I am not saying that I want people to avoid discussing any conflicts, because I believe that everyone has some negative attitudes. I am not in favour of everything being politically correct. It can be all surface without any deeper corresponding value.
You may be interested in the Virtues Project.
I have the 52 pack of virtue cards and have used them with friends and children. I hope to return to sharing the cards when the pandemic passes. They can be used as morning meditations, or whenever having a problem. My friends and I gathered once a week, we thought of something troubling us, and then drew a card out of a bag. Each of us would read our card and thought about it, then we took turns sharing our card and saying how we thought that particular virtue would help with what was concerning us. You can see the cards at the link.
For the children, I bought a book of virtue stories and I have DVD's of virtue stories which are the old classics. I can't imagine not reading to children because that was so basic, but the DVD's are wonderful too. The Public Broadcasting Station has programs for children teaching the virtues but I have a problem with them because it is usually kids behaving like adults and they do not present the relationships of older people with normal children. Not that long ago, Public Broadcasting had shows with adults and children in their correct positions, often in family relationships. Does it seem that is now outdated? Mr. Rogers was a favorite and we still honor him.
Who commanded that?
What makes this person our commander?
While those with prejudice laugh at you and win in the battle of life.
What makes something true is how well it works. I do not know the first person who said "look for God in everyone", I just know doing so has a positive effect.
The Neanderthals became extinct except as part of some people's DNA. It is believed the genes of the second migration of humans out of Africa, replaced the Neanderthals because they had better social organization. I think humans right now are working with a faulted concept of reality and that this is changing through our abundance and science.
In the short term the Nazis were very successful, but today, Germany acknowledges the wrong done to Jews, and through education attempts to right the wrong and prevent it from happening again. The US occupies land held by indigenous people, and we have learned they were right about our planet being a living organism and that we need to protect ecosystems so they work as evolved to work.
The Romans conquered the Greeks but it is the Greeks who live on in our understanding of democracy and through the philosophy we share and science we develop.
How rapidly we move into a New Age, depends on our ability to imagine it because it is as we think it.
The comparison is apt imo, the key features being: convincing the public that certain people present an existential threat to them; convincing the same public that we are the only ones with the means and will to destroy this threat and restore the nation.
It's a motif we've seen a few times recently and it remains successful. The medium of its success is propaganda, the same means by which we convince people that they have a problem with their lives and this new gadget or lotion is the only thing that will solve it.
I don't think we can tolerate propaganda and be free from prejudice. If it's that easy to convince hundreds of thousands of people that a pizza shop with a secret tunnel hosts Satanic cannabal paedophiles in government, it's going to be easy to convince people that Jews have yet another secret world domination plan or some such.
I do think that philosophy would help a great deal, both as a self-defence against psychological warfare and as a means of understanding the irrational nature of one's own prejudicial arguments.
If we taught our children the basics of logic, of empiricism, and of critical thinking, along with some history of our failings in these regards, I think that would go some way to reducing their susceptibility to propaganda and therefore prejudicial beliefs. And yet (and not wishing to pick a fight with anyone) we tend to do the opposite, and frighten children into believing incredible things without evidence with the threat of harm for thinking critically, for doubting.
Then threatening people with eternal hellfire and burning them at the stakes are good practices, for they work!
Yes, the Holy Inquisition were "looking for God in everyone" as well.
But today is not yet the end of the story.
Take Nazism, for example: it's being rehabilitated. If the current trends are anything to go by, it might not take that much before it rises to power again.
Read again. Whose letters are you using to write this?
I think that both of us and others are concerned about what could be happening, or going to happen in the world. Remembering back to snippets of discussion I had with you In another thread, you spoke about how I saw ideas about superiority as problematic and you disagreed. I still see prejudice as a problem arising in relation to the dynamics of people trying to assert their sense of superiority over certain others. How do you view the source of the problem relating to a new wave of Nazism in the world?
Jack, you're such a romantic, such an idealist ...
Yes, I remember someone telling me that at work last year. I am still interested in hearing your point of view on the problem we have facing humanity, regarding the rise of Nazism once again.
I think the first step in overcoming prejudice is to recognise it in ourselves and deconstruct it. I am essentially a white European, middle-class, university-educated English-speaker with a secure white-collar job, a happy marriage and two healthy, intelligent kids in private education. The capacity I have to understand the difficulties others face is limited, and starts with me recognising that I contribute unconsciously to a defence of the hierarchical structures of prejudice that edify me. When my ego takes a beating, when my sense of value or potential is low, I rely on these hierarchical structures to avoid suffering from experiences of loss, lack, pain or humility in how I relate socially. Most of the time itās just a passing thought that reassures me quietly, but sometimes I have to choose between suffering and prejudice in my words and actions. The more I am already suffering, the more likely I am to choose prejudice. I am unconsciously motivated to act in ways that my conceptual structures predict will redress my internal balance of affect in the short term. This is how consciousness works.
But I also know that I am capable of enduring much more pain, humility, loss and lack than Iād like right now - and the more I experience incrementally, the stronger I get. This is how we build our capacity as human beings: our muscles are designed to be stretched just beyond their capacity, torn or ādamagedā and then built back stronger.
Your discussion of the relationship between suffering and prejudice raises some important points. I would say that it is so easy when one is feeling negative to see faults in others. Suffering can lead us to restrictive seeing or it can pave the way to compassion. I would say that I have found certain experiences of suffering have made me more opposed to prejudice. A simple example is how being teased a lot at school for many reasons probably made me dislike bullying of any kind. I think that there is a clear relationship between bullying and the oppression arising from prejudice.
Yes, we are all in various hierarchies. When I was working in mental health care, I was in the relationship of power over others. People had to to approach me to meet their needs. In that respect I was in the position of authority, and had to be mindful of the way I used power. We are living in a variety of situations involving power dynamics and it is useful to think of the way we face prejudice against ourselves or against others in those situations. I know that in many group situations that I am not that good at asserting myself. But it also makes me aware of others not being able to do this.
In many life situations, it is about us seeing how our preconceived ideas about others impact on the way we interact with them. Often, people judge by appearances. One book which I found useful for thinking about this, is 'Stigma' by Erving Goffman. In this book, Goffman speaks about how one characteristic of a person can stand out to the point where it clouds the perception of that person. I think that I have seen this when staff treat in public places, such as libraries or pubs treat certain individuals who may be dressed shabbily in an unpleasant way.
One particular group of people who are subject to prejudice are the mentally ill. I have been in social situations where I see people who are unwell mentally being treated without respect. However, I think that some people regard me as a bit 'strange' or eccentric, so I have a certain sense of being an 'outsider.'
But you are correct to say that we are all within various positions in various hierarchies. It is useful basis for reflection, as well as the way we relate to suffering. When we are feeling downcast, we can direct our energy negatively towards other or perhaps begin to feel compassion for others.
Romanticism and idealism are impotent against Nazism.
I can see that I am idealistic and that this has limitations. I am fearful of any rise in Nazism or any oppressive regime. Personally, I think the whole problem is extremely complex, but I am interested to know of what potential solutions you see, if any. Okay, I may be idealist but, surely, this is a better option than indifference.
Also, in consideration of prejudice I am not just thinking of collective movements, but the existence of prejudice in daily life.
The Sun going nova.
I'm not indifferent, I just don't see a viable solution.
