In a recent book, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, by Banaji and Greenwald, a good case is made for the assertion that prejudice is intrinsic to the human condition. (Not all prejudices are equally pernicious; some people have more pernicious ones than others; these are important qualifications regarding the universality of biases.) The authors, both social psychologists, uncovered latent and not-so-latent prejudices in all subjects. They administered to large groups of people "The Implicit Association Test" or the IAT, developed by Greenwald, which requires subjects to sort a mix of faces and adjectives. . Most people sorted the mix much faster when they were required to join white faces with positive adjectives; it took them longer when they were required to join black faces with positive adjectives. This indicates racial prejudice. It was interesting that the negative stereotyping of Blacks was found even among Blacks. Similarly, it was found that not only men were prejudiced against female bosses, women also shared that prejudice, albeit to a lesser degree. Similar biases were elicited regarding age, sexual orientation and body weight.
After watching the Cruz/Feinstein encounter, I laughed at myself for at least two reasons. First, I--selfishly--emphasized the age put-down over the discrimination against women in Cruz's speech. Second, I--selfishly--felt good about being the victim of prejudice instead of, as a white male, being more often viewed as a perpetrator. What's so sadly funny about being self-centered is not that we don't believe we're all sinners; it's that we believe that our neighbor is so much better at it than we are.
4.
Conclusions: 1: The realization that we are all, without exception, egotistic and full of prejudices, should make us more accepting of others and more forgiving of ourselves; 2: Just because self-centered elements are invariably involved doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue good causes with passion; 3: We are all, more or less, guilty; in other words, we are all, more or less, innocent; 4. The native American saying that we shouldn't judge a person until we have walked a mile in his/her moccasins is one of the best adages ever. Don't make it a cliche by quoting it without following it; 5: Life is sublime. Act accordingly; 6: Life is also ridiculous. So have a transcendent, no-holes-barred, good-natured, self-critical belly laugh at yourself for being so self-centerdly, prejudiciously obtuse. But be fair----Laugh the same laugh about me.
The authors reasonably attribute the persistence of prejudice to its wellspring: the unconscious. As the authors state, "Whether we want them to or not, the attitudes of the culture at large infiltrate us." This process, of course, begins in infancy and suffuses our subconscicous minds from the outset.
An especially moving example of this prejudice is that of a biracial man who found out after taking the test that he harbored prejudice against Blacks. As reported in Leonard Mlodinow's excellent review of "Blindspot" in a recent New York Review of Books, the man, a guest on the Oprah Winfrey show, confessed, "The person in my life (his mother) who(m) I love more than almost anyone else is Black, and here I was taking a test, which said, frankly, I wan't too crazy about black people." That says it all. (I, a white father of a Black son, would, alas! probably obtain a similar score.)
It must be said that a person's mind must categorize concepts if that person is to function in the world. For instance, if someone can't categorize various containers that are of different material, sizes, shapes and colors as objects that are able to serve as cups, that person is unable to set a table. (Certain types of strokes, which leave intelligence intact but destroy the ability to categorize prove this.)
2.
Obviously the self-righteous statement, "I don't have a bone of prejudice in my body," applies only to jellyfish and other non-human life forms. What makes it easier to harbor prejudices is the inescapable fact that not only are we all biased, we are all, some more, some less, self-centered. (This is not all bad; it helps us survive.) We tend to view prejudice as what others do to us, not what we do to others. (Calvin was spot-on when he declared that the human mind is a factory of idols.) Thus, by and large, women react to prejudices against women more than men do; Blacks tend to react to anti-Black racism more than whites do, etc. In addition there are women, and Blacks of both genders, who are keenly aware of how prejudice affects them but are themselves very biased against gays. Let me be clear: there is much good in fighting against prejudice of which one is the also the victim; this adds passion to a struggle for a universal good. But hidden selfishness, as well as hidden prejudices, almost always cloud the picture. I would like to give an example of this that made me laugh about myself, about a TV commentator, and about the world, without losing deep respect for all three. An account of this example follows.
3.
Ted Cruz is a freshman senator from Texas, a Tea-party darling, and in my opinion, an intelligent yet extremely arrogant, condescending, self-righteous politician. In a recent Senate hearing about the need for gun control, he addressed Dianne Feinstein, a senator from California. I watched a video of this encounter. Senator Cruz's bearing was extremely arrogant. The position of his eyebrows demonstrated the literal meaning of superciliousness; his behavior demonstrated the figurative meaning of this word. . There was little humanity or respect in the way he addressed Senator Feinstein. He looked down on her, figuratively and literally. Would the Senior Senator from California think it right for Congress to decide which books should be read? Then why, he implied, should she think it right to decide which guns citizens could buy? (This is, of course, a ridiculous position: the First Amendment., as modified by law, does not permit such things as pornographic literature for children. Does freedom of speech include deliberately shouting "Fire!" in a concert hall that is not burning? Of course not. (As Senator Feinstein pointed out, banning certain assault weapons and magazines would still permit citizens to purchase thousands, yes, thousands of different types of weapons.) She felt she was being patronized, and was, I think, absolutely right.
