Causes of prejudice vincent n parrillo summary

576 CREATED EQUAL

what is necessary to accomplish anything approaching psychic and eco​nomic parity in the next half century will not only require a fundamental at​titude shift in American thinking but massive amounts of money as well. Be​fore the country in general can be made to understand, African Americans themselves must come to understand that this demand is not for charity. It is simply for what they are owed on a debt that is old but compellingiy obvi​ous and valid still.

Sources

Anderson, S.E. The Black Holocaust for Beginners. New York: Writers and

Readers Publishing, 1995. Bittkcr, Boris. The Case for Black Reparations. New York: Random House,

1973. Franklin, John Hope. From Slavery to Freedom, New York: Knopf, 1947. Taylor, Yuval, ed. / was Bom a Slave (vol. 1). Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1999. Updike, John. Brazil. New York: Knopf, 1994. Westley. Robert, "Many Billions Gone." Boston College Law Review, June 1999.

Engaging the Text

1. Outline Robinson's economic argument for reparations: What measurable monetary losses have African Americans suffered as a result of slavery and discrimination? Are there losses that cannot be measured in economic terms? If so, how might they be redressed?

2. How does Robinson counter the objection that it's too late to demand resti​tution for slavery? What evidence does he present to support his con​tention that African Americans today still feel the effects of slavery? How persuasive do you find his reasoning?

3. Why does Robinson feel that it's important for African Americans to fight for reparations even when there's little chance of success?

4. Robinson cites a number of historical and legal precedents for reparations. In what ways are these cases similar to or different from the case of slav​ery? To what extent do the precedents strengthen Randall's argument?

5. Debate Robinson's claim that unless the United States addresses the issue of reparations, "there is no chance that America can solve its racial prob​lems" (para. 10).

Exploring Connections

6. What does Robinson mean when he says that "the biggest part of our prob​lem is inside us" (para. 16)? How might Claude M. Steele (p. 231), Ken Hambliit (p. 384), Shelby Steele t~ Gncu "liter Mosley (p. 755) re​spond to his age inflicted on African

PAKRILLO • CAUSES OK I'HEJUDICE 577

Rereading America 2004

Edited by: Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, Bonnie Lisle

Causes of Prejudice Vincent N. Parrillo

What motivates the creation of racial categories? In the following selec​tion, Vincent Parrillo reviews several theories that seek to explain the motives for prejudiced behavior—from socialization theory to economic competition. As Parrillo indicates, prejudice cannot be linked to any single cause: a whole network of forces and frustrations underlies this complex set of feelings and behaviors. Parrillo (h. 1938) chairs the Department of Sociology at William Paterson College in New Jersey. His books include Rethinking Today's Mi​norities (1991). Diversity in America (1996), and Understanding Race and ; j Ethnic Relations (2002). He has also written and produced two award-

winning documentaries for PBS television. This excerpt originally appeared in Strangers to These Shores (1999, 6th ed.).

Prejudicial attitudes may be either positive or negative. Sociologists primarily study the latter, however, because only negative attitudes-can lead to turbulent social relations between dominant and minority groups.

578 CREATED EQUAL

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 579

Numerous writers, therefore, have defined prejudice as an attitudinal "sys​tem of negative beliefs, feelings, and action-orientations regarding a certain group or groups of people."1 The status of the strangers is an important fac​tor in the development of a negative attitude. Prejudicial attitudes exist among members of both dominant and minority groups. Thus, in the rela​tions between dominant and minority groups, the antipathy felt by one group for another is quite often reciprocated.

Psychological perspectives on prejudice—whether behaviorist, cogni​tive, or psychoanalytic—focus on the subjective states of mind of individu​als. In these perspectives, a person's prejudicial attitudes may result from imitation or conditioning (behaviorist), perceived similarity-dissimilarity of beliefs (cognitive), or specific personality characteristics (psychoanalytic). In contrast, sociological perspectives focus on the objective conditions of soci​ety as the social forces behind prejudicial attitudes and behind racial and ethnic relations. Individuals do not live in a vacuum; social reality affects

their states of mind.

Both perspectives are necessary to understand prejudice. As psycholo​gist Gordon Allport argued, besides needing a close study of habits, percep​tions, motivation, and personality, we need an analysis of social settings, sit​uational forces, demographic and ecological variables, and legal and economic trends.2 Psychological and sociological perspectives complement each other in providing a fuller explanation about intergroup relations.

The Psychology of Prejudice

We can understand more about prejudice among individuals by focus​ing on four areas of study: levels of prejudice, self-justification, personality, and frustration.