I think that in order to overcome prejudice of any kind, it would be necessary to have an outlook on life that would be both positive and realistic, so that people wlll look forward to internalizing it and live accordingly. An image of life where people can actually live together without prejudice.
There are limited settings in which people seem to be able to live together without prejudice -- such as forced labor camps, prisons, patients in mental health institutions. But nobody is looking forward to live in such a setting.
But as long as natural resources are scarce and it takes a considerable amount of work to obtain them, there is going to be a battle for survival, and as long as this is the case, prejudices are a necessity, with several functions, here to note some: as a heuristic for categorizing people into those that can help one in the battle, or those that don't; as a psychological tool to create boundaries between self and others; as a cognitive tool to make sense of the competition for resources.
Rather than dismissing prejudices right off the bat as bad and as something to overcome, it would be more profitable to look into the purposes they serve and take those as a starting point for talking about prejudices and overcoming them.
One thing I notice in your comment is that in the final paragraph you speak about the 'purposes' which prejudices serve and how this is 'a starting point for talking about prejudices and how this can be overcome.' This is an important point because it is connected to the question of whose advantage it is to overcome prejudice. This is where the power issue lies.
I would say that the whole history of liberation has involved questions of advantage and power. The most obvious ones are gender as well as race. These inequalities were addressed because they involved majorities. Half the population are female, so addressing sexism had to occur and white supremacy had to be addressed because it is not as if white people are really in the majority throughout the world.
The whole question of survival through competition for resources throws many questions open too. What has happened in the time of the pandemic is that the needs of the vulnerable have been a key concern. In particular, we do live in an ageist society in many ways and, at the same time, certainly in England, the whole focus of concern has been protecting the vulnerable. If we had been at an earlier stage of history, it could have been that there had been less concerned for the elderly. I do believe that we are at a stage in the life of humanity which has transcended the emphasis on 'the survival of the fittest'.
I am inclined to think that one of the problems with any current rise in Nazi values is more of a backlash against the way in which most people have already overcome a fair amount of prejudices already.
That's all very well. But take the group of cunts. They're all cunts aren't they? They just are. Same with wankers, there's no non-wankers among them.
I just noticed your paragraph on the issue of prejudice in institutions and this is quite a topic in itself.
I can only speak from the basis of working within mental health institutions. One thing I was aware of was internalised prejudice in many ways. I believe that racism, sexism and the whole spectrum of prejudices were taking place in the organisations but it was hushed up, hidden away. However, on this hidden level prejudice was rife, but many staff were aware of it behind the scenes, closeted beneath policy agendas. Some of this was a backlash against attempts to overcome prejudice.
Also, many unwell patients had psychologically internalised prejudices. Here, I would say that it was not always the white patients who had prejudiced views against black people but the black ones too. There were a fair amount of black patients who wished to engage with white staff only.
Organisations and institutions are a very interesting area in which the whole dynamics of prejudice, and attempts to overcome it, may be seen in abundance.
Is that some dark humour?
Actually I suppose there is a sort of point. You can make generalisations, and in doing so you create a group that that generalisation holds true for. But the act of generalising precedes the group. Or does it?
EDIT: I also find the cunt/wanker distinction interesting. These are undefined empty insults on the face of it, but they have an intuitive sense to me. There was a RHLSTP episode which included a brief discussion about it with Mark Steel.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_lst_podcast/rhlstp_182_mark_steel/
I just think that it is useful to think about generalisations, to think what lies behind them. I am in favour of looking behind surfaces, on a psychological and philosophical level.
We'll see how consistent this concern is as time progresses.
Given the looming socio-economic crisis, hardly. But we'll see what happens. If we're still around.
This overcoming of prejudices could be just temporary, due to the luxury of relative soco-economic stability.
I am not sure ignorance works and fear of the supernatural is ignorance? What is our goal?
What do you mean, whose letters am I using? What kind of argument is that?
Good point.
Obviously, there are some groups that are "motivated from the inside", ie. where a number of people get together, decide to be a group and decide on a group identity. Religious and political groups are like that.
And then there are groups that are "motivated from the outside", which is where are number of individuals who don't necessarily feel like they have anything in common or that they are a group, are perceived as a group by other people. For example, people with alcoholism don't perceive themselves as members of a group, even though some other people perceive them as such.
I do agree that it is not clear how long the concern for the elderly and vulnerable will last. It could be that the luxury of the stability we have known in the socio-economic climate of our times has given rise to this. My own feelings about the future fluctuate. We will have to wait and see what happens in the future. I am inclined to think we are at a very critical juncture at the moment.
They were burning people at the stakes and threatening them with eternal damnation. It worked, in that the population at large acted in line with the way the Church wanted them to.
You were praising the ancient Greeks and dissing the ancient Romans -- while using Roman script.
Rather ironic, don't you think?
I am not sure about the point of people with alcohol problems not seeing themselves as part of a group. I am thinking of the whole history of the AA movement. I would say that self- help groups have been a significant force in uniting people with alcohol problems and other issues which people identify as a focus.
But prior to that, they characteristically didn't. It's an identity assigned to people with alcoholism by others.
Some individual people with alcoholism still don't see themselves as part of the group" alcoholics" and refuse to internalize the identity that others have prescribed for this group.
And such groups are a good example of how people internalize the identity ascribed to them by others; ie. they internalize the prejudices of others.
Yes, people were ignorant and superstitious and yes the Church attempted to create social order, but if we are speaking of the Catholics, they were not in favor of claiming people are witches and burning them at the stake. That was more a protestant thing and there were so many different groups of protestants they never had the power the Catholics had. Actually, the witch hunts were more secular than religious. Someone wrote a book about witches and educated people used the book to hunt witches. Here is a marvelous explanation of why witch hunts spread like a pandemic.....
Quoting Gwynn Guilford
Perhaps you did not know, the Romans such as Cicero were educated in Athens. Rome basically adopted Greek technology and ignored its culture, but a good example of influence of the Greeks is Rome's attempt to be a Republic and the Bible. The original Bible being written by converted Greeks claiming Jesus is logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.
The Greeks played a huge part in ending the Christian war against Christians. As you know they were killing each other as some believed Jesus was the son of God and others thought Jesus is God. The Greeks had no problem with a god taking human form. Romans didn't think anyone became a god until death transformed a human into a god. They lived next door to the Egyptians whose pharaohs were gods. The point is the Greeks had a better language for defying Jesus, and the Romans could not do this until having a word for the Greek concepts.
Oh, that's cute! I haven't heard this one yet.
I am quite sure there are many things you have not heard yet. What concerns me is I don't think you have a desire to learn of things you do not already know.
I commend you on your honesty here. How do you deal with it when you do catch yourself? Have you found an alternative way of differentiating grades?
It is brave of you to admit to this. I think bias occurs consciously or unconsciously all the time.
I think it probably goes far beyond being about certain characteristics. I remember handing in a piece of work at school, in which I forgot to put my name on and it ended up with the highest mark that teacher ever gave to me.
On some courses I have been on work is labelled with a candidate number instead of names to make marking so much fairer.
Unconscious bias is recognised within work interviewing. Training courses are being designed to address it, but from what I have read in literature, there is not clear evidence that such training really helps overcome the problem fully.
Good for you being so self-aware. I feel a desire to give you defense. Like if I were a teacher and had Christians in my classroom, I would also assume there is a lot they do not know and their parents do not want them to think about. This so evident in college when Christian belief made some of science a difficult subject.
