/ Prejudice and Discrimination cult decision to interrupt the cycle of socialization. We begin to question the givens, the assumptions of the society, the norms, the values, the rules, the roles, and even the struc- tures. As we attempt this, it becomes obvious that we cannot do it alone. We must build coalitions with people who are like us and people who are different from us. We will not be the minority if we work in coalitions, We will gain the necessary vision and power to reconstruct new rules that truly are equal, roles that complement each other instead of competing, assumptions that value all groups instead of ascribing value to some and “devaluing others, and structures that promote cooperation and shared power instead of power over each other. For this new direction of action to work, we need ctnsasion enestiaal cones nee for all groups. We need to take a stand, reframe our understandings, question the status quo, and begin a critical transformation that can break down this cycle of socialization and start a new cycle leading to liberation for all. This is possible. We can change the world (see Harro, “he Cycle of Liberation,” chapter 87 of this volume). References Baker-Miller, J. (1976). Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press. Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, and P. Griffin, eds., Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge. Griffin, P, (1997). Introductory module for the single issue courses. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, and P. Griffin, eds., Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge. Harro, R. L. (1986). Teaching about Heterosexism: A Psychological Education Design Project. University of Massachusetts, Amherst; unpublished manuscript. Hardiman, R. and B. W, Jackson. (1997). Conceptual Foundations for Social Justice Courses. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, and P. Griffin, eds., Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge. cme 3 Warren J. Blumenfeld and Diane Raymond In [Nazi] Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn'ta trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that ‘time no one was left to speak up. Attributed to Martin Niemoeller, in Jobn Bartlett, ‘Familiar Quotations (1982, 824) 212 Conceptual Frameworks er ee : ss at-sge-oip-e amc, ee ae are nee: ate denied access to the rights and vileges o7 others Physical, biological, social, or other traits. ‘These segments of the population are sometimes called “minorities.” There is, however, group members often receive negative: may or may not be expressed), te ceric Tanging from negative beliefs (which some cases overt acts of violence nial of civil and legal protections, and in Py am Though the reasons why certain operation conditions remain constant. fests prejudice, Is Latin root means “prejudgmes rs oe BTOUPS On the fringe. The and to feel prejudice toward an indi- Fag lef without just ground or before ee a given gan PetsOn s sad to be prejudiced if he or she feelings or beliefs move inherently inferior. crimination, which denies to individuals Into the realm of behavior, the result is dis- ‘Therefore, it is discriminatory oF groups of for parents People equality of treatment. JencSiliren, and for legislators to row done oy te cldren to play with red- People access to certain nk ‘nstitutions—taws, customs, religion, edu- Prejudice discrimination and discrimination. This ne Tan nltence behavior and he 1980.) It is obvious that “ ty ‘fnormous power to reward Teward as well by the . seliconfidence, a and Prewitt tain groups, usually minorities, ee This is then ee: often one of the by- other Usually lusion or Separation of cer- the dominant group. It has ‘ces, and public accom- Segregation; that exists by itt 804 defacto, ¥. Ferguson exists by law, . De jure segregation is Y eee fe the 1896 Supreme ad “a HUT igi TH oam i i Prejudice and Discrimination Human beings have a propensity to categorize in an attempt to sort reality into neat and orderly arrangements. Since reality often does not fit this package, definitions may be arbitrary and inconsistent. Such tends to be the case when trying to provide adequate definitions of race and ethnicity. A standard definition of an ethnic group is one that is socially distinguishable from other groups, has developed its own subculture—which can include nationality, religion, and language—and has “a shared feeling of peoplehood” (Gordon 1964). If we walk down the streets of New York, we are apt to see many ethnic groups residing in various parts of the city. We might see Italian Americans in Little Italy, Latinos/as from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries living in Spanish Harlem, Chinese Americans in China- town, and so on. Often what distinguishes these groups is their shared culture, including their distinctive cuisine, music, and native language. However, there are also some eth- nic groups that do not meet all these criteria. An example is the Jews, who, though they come from many different countries and different cultural backgrounds, constitute an ethnic group because of their shared sense of peoplehood, linking them through cen- turies of dispersion and migration. ‘The concept of race is also problematic. . . . Race has