Levels of Prejudice. Bernard Kramer suggests that prejudice exists on 5 three levels: cognitive, emotional, and action orientation.3 The cognitive level of prejudice encompasses a person's beliefs and perceptions of a group as threatening or nonthreatening, inferior or equal (e.g., in terms of intellect, status, or biological composition), seclusive or intrusive, impulse-gratifying, acquisitive, or possessing other positive or negative characteris​tics. Mr. X's cognitive beliefs are that Jews are intrusive and acquisitive. Other illustrations of cognitive beliefs are that the Irish are heavy drinkers and fighters. African Americans are rhythmic and lazy, and the Poles are

'Reported by Daniel Wilner, Rosabella Price Walkley, and Stuart W. Cook, "Residential Proximity and Intergroup Relations in Public Housing Projects," Journal o/Sodal Issues 8 (1) (1952): 45. See also James W. Vander Zanden, American Minority Relations, 3d ed. (New York: Ronald Press, 1972), p. 21. [All notes are the author's.]

2Gordon W. Allport, "Prejudice: Is It Societal or Personal?" Journal of Social Issues 18

(1962): 129-30.

3Bemard M. Kramer, "Dimensions of Prejudice," Journal of Psychology 27 (April 1949):

thick-headed and unintelligent. Generalizations shape both ethnocentric and prejudicial attitudes, but there is a difference. Ethnocentrism-is a gen​eralized rejection of all outgroups on the basis of an ingroup focus, whereas prejudice is a rejection of certain people solely on the basis of their mem​bership in a particular group.

In many societies, members of die majority group may believe that a particular low-status minority group is dirty, immoral, violent, or law-breaking. In the United States, the Irish, Italians, African Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, Puerto Ricans, and others have at one time or another been labeled with most, if not all, of these adjectives. In most European countries and in the United States, the group lowest on the socioeconomic ladder has often been depicted in caricature as also lowest on the evolutionary ladder. The Irish and African Americans in the United States and the peasants and various ethnic groups in Europe have all been depicted in the past as apelike:

The Victorian images of the Irish as "white Negro" and simian Celt, or a combination of the two, derived much of its force and inspiration from physiognomical beliefs ... [but] every country in Europe had its equivalent of "white Negroes" and simianized men, whether or not they happened to be stereotypes of criminals, assassins, political radi​cals, revolutionaries, Slavs, gypsies, Jews, or peasants.4

The emotional level of prejudice refers to the feelings that a minor​ity group arouses in an individual. Although these feelings may be based on stereotypes from the cognitive level, they represent a more4ntense stage of personal involvement. The emotional attitudes may be negative or positive, such as fear/envy, distrust/trust, disgust/admiration, or contempt/empathy. These feelings, based on beliefs about the group, may be triggered by social interaction or by the possibility of interaction. For example, whites might react with fear or anger to the integration of their schools or neighborhoods, or Protestants might be jealous of the lifestyle of a highly successful Catholic business executive.

An action-orientation level of prejudice is the positive or negative predisposition to engage in discriminatory behavior. A person who harbors strong feelings about members of a certain racial or ethnic group may have a tendency to act for or against them—being aggressive or nonaggressive, offering assistance or withholding it. Such an individual would also be likely to want to exclude or include members of that group both in close, personal social relations and in peripheral social relations. For example, some people would want to exclude members of the disliked group from doing business with them or living in their neighborhood. Another manifestation of the action-orientation level of prejudice is the desire to change or maintain the status differential or inequality between the two groups, whether the area is

4L. Perry Curtis, Jr., Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature (Washing-*/%« r> r*. c««,:»i.«.r,nu^ d«>^ ioti\

580 CREATED EQUAL

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 581

economic, political, educational, social, or a combination. Note that an ac​tion orientation is a predisposition to act, not the action itself.

Self-Justification. Self-justification involves denigrating a person or group to justify maltreatment of them. In this situation, self-justification leads to prejudice and discrimination against members of another group.

Some philosophers argue that we are not so much rational creatures as we are rationalizing creatures. We require reassurance that the things we do and the lives we live are proper, that good reasons for our actions exist. If we can convince ourselves that another group is inferior, immoral, or dan​gerous, we may feel justified in discriminating against its members, enslav​ing them, or even killing them.