In the past, we did more to transmit a culture to our young, and this was pretty limited to the culture of White people. People of color were likely to score lower on IQ test because they had less exposure to that culture. It appears we have been dealing with this problem with education for technology that does not transmit culture to anyone, but just because public education isn't transmitting culture, it does not mean parents are not transmitting culture. What subject are you teaching?
If Christians want me to change my mind about them, they're going to have to do better than pass the buck for the witch hunts.
Thank you. Yeah, computerized grading helps. Same with deliberately not looking at names on assignments. This is mostly a problem when I'm doing final grades/subjective grades (e.g., reading fluency) and deciding who deserves a bump up. I just step back and try and look at the student objectively.
I love that solution. :clap:
I had a teacher write a huge red F covering my work because she was angry with me. :lol: I got her back. I refused to cooperate with her and of course, I didn't pass, but she didn't win either.
Who do you think is a Christian? :rofl:
All groups are composed of individuals. There is nothing connecting one individual to the next. One can try to bridge that gap with generalizations and words but none of that means anything outside of human imagination.
If this bias comes into marking of exam papers, I am sure that people make similar biases in just about every part of life. I am not speaking of you, but everyone. It probably operates on who gets served first in shops and who gets the best housing and an endless variety of matters.
The only thing that can happen is for people to be made more aware. Most situations in life cannot be monitored, so beyond this, biases probably cannot be eliminated.
I agree we are individuals and it is unfortunate that we get put in little boxes all the time. Also, sometimes when people treat us less than others it may not be about prejudice, in terms of specific characteristics, but simply that about being disliked by the other person.
This still is can be prejudice, in being about preconceived notions. I once knew someone who said to me that the first time she met me she did not like me, but this changed as she got to know me. At least, she was willing to go beyond first impressions, because I don't think that people always do.
It could be just that. Maybe the difference lies in the object of scorn, whether it be an actual, extant individual or an abstract generalization. If scorn is not grounded in something that exists, one must aim it an idea, which is an extension of the self.
Yes, it is horrible when teachers and other people just seem hostile and sometimes we don't always know why, and are left wondering. We can try to put it down to certain characteristics, everything from race, gender, dislike of short or tall people, or hair colour etc. It is sometimes not clear.
That is where it gets complicated because if, for example, a black person gets treated badly it can be say the other person is racist. But, it would be hard to prove in a court of law, unless it is overt.
I think that the difference between scorn against an idea and a person is complex. I once was in a situation in which a white woman commented to a black woman, who was dressed in white trousers, 'I have never seen you looking so clean before.' The black woman spoke of being so hurtful, and it incorporate ideas about dirt and cleanliness, which are often projected onto others. I think this is getting into the social anthropology of prejudice, which involves cultural ideas.
The greatest discrimination is against poor people and conversely against rich people. We are perversely waging war on each other, rich against poor. And teachers in inner-city low-income neighborhoods are in hell. I attended one of the worst schools and I feel just terrible for the teachers who tried so hard to give us a good education, in such a terrible economic and social situation. Teachers in one of the schools I attended actually suffered post-trauma syndrome. Today in it is our representatives living in fear of their lives because of Trump's leadership, but back in the day, it was the teachers living in fear. In such bad circumstances, the relationship between students and teachers is not going to be good.
Israel and Palestine have this problem. The Jews comment about how the Palestinians stink and believing the Palestinians to be inferior justifies treating them very badly which of course leads to Palestinians hating those who treat them so badly.
What do you mean by all subjects? How much time do you spend on art and music? What history are you teaching? I don't mean to be mean, but I strongly favor all grade school education being liberal education and that is not what is happening anywhere I know if except maybe some private schools.
Nothing is more important to me than education. If your class addresses the issue of slavery, please, please explain serfs. (subject of thread) Feudalism is the enslavement of White people and we are lying to ourselves to believe it was any better than the slavery of people of color. Even people of color had slaves because back in the day that is what people did and discipline was kept by whipping people. Captains of ships kept order by whipping people. That was just the way it was and I don't think we are too far from that today because we maintain autocratic industry, authority over disposable people, and education for technology has always been for slaves. Liberal education is for free men.
I watch shows about children through history and around the world today, fighting to get an education, while our own children do not desire education and I am sure many have not followed through with homeschooling. Have you seen a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Conference in Portland, Oregon? To me, that was one of the most important books ever written. We taught every child a set of American values, knowing they would help their immigrant parents become Americanized and this was particularly important as we mobilized for war. That was the first time we added vocational training to education and our middle class is the result of that education. I wish every school had a statue of liberty, holding a book for knowledge and a torch that is the enlightenment of knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIz3klPET3o&ab_channel=DoodleChaos
and similar stuff. I try and give them a rounded education.
The division between rich and poor permeates society and it can be invisible at times. In some ways, it is less clear than in other societies because education can allow for a whole lot of movement. Also, there is so much of a spectrum that it can be a continuum. I would say that in most cases people at the extreme ends of the spectrum are subject to hostile prejudiced projection.
The idea of pointing to people as smelling can be a very subtle, but powerful form of prejudice equal to that of perceiving others as less clean. The thing is that people can often back up these claims in relation to certain people having poor personal hygiene. Unfortunately, sometimes when people are depressed they are less inclined to wash.
Really, I think that the key issue is to help, with sensitivity, the person to improve in order to enable them to have less of a battle against potential prejudice against the person encounter all the subtle prejudices towards mental illness.
Another pervasive prejudice in our society is that of people being overweight. Of course, in general the population in Western societies are getting larger. But, people who are overweight are often perceived and treated so negatively. Many teenagers have become anorexic as a result of being told as children that they are too fat.
I would guess that this whole area of subtle prejudice is about the whole social discourse of interaction and stereotypes, in general.
Can I access the "Life in Medieval Times" that you used in class? What was said of feudalism? According to the information I have, the Catholic church attempted to maintain a human morality that was not maintained towards the end of feudalism and not at all maintained during industrialization.
What was said of serfdom and the struggle to stay out of serfdom towards the end of the Hundred's Year War and end of the plagues that wiped out the population, resulting in not enough people to farm, kind of the same reasons Rome became Feudal forcing people to stay on the land and farm. The story is complex and I don't think 6th graders are ready for all the complexity, but as we deal with racism today, that piece of history seems very important.
My favorite teacher was my 6th-grade teacher. He had lived on an Indian reservation and attempted to bring that influence into the classroom. After teaching of the native American organization of chiefs and families, he had us spend the day outside creating a native American village. I think it would be really cool to do the same with a middle-age feudal system manor.
The art/musical is exciting. I can see the introduction of math concepts but they flicked past so fast it was somewhat interesting but lacked meaning. I hope it is complimented with lessons that fill in the meaning. Have you seen the Flatland movies? My great-grandson very much enjoyed them and he also was fascinated by the videos about origami "Between the Lines". It is sad so many children avoid math because it is so fascinating! It really needs to be taught with art and music.