been defined as a distinct human type based on inherited physical characteristics (Julian and Kornblum 1983). This defi- nition implies that the concept is easily applied and that the categories we call “racial” are obvious and distinct. But today many sociologists and anthropologists maintain that race is a social or cultural concept rather than an inherent, observable characteristic, for all races are simply variations of a single human species of common prehistoric ances- try. Any differences in our species may have evolved to ensure the survival of people in varying geographic locales. For example, in the evolutionary process a greater amount of skin pigmentation (melanin) and thicker-textured hair developed in people in warmer, sun-drenched lands as a way to protect them from ultraviolet rays. Often the concepts of ethnicity and race overlap and become confused. . . A great many traits go into the physical and psychological makeup of every person. How we look, behave, think, and relate affects the ways we are defined by ourselves and by others. The same is true for how groups are defined: whether a group is linked by race, ethnicity, sex, occupation, physical condition, age, nationality, social rank, or sexual ori- entation, a myriad of factors go into its essential composition. Nevertheless, individuals and groups are sometimes defined by others in terms of char- acteristics called stereotypes, which are—more often than not—negative. When this occurs, a network of belief develops around the group in question. The stereotypes may have originally contained some small grain of truth, but that element has since been exaggerated, distorted, or in some way taken out of context. So stereotypes may be based on false generalizations derived from very small samples or even on a unique case. Some stereotypes have no foundation in fact at all. When stereotyping occurs, people tend to overlook all other characteristics of the group. Individuals sometimes use stereotypes to justify the actions taken against members of that group. SPAT 2 i eat 2324 Conceptual Frameworks ‘Taking up the example of red-haired people, we can see more easily how stereotyping operates. Though every red-haired person is multifaceted, when we call them “hot-tem- pered,” we make redheadedness reducible to a single trait. While some red-haired people may show their temper on occasion, it is not the case that all do. And besides, people with other hair shades, or for that matter, no hair at all, flare up sometimes. Further, stereo- types are self-perpetuating, for once a stereotype is in place, we tend to notice more the behavior consistent with the stereotype and miss that which is not. It is in this way that stereotypes are reinforced regardless of the social realities. Stereotyping is common in attitudes toward minority group members. Sometimes peo- ple stereotype by focusing on a positive quality of a group. However, in most cases, the ‘stereotyping is negative. This can result in the singling out of individuals or groups of ioe as an of hostility even though they may have little or nothing to do with the bracts +h they stand accused. This is referred to as scapegoating, Hitler blamed Jews, wr 's Witnesses, gypsies, homosexuals, and others for the collapse of the German omy _ oe ease IL African Americans were scapegoated for the deplorable Aisuespean ao ithern states following the American Civil War. apthies * Geb Leviticus (16; 20-22). On the Mtonement a live goat was selected by lot. The high priest placed b o1 thie poet's head ad igh pt pl oth hands on goat's and confessed over it the sins of th le. bist ce f 1e people. In this way, the sins were ete three animal, which was then cast out into the wilderness. This Process thus purged the people, for a time, of their feelings of guilt. What conditions are necessary for certain : goats? First, prejudice m ra ust already sie or or groups to be chosen as scape- against the particular groups or individuals ‘commences. Second, the individuals in question must appear to on. are alike in most respects. This attitude often leads to Asi Hack woman lesbian, afeminis, and an activist, Thave litle frm ame es opin econet acts at their meshings so frequently affect << bechacn Snes Sith, “Homophobia: Why Bring I Up?* (1983, 7) results nonetheless. t Fi UGH Prejudice and Discrimination Racism: discrimination on the basis of race; Sexism: discrimination on the basis of sex, most often by men; Misogyny; a hatred or distrust of women; Ethnocentrism or Ethnic Prejudice: the belief that one’s ethnic group is superior to all others, resulting, at times, in discrimination toward those of different ethnic back- grounds or national origin; Ageism: discrimination on the basis of age, usually against the elderly and the young: Ableism: discrimination against the physically or mentally disabled; Xenophobia: fear and or hatred of strangers or foreigners or anything that appears strange or foreign: Anti-Semitism: discrimination against Jews (a traditional usage that does not include discrimination against Arabs, who are also Semites); Religious Prejudice: discrimination on the basis of a particular religious preference; Chauvinism: originally used to refer to jingoism or excessive patriotism, it has