History is filled with examples of people who thought their maltreat​ment of others was just and necessary: As defenders of the "true faith," the Crusaders killed "Christ-killers" (Jews) and "infidels" (Moslems). Partici​pants in the Spanish Inquisition imprisoned, tortured, and executed "heretics," "the disciples of the Devil." Similarly, the Puritans burned witches, whose refusal to confess "proved they were evil"; pioneers ex​ploited or killed Native Americans who were "heathen savages"; and whites mistreated, enslaved, or killed African Americans, who were "an inferior species." According to U.S. Army officers, the civilians in the Vietnamese village of My Lai were "probably" aiding the Vietcong; so in 1968 U.S. sol​diers fighting in the Vietnam War felt justified in slaughtering over 300 un​armed people there, including women, children, and the elderly.

Some sociologists believe that self-justification works the other way around. That is, instead of self-justification serving as a basis for subjugating others, the subjugation occurs first and the self-justification follows, result​ing in prejudice and continued discrimination.5 The evolution of racism as a concept after the establishment of the African slave trade would seem to support this idea. Philip Mason offers an insight into this view:

A specialized society is likely to defeat a simpler society and provide a lower tier still of enslaved and conquered peoples. The rulers and organizers sought security for themselves and their children; to per​petuate the power, the esteem, and the comfort they had achieved, it was necessary not only that the artisans and labourers should work contentedly but that the rulers should sleep without bad dreams. No one can say with certainty how the myths originated, but it is surely relevant that when one of the founders of Western thought set himself to frame an ideal state that would embody social justice, he—like the earliest city dwellers—not only devised a society stratified in tiers but believed it would be necessary to persuade the traders and work-

5See Marvin B. Scott and Stanford M. Lyman, "Accounts," American Sociologir.nl Review 33 (February 1968): 40-62.

people that, by divine decree, they were made from brass and iron, while the warriors were made of silver and the rulers of gold.6

Another example of self-justification serving as a source of prejudice is the dominant group's assumption of an attitude of superiority over other groups. In this respect, establishing a prestige hierarchy—ranking the sta​tus of various ethnic groups—results in differential association. To enhance or maintain self-esteem, a person may avoid social contact with groups deemed inferior and associate only with those identified as being of high status. Through such behavior, self-justification may come to intensify the

social distance between groups ….Social distance refers to the degree to

which ingroup members do not engage in social or primary relationships with members of various outgroups.

Personality. In 1950, in The Authoritarian Personality, T. W. Adorno and his colleagues reported a correlation between individuals' early child​hood experiences of harsh parental discipline and their development of an authoritarian personality as adults.7 If parents assume an excessively domineering posture in their relations with a child, exercising stern mea​sures and threatening to withdraw love if the child does not respond with weakness and submission, the child tends to be insecure and to nurture much latent hostility against the parents. When such children become adults, they may demonstrate displaced aggression, directing their hostility against a powerless group to compensate for their feelings of insecurity and fear. Highly prejudiced individuals tend to come from families that em​phasize obedience.

The authors identified authoritarianism by the use of a measuring instrument called an F scale (the F standing for potential fascism). Other tests included the A-S (anti-Semitism) and E (ethnocentrism) scales, the latter measuring attitudes toward various minorities. One of their major findings was that people who scored high on authoritarianism also consistently showed a high degree of Prejudice against all minority groups. These highly prejudiced persons were characterized by rigidity of viewpoint, dislike for ambiguity, strict obedience to leaders, and intolerance of weakness in them​selves and others.

No sooner did The Authoritarian Personality appear than controversy began. H. H. Hyman and P. B. Sheatsley challenged the methodology and analysis.8 Solomon Asch questioned the assumptions that the F scale

6Philip Mason, Patterns of Dominance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 7. See also Philip Mason, Race Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 17-29.

7T. W. Adorno, Else Frankel-Bninswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Autlwritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1950).

8H. H. Hyman and P. B. Sheatsley, "The Authoritarian Personality: A Methodological Critique," in R. Christie and M. Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the Scope and Method of "The Au​thoritarian Personality" (Glencoe, III.: Free Press, 1954).

582 CREATED EQUAL

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 583

responses represented a belief system and that structural variables (such as ideologies, stratification, and mobility) do not play a role in shaping person​ality.9 E. A. Shils argued that the authors were interested only in measuring authoritarianism of the political right while ignoring such tendencies in those at the other end of the political spectrum. Other investigators sought alternative explanations for the authoritarian personality. D. Stewart and T. Hoult extended the framework beyond family childhood experiences to include other social factors.11 H. C. Kelman and Janet Barclay pointed out that substantial evidence exists showing that lower intelligence and less education also correlate with high authoritarianism scores on the F scale.12