The book "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe" is beyond 6th grade interest but a teacher familiar with this book can tie math to science in very interesting ways. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=3JwMAwAAQBAJ&gl=us&hl=en-US&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKT-FDR-na-us-1000189-Med-pla-bk-Evergreen-Jul1520-PLA-eBooks_Science&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwsf4wfvG7gIVMQV9Ch0ifQ45EAQYASABEgJeHvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
That's somewhat different. One cannot help one's gender, one's skin colour, one's sexuality. One can certainly do something about one's weight in almost all cases. When people judge, say, a person of a particular ethnicity as being criminal, they are prejudging someone as being something they can control on the basis of something they cannot. Judging that overweight people aren't looking after themselves in quite basic ways is not the same. That's not to say that losing excess weight isn't hard -- it is: as an ex-smoker, I know how difficult overcoming cravings are -- but it is something that is good to overcome. One should not, by contrast, feel one ought to overcome one's gender, skin colour or sexuality.
I would say that characteristics such as being overweight fall into a grey area within the realm of prejudice. It is certainly not regarded as one of the protected characteristics. However, I have known a number of people who really felt discriminated against on this basis. I know that you say that it is something that can be overcome, but I am not sure that it is that simple for all individuals as I do think that some people have more of a tendency to put on weight than others.
But my understanding of prejudice is based on Goffman's understanding of stigma, in which a specific aspect of the person is an overriding factor in their interactions and has implications for the whole nature of identity. Personally, I had really bad acne as a teenager, which I did believe was beyond my control, and I did feel that was stigmatising. I am also quite a bit below average height and I would say that all such aspects about personal life do have implications for how people treat us.
So, I am would certainly say that the protected characters which are focused on are essential, but I think that any wider discussion of prejudice needs to embrace thinking about assumptions about people in the broadest sense. I think that the wider picture of assumptions enables more reflection about the whole way in which we form assumptions and allows for depth rather than just what can appear to be 'preaching' about equal opportunities.
Yeah, that's basically all I mean. It's not that there isn't a prejudiced reaction, but it is a very distinct ballpark to incidental physical characteristics.
For instance, because racism and homophobia exist, black and gay pride make sense as compensating ideas. Fat pride -- and people have tried it -- is less justifiable as a response to weight prejudice since it would be endorsing a lifestyle that is the #1 medical problem (in the UK at least). And ultimately that's what obesity is: a national health problem due principally to lifestyle choice, not an incidental physical characteristic one is born with or a fluke of historical circumstance.
I'd put obesity in the same bracket as drug or alcohol addiction: indeed, it is becoming increasingly accepted that it is, in good part, an addiction. As with those, it's something you can sympathise with and wish to help with, but not something that should be enabled or encouraged.
I am certainly not endorsing becoming overweight or addiction but I do have questions about the moralistic nature and tone of some health promotion programs. I do think that there is a bit too much preaching going on.
I think that what may happen is that in the near future we are going to have restrictions placed on us to try to enforce healthy lifestyles upon us. I have seen snippets of this in bits of news, such as the idea of sugar tax. I am not in favour of unhealthy living and there is no denying that obesity, heart disease and diabetes are on the rise.
What I am wary of is totalitarian regimes slipping in the backdoor. One concern which I have about the way is which we are becoming used to living with social restrictions in the pandemic, is what is coming next. I think that it is a possibility that in the future we are likely to have our life choices curbed by a whole array of rules and regulations under the rhetoric of health.
What you have said makes a lot of sense. I think that we cannot ever remove all prejudice from our thinking and behaviour. I see it is an ideal to work with. It could be seen as about trying to make what is unconscious revealed consciously, or of seeking to become aware of our blindspots.
I can give you a little example for reflection. A couple of years ago, I was having a discussion with a female friend about music. She remarked that my music was all male singers and bands. I said that was the music I liked. She suggested that I was sexist in my music taste. I was a bit cross, saying that it was more about taste rather than anything else. However, since being in that conversation I have found that I am more aware of this area of preference and I have found some female singers I like now.
My example is outside the usual structure of thinking about prejudice because music taste is a personal preference. It is not as if I am a judge in a music contest. But I guess that on some level personal preference is something that has a collective dimension. If the people in power exercise their personal preferences most of the time it can be a way in which the status quo is maintained, unquestioned.
So, what I am really saying is that the main thing is that we think about preference and try to understand the whole nature in which prejudice, if only subtle, impacts on the way we see and live.
Thank you for expanding our awareness of prejudice and including people who are overweight. I think we could add cognitively challenged people to the list of people who we discriminated against. In my state, we even sterilized them without their consent, but that would now be illegal. I and have heard hard horror stories of terrible things people have said to someone with a disability or a Japanese and Caucasian mixed child. The people who said the terrible things seemed to assume they had the right to have the world to themselves, without people who offend them because they look different. A mindset I absolutely do not understand.
We have more people moving around the world than ever before. I wonder if we will get used to people looking different and overcome our prejudices? I think where I live we have become more accepting of differences but on TV the news of other places makes me think there are some places that are not accepting of people who are different.
Yes, I think that there are many deep seated prejudices against people with learning disabilities. I have come across many well educated people who believe that all attempts to abort such people should take place, and I think that in the case of someone who finds out at an early stage of pregnancy that they are going to have a profoundly disabled child, physically or mentally must have an agonising decision to make. It is hard to imagine the full extent of this.
One thing which I have discovered in London and England as a whole is that many of the most severe learning disabled people are in institutions in remote places, in outskirts of villages. To me, this shows how they are cast out of view, in hidden places, where many will never have to catch sight of them.
One other prejudice from the earlier part of the last century was of unmarried pregnant women who were often incarcerated indefinitely in mental health institutions. I believe that there was a decision to free them back into the community at one point, but I think this was problematic because they had not acquired the necessary skills to live independently.
It is not natural for humans to live in huge populations where they are strangers to each other because there are too many people for us to know everyone. Now instead of having personal relationships with everyone, we are impersonal and sometimes dehumanizing. This can be a good or a bad thing.
In a small town where everyone knows Tom is limited in what he can do, people may go out of their way to create jobs for him or to buy what he is selling. However, if Sarah has a baby out of wedlock, she and her child may be shunned and they are much better off in a large city.
Even better than a large city is a large city that has a seaport and an influx of people from around the world because such cities will be cosmopolitan. The center of a large continent will not be cosmopolitan.
I think we might want to be aware of what our environment has to do with our values and behaviors. In a small town, people are more apt to help each other, but that includes protecting the community by ostracizing undesirable people. In a large city where people are strangers to each other, we may not get the help we need, without the government providing assistance, but we also can avoid the ostracizing of the small town. However, because we are strangers to each other, there is more reliance on background checks, before we rent a home or get a job or get a loan, and this can marginalize people which is as bad as being ostracized. Such marginalizing leads to poverty and other social problems.
The world never had so many people, and we never had as much opportunity as we have now. I am shocked by how we talk about child care as if we have always relied on paid child care providers, instead of mothers who were forced to stay home for social and economic reasons. In our news is how awful it is that mothers must give up their jobs to care for their children, and that child care providers don't have jobs because we are not leaving our children in child care centers. In my old books, I read how institutions can not do for a child what a parent does, because of the difference in the relationship with a paid person, or with the parent, and today this is not in our thoughts! :scream: But nothing is more important to our humanness than how we are raised. I am not sure institutionalizing our children is a good thing, any more than backgrounds are a good thing?
I think I got a little off-topic. Bottom line, our lives are about our relationships and the world is changing and we are learning as we go.