also come to be associated with sexist attitudes, most especially of men toward women; Classism: Prejudice and discrimination based on socio-economic level or class; Heterosexism: the system by which heterosexuality is assumed to be the only accept- able and viable life option; Homophobia: fear, dislike, or hatred of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals often resulting in acts of discrimination (Weinberg 1972). Other terms have been coined to express this condition including homophilephobia (Rosan 1978), literally meaning fear of persons of one’s own sex; homoerotophobia (Churchill 1967); homosexphobia (Levitt and Klassen 1974); homosexophobia (Boswell 1980); homosexism (Lehne 1976); and homo- negativism (Hudson and Ricketts 1980). Though the term homophobia has appeared in revised editions of some dictionaries since the mid-1970s, it is still absent from other standard lexicons. Prejudice (along with its active component, discrimination) seems to be a universal phe- nomenon that has probably been around since the time of the first human grouping. One may ask, “Why do people hold on to their prejudices?” Beliefs, whether true or false, serve some function. And prejudice, like other beliefs, must meet some sort of need or fulfill a purpose. If this were not the case, prejudice itself would, in all likelihood, cease to exist and be replaced by more functional beliefs. In an attempt to understand what role prejudice plays in human interactions, social scientists have studied how it operates. Tie ibid td bids Jaime Wurzel (1986) has identified four basic functions of prejudice, which will be dis- cussed here. People maintain prejudicial attitudes to gain certain rewards and to avoid punishment. ‘They generally want to be liked and, therefore, will endorse the prejudices of others, 2526 Conceptual Frameworks Including family members—namely parents—and peers outside the home environment. In doing so, they are consolidating their personal and social relationships, and in turn enhancing their own concepts of self. ile when a leader exploits a prejudice widely held by his constituency, group mem- may experience a heightened sense of purpose and a stronger feeling of community while at the same time solidifying the leader's position. eee Sete FR Oar. ‘appears threatening or uncertain, as it reminds them of me iy act che A us fail at times, and itis frightening to take responsibility Ser eee 's sense of self-esteem against conflicts and weak- nesses mays el preset internal or external). Thus, scapegoating ees Fea Toa Holding ceri from their own inadequacies and fears. As epee m4 sith Prejudice protects people from a harsh reality. era pean iniess ‘unsuccessful in the business world may believe that mem- certain successful group are a scheming bunch of cheaters” (34). re to evaluate others in terms of meaner and thus serve to order the lorteut to others and digesting new in- Prejudice and Discrimination It is not uncommon for people to feel frustrated occasionally. They may want some- thing but for some reason or other cannot get it. Anger and aggression may arise and find expression in a number of ways. One can, for example, strike out directly at the source of the irritation. Yet this is often difficult, because the source is either unknown or else too dangerous to confront. Therefore, one must find another channel similar enough to the source of the frustration to provide satisfaction. For instance, a parent may punish a child with a spanking, Unable to hit the parent back, the child turns around and socks a younger sibling, who then runs outside and kicks the family dog. In an organizational setting, aggression may travel down from the president to the vice-president(s), then through the entire chain of command, eventually terminating at the worker with the lowest status. In terms of relative degrees of power, those lower down become the scapegoats in the social pecking order. In a social context, this leads to prejudice if the person transfers this aggression onto members of minority groups. Take, for example, the man who is interviewed for a desirable job but is passed over for the position by a woman who is better qualified. That night on a cab ride home the man may complain to the driver that “unless something is done soon, women will be taking over the country.” Personal insecurity can also give rise to prejudice, which in turn serves the function of building self-esteem and reducing feelings of guilt. People who are insecure about their social standing and expectations often have a great need for conformity (Saenger 1953; Weinberg 1972). By identifying with a dominant group, an insecure person gains a place in society and experiences a sense of importance. Because minorities are often seen as being nonconformist, they are easy targets of aggression. ‘Some people appear to be more prone than others to highly prejudiced beliefs. Adorno (1950) and other psychologists believed that such people exhibit an “authoritarian per- sonality.” Unlike the “democratic personality,” the authoritarian personality suffers from repressed feelings of weakness and rejection, where the world appears as a jungle in which everyone is the enemy of everyone else. Further, the authoritarian person values