I watched the video of this encounter on the Rachel Maddow Show. I admire Ms. Maddow and share most of her views. She took Mr. Cruz's arrogance in a very feminist way--and I think she was basically correct to do so. During the encounter between the two politicians, Senator Feinstein objected to what she thought was being "treated like a sixth-grader". Senator Cruz countered that he appreciated her passion--however, she continued to avoid the question. Rachel Maddow was incensed. She implied that his hidden--maybe not-so-hidden--message was, "Stop being hysterical, Sweetie, and act like a man!" (She actually used the word, "Sweetie.") She went on to state her opinion that this is the way a lot of male legislators treat a lot of female legislators. (This is probably quite true.)
I also think there was some egotism in the vehemence of Maddow's comments. Let me explain. I am an avid armchair political commentator. Mr. Cruz's demeanor and opinions infuriated me. I heard myself saying, "How can you be so obtuse; what the hell is the matter with you, Sir? " etc. What if Mr. Cruz had been a woman? What if my rant had been the same except for "Sir" being replaced by "Madam?" Would a conservative woman be justified in severely criticizing me for gender prejudice? I am not saying that Maddow was wrong in pointing out one of the probable sources of Mr. Cruz's outrageous behavior; I also believe that Mr. Cruz puts down everyone who disagrees with him and would have hardly been less arrogant dealing with (now retired) Senator Bernie Sanders, who is male. (Lord knows how arrogantly he would dismiss an old man without any power, like me.)
Yes, Maddow is human. I must confess, I am also human. I interpreted the encounter differently, in a way which manifested my own egotism.
Not once, not twice, but three times Senator Cruz referred to Senator Feinstein, as "the senior senator from California." He emphasized the word "senior" each time. He, in fact, never referred to her simply as "the senator from California," not to mention referring to her as "my colleague from California." Senator Feinstein is 79 years old. As a senior citizen, I interpreted Cruz's arrogance as saying, as it were, "You silly, ditsy old person, isn't it time for you to retire and let those who are younger and not yet senile, rule?"
Rachel Maddow has most likely been the victim of prejudice against women many times. My history of being discriminated against because I'm old undoubtedly isn't as extensive, since, obviously, I haven't always been old. But such incidents have occurred; I'll give one little example. (Examples continue to mount; I am not getting any younger.) I exercised at a club and got to know many people. Some of us attended an aerobics class every Saturday for many years. The club closed. One of the persons from the former club, a woman much younger than I, saw me at the beginning of a class at another facility. It was an Advance Step class, which requires some complex moves. She thought she'd try it. It wasn't easy for her--I, however, had been doing Step for years. Later that day, she sent an e-mail to everyone who had participated in the aerobics class about her experience at step class earlier that day. She reported that she had been hesitant to take the class; then she saw me. "If Thomas," that is, me--"could do it, she wrote, "how hard could it be?" So she tried the class, but was unable to get the correct movements. She was surprised to discover that I was "more coordinated than she had thought." Translation: the old goat, amazingly, did reasonably well. She has repeated this story, completely unaware of the age prejudice it entails. A quite benign example of prejudice that is also quite revealing.
After watching the Cruz/Feinstein encounter, I laughed at myself for at least two reasons. First, I--selfishly--emphasized the age put-down over the discrimination against women in Cruz's speech. Second, I--selfishly--felt good about being the victim of prejudice instead of, as a white male, being more often viewed as a perpetrator. What's so sadly funny about being self-centered is not that we don't believe we're all sinners; it's that we believe that our neighbor is so much better at it than we are.
4.
Conclusions: 1: The realization that we are all, without exception, egotistic and full of prejudices, should make us more accepting of others and more forgiving of ourselves; 2: Just because self-centered elements are invariably involved doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue good causes with passion; 3: We are all, more or less, guilty; in other words, we are all, more or less, innocent; 4. The native American saying that we shouldn't judge a person until we have walked a mile in his/her moccasins is one of the best adages ever. Don't make it a cliche by quoting it without following it; 5: Life is sublime. Act accordingly; 6: Life is also ridiculous. So have a transcendent, no-holes-barred, good-natured, self-critical belly laugh at yourself for being so self-centerdly, prejudiciously obtuse. But be fair----Laugh the same laugh about me.
No comments:
Post a Comment