You speak about children being institutionalised and what I would add is that older people are being institutionalised more and more. Obviously, this is questionable, but I realise that it is complicated because people don't all have family members who are able to care for them. Also, people are living much longer. That means that if people are living into their nineties it could mean potentially that their children could themselves be in their seventies.
I suppose the biggest problem with institutions is if it is a way of dumping people who are less able, as a means of casting them out as the forgotten citizens.
I would offer that IT is not about where you are and what must be fixed at any cost. It's all about which direction your arrow is pointed, what you aspire to. Write it down and turn it over to that lady who receives ALL of the sensory input. She'll get you there eventually and remind you when you fall off the wagon along the way.
...or maybe not.
You say that it is 'about what which direction your arrow is pointed, what you aspire to'. I am not sure that many people consciously choose to remain prejudiced, but probably don't stop and consider their own prejudices. Perhaps, it is so much easier to see the problem 'out there' and point the finger of blame at others, and each of us may do this to some extent. I am probably coming to this from a bit of a psychoanalytic and I am translating it into the framework of philosophy.
Pre-judging would seem to be a very normal process employed in order to assess a person/situation. Nothing wrong with that as one should not assume mal-intention.
Judging, OTOH, is the process of assuming you understand enough about another person or situation so that you can render an opinion. For this error, one should burn in Hell for the rest of time (which is exactly what happens).
I would say that it is probably about the extent of making judgemental biases. An extreme example would be when someone says, 'I don't like blacks- they are taking all the jobs,' This might sound over the top but it is one which I have heard many times in England. There are so many far more subtle ones and I would suggest that the problem is when people are not prepared to go beyond initial preconceptions.
It could be argued that most educated people have thought beyond this level. However, I am not sure that all the basic prejudices have been eradicated but become hidden. However, it is not just about race but about all aspects of difference. I think it is likely that slightly different groups may be on the receiving end of prejudice.
Of course, you or anyone else is welcome to say that in many ways prejudice, and the whole systemic imbalances of power have been addressed mostly. However, so far on the site no one has actually suggested this. Also, there have been a number of threads on aspects of difference, and two having been deleted has caused controversy. So, somewhere in the midst of the collective unconscious of this site, there may be some burning concerns. But the focus of mine is a bit more obscure because it is about the prejudiced mind and looking at ourselves.
We all suffer from ignorance to a great degree but it is fear that seems to cause people to become poor actors. Whether it is losing a job or losing one's culture, these fears are ligit and simply part of what makes us human.
I think it's pretty normal and natural to feel threatened by (whatever) as this provides motivation to do what needs to be done (to overcome and move-on). It's those who fail to do what is needed who continue to feel threatened and end up projecting their feelings of inadequacy on others (taking all kinds of forms).
I think that you are correct to say that fear is at the centre. I think that we are all fearful of difference and probably any loss, including the loss of personal privileges.
Everyone has privileges in the structure of the social world, such as being male, white etc. In a way, we could say that the most disadvantaged could be the black, disabled lesbian. We live such hierarchical structures in a way in which these categories are almost invisible but they permeate life.
Thinking of the example of the earlier thread of the way in which men often feel treated badly in education establishments, this does need to be seen in the light of the whole way in which men were the elite in education in the past. This history of male dominance is being overturned and it makes some uncomfortable. I remember in sixth form English class how one boy decided to leave school because he just couldn't cope with our feminist teacher who went as far as calling God 'she'. This was quite interesting really in a Catholic Comprehensive school.
But of course there are situations such as in groups, in which people proclaim their disadvantages almost like trump cards. But, despite this it has to be remembered that such people probably have a history of being treated badly. And, it is complicated because there are also invisible differences. For example, I have seen disabled people objecting to so called able-bodied people using disabled toilets and they are making the assumption that all disabilities are visible. So, it is extremely complicated.
When I studied sociology, I was always interested in the way labelling occurs. I love the way in which Becker's theory of labelling portrays the way in which people, especially deviants are labelled as outsiders and this affects their whole identity, usually negatively. The whole way in which people are categorical as 'bad' or 'mad' has big consequences too.
So, I would argue that the whole way we are seen in social life and the way life involves power structures has major impact. Also, when changes occur some are going to react to their privileged position being challenged.
This is a good point, and is a common prejudice: the refusal to give the benefit of the doubt. I saw a man in the grocer's recently who wasn't wearing a face mask. I immediately felt myself getting angry and had to tell myself off. Sure, he was probably just a git, but he might well have had a very reasonable exemption. You have to give people the benefit of the doubt: to not do so is to pre-judge.
Then the guy came and stood right next to me so I got to yell at him after all. All's well that ends well. (I get away with a lot having a posh voice in Manchester. People who'd otherwise pull a knife on me become catatonically confused. :rofl: )
This automatic reaction to think the worst of people when there are perfectly good explanations possible seems like a symptom to me. I think that has a lot to do with how we live and how much of our autonomy we have to surrender to live that way. We live in a world of strangers and that is not what we're built for. We feel helpless to make things right and that's not what we're built for either. There's a lot small print in our social contract that even the authors didn't notice.
Your example of the thoughts which can come into mind is an example of the way in which people can drift into prejudiced assumptions. You are able to stop and think about how the person may have underlying health issues.
You mention that you don't get yelled at because you have a posh voice. I have to say that at times I can look a bit of a yob. Even though I think white, I did get stopped and searched by the police on one occasion.
When people meet others for the first time, the whole set of assumptions they bring is interesting.I know many people who claim that they go by first impressions. To some extent, we use first impressions. If someone speaks to us and we don't feel at ease with them we are not likely to continue the conversation. However, it is a complex area because if people form impressed of others and aren't prepared to go to this it gives so much opportunity for prejudice to creep in.
Nah. Bad faith and ill will are evolutionarily advantageous.
The social contract actully teaches us that it's good to think bad of people. If you can corner someone by thinking the worst of them, you win in that evolutionary struggle for survival/one-upmanship.
You speak of the importance of looking for the bad in someone. I would say it depends on what looking for the bad entails.
One situation in which you could consider the question is of an employer recruiting staff. Obviously, having chosen to invite certain people for interviews, which may in have involved some biase, we can think about the whole aspect of 'bad' played out in interviews. The employee has to seek to weed out potentially good employees. This will involve a certain assessment, which will be about the person's work history and attitudes among other criteria. This does involve perceiving potential problems like to trying to eliminate people who are lazy or careless. However, on some level this can go beyond that and involve prejudiced bias, against for example gay people or married women.
It would probably be difficult to raise an official complaint for not being selected for a particular job. However, the matter is different entirely once a person has been employed. If someone is dismissed from a job it could be down to the person's standard of work or conduct, or it could involve the prejudice of the employer. It is a grey area and so many complex industrial tribunals are based on the fine lines of this matter.
I would just add that you speak of the importance of seeing bad in others in order for evolutionary survival and one -upmanship. This is once again a difficult grey area, because where does one go in separating this from bullying.
Actually they're not.
What's helping you win arguments and prevail?
Read again: I'm talking about approaching interactions in bad faith, in ill will. Not about looking for the bad in people.
I was replying to KK talking about the "automatic reaction to think the worst of people". And I pointed out that those who think the worst of people tend to be better off: they win, they prevail.
I'm not sure I generally am, but if and when I am, I'd say caring about facts, such as that we are evolved to be ultrasocial.