strength and toughness above all else; love and sympathy are signs of weakness; security can be obtained only through domination or submission, not love and cooperation. Distrust of others is coupled with the absence of secure emotional attachments. This person lacks a sense of belonging and is unsure of his or her role and place in society. She or he over- rates the power of some people, while exaggerating the weakness of others. Because of insecurity, she or he gives up individuality, and is dependent on a strong person or con- forms to the dictates of a group. This denial of self often results in frustration and hostili- ty, which have to be displaced onto those perceived as weaker and nonconformist because the person cannot afford to attack those on whom she or he is dependent. Very often, highly prejudiced people are impervious to the sorts of logical arguments that could expose the fallacies in their beliefs. Using logic or facts does not usually suc- ceed in changing the opinions of many prejudiced people because they do not play by common rules of reason (Sartre 1965). This may be because their egos are threatened by contradictory evidence or because they recognize (perhaps unconsciously) that to change one's belief might require changing a whole network of beliefs. Rather than sacrifice the prejudiced belief, prejudiced people may find clever rationalizations to ae- commodate what may be even blatant contradictions of their belief systems. “I don't care what you say, I still believe .. . ” is a common response to inconsistent data. Anti- gay activist Anita Bryant showed clear signs of this form of reasoning in her Save Our Children campaign during the late 1970s. When directly pressed to give logical 2728 Conceptual Frameworks: ‘arguments for her position, she would rise and sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” in an attempt to play on the patriotic sympathies of her audience; reason had no impact on her views. Most people, from time to time, are either unwilling or unable to look at some of their ceeenee personality traits and may transfer these traits onto others. This process referred to as projection. Gordon Allport (1954) describes three types of projection. ne saan the projection of attributes which lie solely within the person aes onto those who are blamed. Women, for example, may be blamed Been when in reality it is their accusers who are denying their own sex- The fea oe ‘mechanism refers to the process of exaggerating a relatively minor neg- . Nbrineats stic in other people that both they and we, ourselves, possess, oan ess a Sar xy also possess it. All of us—men and women—are irrational Y version of sexism singles out women as irrational I a “ a “Fo egg mehr and emotional, deval- Projection and justifies one's i necnene explains ‘own state of mind in reference to imagined intentions and behaviors of others. This has to do with finding causes for one’s own troubl i" led emotions in others ("I fear, therefore they threaten”). In the case of ‘many so-called moral zealots, their selfighteousness may be the result of unconscious or even conscious feelin, based came to light dramatically 198 ee om Teresa sexual desires. This point Bakker . in separate incidents, the TV ministers Jim suspend their preaching. we for aggression against minorities. Such ‘gression serves to cleanse the person of annie trait. Projection onto an indi- leon tae n thought while at the same time ome Sane ae cee eae With respect to homophobia, prejudice POW coxealig eauce the tension and anxiety aroused by unconscious doubts ened this aversion reaction formation, which si impulse in oneself by taking a firm stand homophobic person is threa wom bhieidia senae i tened by the mere existence of sexual minorities uals (eg. seal prowess and wens the importance of his or her own sex- tye oo members of the other sex). A ak ofeiae nafs — also stem from that f - In addition, th = of gays, ., the person may loving a greater degree of fneccon ah and als, who are often perceived as Accepting rigid gender tobe roles. This can be Weinberg 95) usted unconsciously sateen for their conformity to rules. Prejudice and Discrimination are genuinely comfortable with their own sexual identities apparently feel far less threat- ened by homosexuality than those who are insecure (Marmor 1980). Psychological factors alone, however, do not completely explain the origins of preju- dice, In particular, the psychological explanations do not make clear why some attributes are singled out over others, why some attributes are negatively valued, and why some groups and not others bear the brunt of social prejudice. Prejudice is not an individual phenomenon, hence it is important to look at the larger social context in which preju- dice occurs and is reinforced. Prejudice and discrimination are problems in societies where there are hierarchical structures. In social settings where some have more than others, a belief system develops which justifies the entitlement of those with economic power. In particular, people whose class status is somewhat tenuous may struggle to keep others from ascending the eco- nomic ladder. Furthermore, as goods and services become scarcer, there is increasing economic competition. Thus, “prejudice