I am not sure that what you are talking about under the guise of 'bad faith' is not really a misuse of the term bad faith. I certainly don't think you are using it in the way Sartre intended. However, I understand that the specific aspect of discussion was really between you and KK, so I will leave him to reply.
Sartre can go suck on a lemon.
Read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith
Awww.
I still maintain that you are using the term bad faith to justify a whole process of seeing the bad in others. Sometimes, when we see bad in others it involves psychological projection.
Then you maintain wrongly.
Seeing the bad in others: focusing on the facts that the person has a criminal record, is in a wheelchair, is Jewish, female, whatever. Seeing the bad in others is about certain facts about the other person.
Thinking the worst about people is only inspired by some facts, and the rest is extrapolation/projection.
As in, "Oh, this person is black. Surely he'll try to white guilt me!" or "Oh, this person is in a wheelchair. Surely he'll try to extort me for help!"
One thing that it is worth thinking about is the clear distinction between fact and fiction. Okay, with the person in the wheelchair that is something we can see directly, but not all others are so straightforward. The example of the person with the criminal record is a clear example. Only very limited people would have access to that information and so, in such cases, a lot may be about rumours, or if more, it may be about someone having abused access to or sharing of confidential information.
I donāt think there are such hierarchies or privileges, and we risk falling into identity politics by thinking along such lines.
Privileges must be granted before they can be possessed. People who grant privilege according to such characteristics certainly exist, but the recipient of privilege is never born with it. One could heap privilege on a black disabled lesbian and she would be privileged thereby.
You say that 'the recipient of privilege is never born with it', but that ignores the whole way into which can be born into an environment of privilege. An easy example is how some people are born into wealthier backgrounds. The whole life we are given at birth affects who and what we can become in so many ways.
Yes, I agree that equal opportunities are important for enabling equality. Unfortunately, I have seen situations where people pay lip service to this while the whole spirit of it is ignored. For example, if people try to make the statistics show that gay or disabled people are being employed in certain professions and the reality is that those people go on to get bullied so much that they leave the job.It is not good if the translation of policy into practice becomes one of empty rhetoric and, unfortunately, from what I have seen, this can be what happens in some organisations.
Yes, unfortunately operating in bad-faith has become almost a sub-culture in our society.
What I mean is one does not come out of the womb with privilege in his skin color or gender, as if it was biology. Rights, immunities, favors, privileges etc. are always given, granted, bestowed. So it isnāt the case that one is necessarily privileged by virtue of certain attributes. One remains unprivileged until someone privileges him.
Okay, someone is born with biological characteristics of a specific gender or race and these are not privileges as such. However, the person is coming into a social world in which th privileges are likely to be based on these characteristics. Unless we are in a social order which does not have a cultural ranking based on such differences there are likely to be certain privileges. I am sure that there has been a big shift in the last 50 years but I don't think that we really live in an equal world in many ways.
Do you privilege people on account of these characteristics?
It is not about whether I give privileges on account of such characteristics. I try to see all people for who they are on a deeper level and so do many other people but I do see people being treated unequally.
I ask because Iād like to know who privileges someone on account of these characteristics. If not yourself, then how are we able to assume that the larger society does so?
I would say that I know many people who are extremely racist and sexist. I probably thought a lot about these matters when I studied sociology in sixth form. I do think that these prejudices are embedded in structures not just specific individuals. Of course, the values of the individuals shape and change structures but this is probably at a much slower rate than the ideas of specific individuals.
Of course, all the different aspects of life add up, such as America having a black president and England having a woman prime minister are significant. I am sure that a black woman born into the Western world today has a far better prospect than if she had been born 100 years ago, or in a remote part of the world.
The idea that we can be cleansed of our biases, prejudices, dispositions, preference, et cetera is a non-starter. Frankly, I don't want anyone fumigating my mind for any reason.
That said, behavior can be, and is, subject to at least some social and personal control, and behavior is where the rubber of prejudice hits the road of discrimination. Then there is the feedback loop between behavior and thought. The loop may strengthen or weaken biases, depending on various internal and external factors.
Deploying housing policy which forces identifiable groups (like blacks ) into ghettos is a behavioral intervention which enforces prejudice. Integrated housing is also a behavioral intervention, first intended to improve conditions for black people, but secondly to bring about more casual, normal interaction between blacks and whites.
Another example: Gay bars which encourage/accept a racial/ethnic mix create what may be a singular opportunity for gay men to get to know ("know" in the Biblical sense) other men with whom they might never come into even casual contact. Sexual interaction may decrease prejudice. Gay bars which are rigidly white or black may maintain prejudice.
Class prejudices are not as popular in public discourse these days as racial ones, but a lot of policies are directed toward maintaining class advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I'm in favor of maintaining working class prejudice against very wealthy people, and radically decreasing the advantages of very wealth people (like, by eliminating their wealth).
Yes, I agree that prejudice is so complicated as it goes deeper into the unconscious. I do think that it is bound up with likes and dislikes. Also, the idea of cleansing out or fumugating all prejudices would be going to far. If anything, I would say that the main thing is for us to be critically aware more than anything else.
I hadn't ever come across the idea of any gay bars being exclusive to any specific ethnic group because I don't think that there are any in England which are. One thing I am particularly aware of is the way in which gay people who are of African descent often have an extremely difficult time within their families and in their communities.
I probably do have some prejudice against the extremely wealthy, which I hadn't really thought about until you mentioned it. But, I don't really come into much contact with the extremely wealthy. That is, as far as I know, because I might encounter these people and not even be aware of their great wealth.
We can probably thank Christian and Moslem missionaries for Africans' difficulties with homosexuality. Some Africans (specifically, Ugandans) I've talked with believe such a thing as homosexuality simply doesn't exist among them. African American communities have a much stronger representation in very conservative Christian denominations than in liberal ones. Gay black men in fundamentalist families/social groups have a tough time finding acceptance there.
I have only been in one British gay bar, so my sample is 1. In the US, gay bars in cities like Minneapolis do not have large enough minority population to support exclusively black gay bars. Chicago, New York, and LA do, however. I should add that the bar culture seems to be fading--not just because of Covid-19, but also because of hook-up apps like GRINDR seem to be faster, cheaper, better--for a quick hook up, anyway. Were I 35 and not 75, I'd probably use GRINDR too.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That is the crux of the matter.
One can be "cleansed" of our prejudices just by maximising our experiences; it doesn't require a nefarious individual reprogramming us. It's very difficult to be racist and have friends of different ethnicity, and if you're open to it, you'll find people you like of different ethnicities. It's very difficult to be misogynistic and friends with women. Point being, prejudices have to be cultivated by actively sealing off the subjects of your prejudice.
As you say yourself, "knowing" people of different ethnicities is apt to reduce prejudice, since it's difficult to be prejudiced against someone and "know" or even know them.
Like you say, it's a feedback loop.
Yes, I am biased, I am prejudiced -- not severely, but still. I have been reasonably successful in not enacting negative feelings towards groups of people. I disapprove of people entering the US illegally, however it is done; establishing footholds with anchor babies, evading immigration authorities, marriages of convenience, et cetera. I have become prejudiced toward immigrants, particularly South American ones. Worse, I suppose, is that I am reverse-prejudiced--favorably disposed toward other illegal immigrants -- Europeans, Asians, and Africans. That said, I don't seek out platforms to express anti-immigration views or act negatively toward immigrants, even ones that are probably undocumented.
One of the issues brought up during the BREXIT debate was the number of immigrants in Britain. One group was very unhappy with all the Poles that were in their community. My first thought was "what could be negative about Polish immigrants?" I thought. Many cities in the US have had large Polish neighborhoods for a long time--Chicago and Detroit for instance. But then the whole US has been an ethnic mixmaster for a long time. Britain not so much.
An interesting bit of debate going on here. I think that the idea of 'cleansing' of prejudice is a bit problematic as a metaphor. It reminds me too much of the whole racist of the idea of ethnic cleansing. It also conjures up images of antibacterial gel and disinfectant, as if being applied to our thoughts and feelings.
I think that the whole point is to be aware of prejudice as the starting point rather than have it kept buried and emerging in a more sinister form.How different might things have been if Hitler had been able to admit to a prejudice against the Jews rather than have this lurking in his subconscious and coming out in the idea of a the creation of a master race.
I would suggest that what is important is that prejudices, preferences and dislikes are brought out into the open for discussion. Perhaps this is what is really needed for the raising of consciousness.
Like America, though, people here are probably the most hostile to the groups that are most incoming, which I guess for you is Mexicans and for us is Poles, Indians and Pakistanis. The Polish influx was very sudden and very large, and the UK has something of a village mentality.
I personally think the immigration issue is very separable from xenophobia. While I like living in a multicultural country (not least for the cuisine; restaurants were so shit when I was a child), I get that not everyone does, and I'm happy to bow to the consensus. But I think for most people in the UK, immigration is an ethnic issue interpreted as an existential one, the British way of life and British ethnic (no such thing) dominance seen as under threat. One prejudice -- nationalism -- begets another: xenophobia. Like in the US, there's a strong correlation between nationalism and anti-immigration. As a result, there's a very anti-nationalist subculture too, which I guess I belong to, in which, for instance, the English flag has become something of a new twist on the Nazi swastika.
I'd like to see immigration become a purely practical concern and not an expression of primacy, but it's hard to imagine, and so, as an equally pragmatic concern, I think we do have to take into account people's feelings about immigration when setting policy. I think good intentions might be the undoing of the EU in the end.
Yes, this is why I tried to cast it in terms of self-cleansing, which is somewhat more positive. I love a nice, long bath, me.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes but, as you say, prejudiced people don't typically observe their own prejudices and those that do are probably not very prejudiced at all. There's something of a cognitive dissonance with very prejudiced people, hence the much-ridiculed racism prefix: " I'm not a racist, but..." As someone mentioned on another thread, there's a downside to trying to bring prejudice out in the open. Much of the PC-bashing, cancel-culture--bemoaning, identity-politician--accusing, first-amendment--waving sentiments we see even here are really just statements that people should be allowed to express their prejudices without those prejudices being named. "I'm not a racist, but..." has become itself an entire counter-counter culture, and a huge one.
Bringing prejudices out into the open is recast as a prejudice, which devolves into each side of an argument accusing the other of prejudice. It's still better that it's out in the open, but it doesn't seem a promising route out.
I think that your final paragraph gets to the core of the difficulty. How far can you let people go about voicing prejudices without condoning them? Another underlying problem is that even though in many situations some authority can say what is allowed to be expressed, but ultimately you cannot tell people what they are allowed to think or feel.
Okay, you may think that this is the matter between the private and the social but it is not so simple. For example, what I have seen in some situations is that when managers and other figures are around everything is said in a very politically correct way. When these people are not present, however, all the suppressed prejudices are voiced and come into play, with so much vengeance. So, what is the answer to this kind of problem?
I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am interested in discussing prejudice and I don't consider my background as being 'snug' or'posh'. I would argue that that the striving to overcome prejudice goes beyond being a progressive idea and is central to any genuine concern about human beings.
"I'm not a murderer, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." (attributed to Mark Twain)
Quoting Jack Cummins
It's not problematic a bit. Your memory associated the word "cleansing" with "ethnic" and we are off to the [horse] races. I used the word "fumigating"; when I typed the word, I remembered that Zyklon B was used to fumigate insects and rats from food storage areas. It was invented by Fritz Haber (1868 - 1934). It was also used to fumigate Jews in the gas chambers. Oh, oh -- Fritz Haber must be a very bad man. Well, no--he also discovered how to make nitrogen fertilizer from air (Haber-Bosch process -- Nobel prize, 1918). It is said that 2 out 5 people on earth owe their existence to Haber -- because his discovery enables the world to greatly increase food production. Are you going to avoid Bayer aspirin? Bayer was part of I.G. Farben--the manufacturer of Zyklon B.
Just because we free associate one word with another, doesn't mean there is an operative connection there.
Warm, snug, semi-posh, academic progressives--hmmmm. Yes, please. Unfortunately I missed the boat on that one.
But then you add the word "seemingly".
True enough, progressives (whether they are warm, dry, and academic or not) are not perfection personified. Neither is any other group on the continuum between troglodyte and enlightened.
So what?
I know that some people have criticised Carl Jung for a possible bias in favour of Germans rather than Jews at the time of Nazi Germany. In particular, he treated some Nazi's as patients and did a speak not speak out about what was happening at a critical time in history. Some people have dismissed Jung's ideas on this basis but I think that his whole idea of the shadow is a useful idea for thinking about collective evil, including prejudice.
The whole way in which we take on board ideas is questionable too in some ways. For example, on one course I did a tutor said that the external examiners questioned the tutors on why all our essays seemed to adopt feminist ideas. It was queried whether we were being indoctrinated. I believe that we were adopting feminist ideas because we were all critical of sexism.
There are also disagreements within sections of communities. One particular one is how some radical lesbians have been fairly hostile to transgender people. When I was at college I knew a woman who had been identifying as a lesbian. Really, she considered herself as bisexual and she told me how when she had an affair with a man, she felt her lesbian flatmates were more hostile to her than any heterosexual people had been to her about her lesbian relationships.
So, there are many possible issues and debates , and they are all relevant when thinking about the whole nature of prejudice.
As an aside, I took Harvardās Implicit Bias Test and came away with results showing I have a bias against European Americans. I donāt know how I should feel about those results.
That sounds unlikely! More likely they were simply seeking acquiescence, or revenue or maybe they just enjoyed torturing people.
Were you against sexism because you had first hand experience as the victims of sexism, or were you indoctrinated by others who were, or thought they were, first (or second) hand victims of sexism? I'm not suggesting that you (plural) should be sexist; it's just fairly likely that the men in the group were probably not first hand victims of sexism so needed a push in that direction.
Consciousness of exploitation (class, race, sex, orientation, etc.) is usually acquired from first hand experiences, and/or it is acquired through teaching, discussion, reading -- indoctrination. My consciousness as a proud gay man (back in the halcyon days of gay liberation) was greatly aided by indoctrination. My consciousness as an exploited worker (mostly during the presidency of Ronald Reagan and George Bush I) was acquired largely through indoctrination.
For me, it's less a question of whether one is indoctrinated, and more a question of WHO is doing the indoctrination, and toward WHAT end. IMHO, there is way too little working class indoctrination to balance out ruling class indoctrination.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I generally stay clear of radical lesbians. My experience with them hasn't been very positive.
Lesbians in general tend to have more complex sexual histories than exclusively gay men. I don't know exactly why that is, but it is probably related to the available roles that women have had open to them, and the way women in general socialize (which is different than the way men in general socialize).