is reversely proportional to the economic cli- mate of a society” (Saenger 1953). When economic times are good, there is more need for inexpensive immigrant labor, which tends to result in a decline of prejudice. However, in a bad economy, the reverse is usually true, and members of different groups may see others as competition for scarce resources. ‘The myth of inherent racial differences originally justified the institution of slavery and the exploitation of native populations by colonial powers. More recently, discrimina~ tion remains to buttress vested economic interests. Landlords can exact high rents and merchants can charge high prices from minorities forced to reside in segregated areas. Employers can get away with paying low wages to minority workers. Management has a stake in turning various groups of workers against each other so that they do not join together against their bosses to push for improved wages and working conditions. .. . ‘There are, of course, bona fide differences in the appearance, religion, social customs, and sexual orientation of various groups. However, many times the threatening nature of the differences is more imagined than real. People who look or sound different will actu- ally appear to be threatening to some individuals. In most instances, however, the nega- tive reputation of a given minority group is not so much earned as it is thrust upon them. Further, it is not clear why some differences appear to be more threatening than others. At times, competition for scarce resources or stressful or poor quality of contact between groups can also bring about hard feelings which can last for generations. This is true in many of our larger cities, where contact between people is often brief and impersonal. Allport terms the condition arising from this situation as “urban insecurity.” In addition, prejudice often exists in populations of bordering countries where there is competition for land or natural resources, and where rapid change in population distribution occurs. ‘The rate at which a population changes its composition often determines how newly entering groups will be treated by the dominant group . As Saenger (1953) explains, “A slow, imperceptible change over years or decades is less likely to create a negative reac- tion than a sudden increase in minority populations over a short period of time.” When individual minority members increase in number, are more visible, or when they begin to gain political or social advances, the dominant group may react unfavorably. Called backlash, this may result in increased and intensified incidents of discrimination against the minority group. Short or unsustained positive experiences with minorities are often unlikely to alter prejudice if the negative stereotypes are strongly ingrained. Sometimes direct con- tact actually deepens prejudice because of the process of selection and distortion. The 2930 Conceptual Frameworks prejudiced individual may select to focus on the negative contacts, thus distorting them to seem worse than they actually are. Prejudice then becomes circular, feeding off itself, ‘Once again, situational (or contact) theory is relevant to the existence of homopho- bia. Though homosexuals constitute a significant percentage of the population, most gay people are not visible. As a result, heterosexuals are not always aware of their contact with lesbians and gays. Thus, they may tend to focus on one isolated negative encounter or some lurid headline involving a gay person and generalize from that to all gay people. We frequently hear about murders on the evening news, for example. But when a gay man or lesbian is involved, homophobia encourages singling out this aspect of the case, reinforcing the already existing prejudice. Similarly, positive encounters that may con- tradict the stereotype are often dismissed as being atypical. References Adorno, . W.. E. Prenkel-Brunswick, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1950, Allport, Gen, The Nature of Prete Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 1954. Serve Joba, ke Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from Peat eumand of the Christin Erato the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres, Breslin, R. “Structured Approaches to Dealing with i ” inna of hier rap ee Prejudice and Intercultural Misunderstanding, in Males: Hudson, W. W,, and W. A. Ricketts, “A ii Bevo 5. no. 411980), “A Strategy for the Measurement of Homophobia.” Journal of . Joseph, and William aera! Kornblum. Socal Problems, th ed. Englewood Clits, N.J: Prentice- amoi - edited by D. Davis and R. peniactesy Reateg ne ee Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role, "Publica .: Addison-Wesley, 1976, nhac toward Homosexuality: Part of the 1970 National Homosecuality 1, no, 1 (1974). New York: Basic of rEPosene Behavior.” In Homosexual Familiar Quotations, 15th ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Homophilia” In The Gay Academic, Palm Springs. of Prejudice. New York: Harper. 1953, set Sema Stn, 1965. Nut” Interracial Books for Children Bulletin 14, nos. Forms of Prejudice wt Sok St Martin's Press, 1972. Anti-Defamation Lega lf Dilerence: Resource Gute or 19g6, “NEUE Of B'nai B'rith/Facing History and thea,