Some radical lesbians and some heterosexual women both have been very hostile toward transsexuals. I have my doubts about trans-genderism in general, and the deeper one gets into politico-sexual theory (radical and not) the murkier it can become. Like... mud?
There used to be a Friday night coffee house for lesbians in Minneapolis (held in a church basement). the radical lesbians in the group disapproved of lesbian mothers bringing their very young male children into the space. Women-only -- period. No XY chromosomes allowed.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Indeed.
Here's a quote I like by a lesbian writer:
There's nothing better for a city than a dense population of angry homosexuals.
I think that I dislike sexism in some of its most stupid forms or what appear as stupid to me. In particular, I dislike the whole way in which shops divide books and birthday cards into those for men and women. When I go to buy birthday cards I just want to find a nice one, whoever it is for, and find the categorisation as ridiculous, especially when the ones for women seem to come in pink.
I am very bi and do go to gay pubs but can't say that I find them particularly friendly. I used to prefer them to straight pubs but now I think that some of them are a lot more cliched. But I have heard that a lot of Soho may never reopen and I think that will be a great shame. I don't know how Brighton will be affected, but a few of my friends have moved there because they feel that it is the most tolerant and open minded community in many ways.
ItĀ“s very easy for people from a academical, semi posh background to be theoretical "world savers", typically, not suffering from the consequences. While blue and white collar people gets heavily affected.
A locally famous Philosophy professor in my home country grew up in a not-so-good suburb, but her mother being from a posh background made it so she went to a posh school where no troubles were, coming into adolescense, and she florished in Wittgenstein and what not.
She and her daughters do now push hard for immigration to be expanded in a country that have allowed much more immigration than other neightboring countries. Our prime minister has admitted the immigration is not successful due to the large numbers of immigrants. There is an enormous lot of problems due to this immigration.
Those problems will not affect the professor and her daughters, but her classmates from her old school, the nerdy ones that took care of their studies, but cannot afford living in the academical parts of towns, their kids will face almost mandatory bullying by immigrant gangs in the schools of the not-so-good suburbs.
Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself. In other words : The acadademic that pushes for stuff like immigration should bloody well make sure that their kids are sent to the downtown high schools.
You say that, 'Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself'. I can assure your that I am not leading the most comfortable life. I don't have a job and feel very uncertain about my own future. So, I don't feel that I am writing from the perspective of advantage. I also think that many of the categories between working and middle class have broken down. Also, academic qualifications may not count for that much nowadays.
So, my whole discussion of prejudice must be seen in the context of a rapidly changing world and of changing values. We may be moving into a world in which yesterday's prejudices may be receding and a different set of new biases and inequalities surfacing. Therefore, my consideration, which was stressed in the opening of the thread, is not simply about seeing prejudices 'out there's in the world but about the whole way in which we think ,form and hold on to preconceived ideas about people. I see us being in this altogether, despite our often lonely struggles, and the only solution I see behind it all is a general need for compassion.
That isn't really what people do Jack. We don't live harmoniously with others, not even our families. For any disagreements we may have we seek a reason, outside of simply having different values, because that would mean we could both be right, and hold on just a damned minute, YOU can't be right because I am right. So we look for any excuse to explain our differences, other than values, so I blame your disagreeing with me on your gender, or race or whatever, because otherwise I might have to come to terms with the concept that there are other, equally valid, world views, which my fragile condition cannot abide.
My thoughts on overcoming prejudice are simple enough: treat the person in front of you as they deserve to be treated based on that individual. See them for who they are and respond to that.
I do not have a problem with any race or gender. I have a problem with assholes, but first they have to demonstrate that they fall into that category, until then, everyone gets treated equally. I have found that nasty people are not limited to any race, gender, or age.
Your thoughts are
'treat the person in front of you as they deserve to be treated based on that individual. See them for who they are and respond to that.'
If all people thought like that it would be great, but the question is how many people do think like this, really?
I definitely believe that the whole approach to prejudice cannot be taught easily in schools or government programs and you are right to say that, 'It comes from within, if one is willing to honestly look at one's actions and reactions, and assess the why of them.' It is a matter of perspective and a whole way of seeing.
I agree with you that it is important to 'work alongside the person and see that he is not that different from you'. I think that this is a far more understanding and effective way of exploring than one which is harsh and critical. We need to work with what knowledge and experience a person has to increase this rather than simply being judgemental about prejudice. Perhaps that is where simply trying to be politically correct falls short because it doesn't go deeper and work with increasing knowledge and enabling people to gain critical awareness for themselves.
Sorry for late answer, aint here too often..
From an overall perspective I do to a great extent agree with your views here. But the ways to adapt to a changing world can be good or bad, and the āposh children leftist-Activismā, similar to the āstudentsā of the 1968 revolts has not proven to be the best catalysts.
Even if the world is changing the āend of historyā kind of paradigm is imho worth fighting for. Not necessarily capitalism as we see it today but still the relatively well working idea of a western social-liberal state where people are empowered and takes resposibility.
MLK probably did not have the vision of the rap/gangsta culture that has spread from the USA to the immigrant suburbs of European states. Higly unliked by the ādaytime workersā that do live close to the "no-go-zones". The situation in the US differs in a way from my Scandinavian home country since the gangstas can be traced back to the Slavery, people involountarily transported from Africa to work at the cotton fields in the south, while the gangstas in my home country mostly are children of people having been admitted as refugees. But still there is a similarity - its posh people that brought slaves to US (Englishmen stemming from british gentry), and itĀ“s posh leftist people that heavily supports unrestricted immigration without making sure integration works. And those posh people also do have in common with the gangsta community the lack of Daytime job for daytime jobs sake.
I think this is the formula - Daytime job for everyone. Of course that requires a weaker capitalism to avoid unemployment, also good since capitalists(as well as a lot of academics) produces drone offspring, IE people that do not work with what they best serve mankind with.
The concept of "school" or "working in a bigger organization" is a very good concept. You do stuft that needs to be done, good for the community. If you do it good you get a good grade in school and you get a good raise working for an organisation. I think this should be the story for EVERYONE.
And when you do not work, you can pursue whatever art project, sport or whatever you like. But the discipline of getting your comfort from your own hard work is from every political point of view a good one.
Equal opportunity? Tax to make sure that opportunity is equal? Of course. But the standard you have is fair and personally earned.
Well-to-do mommys will of course have a challenge to adopt to this world view
Your idea of a formula sounds fair enough, but whether it is one which will be implemented in most societies is one which I would question. I see the idea of day jobs for all as an ideal, but whether that will be implemented is uncertain. I am not sure that in the aftermath of the pandemic, whether or not we will see a greater divide in the rich and the poor and more inequality. I believe that it could go either way and, of course, it may vary in certain parts of the world. Let us just hope that we see some positive changes coming and, I personally hope that this is the new 1968. Perhaps we need a bit of flower power to cheer us up. Bring on Bob Dylan...
The key at the moment I would controversially say - is to bring in the women into that loop. Women need to start to see people as people and not as roles. Their children, other peoples children, oppressed people and whatever. People need, worldwide, to take personal responsibility, not to be taken care of. I am NOT saying that women do not take responsibility, they do - too much! They need to make other people take responisbility. Do their part of the chores that need to be done. Starting with their own children.