What is described as prejudice is often nothing more than the sum total of a person’s actual experience and learning, formed on the basis of observation of reality. FULL ARTICLE by Ben O’Neill
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15967/what-is-prejudice/
What Is Prejudice?
Previous post: Free Market Critique of LBJ’s Great Society
{ 32 comments }
a timely question, indeed.
http://is.gd/yaN57S
Good point. I think the main thing to note about prejudice is that much political power depends on paranoia about real or imagined racial prejudice–hence they have a vested interest in fostering it, not ending it. Beyond that, the only effective way to remove prejudice is to change the underlying group behaviors that lead to it–there is no real interest in that due to the aforementioned political power that is based on prejudice.
I’m not sure I have a problem with anything you’ve written here per se, and I believe I’ve agreed with you for years. However, what is often condemned with the sloppy term “prejudice” is a judgment that other groups are lacking some important element of humanity or civilization, or are pretty much sub-human. “Human life doesn’t mean much to Arabs,” or Vietnamese or whomever, for example. There was a widespread European belief that much of the world needed to be run by Europeans as late as the early 20th century, and it rested on the alleged deficiencies of others. In addition, if my group is on top, my attitude toward the “natives,” wogs, or whoever is beat up if they get uppity seems to absorb an incredible amount of negativity towards the “enemy” with little effort. Surely that part is not so rational, and rather ugly. Another issue that might be raised is the nature of the judgment: “do I help lynch this guy who might might have committed a crime nearby” is very different from “do I accept the invitation to have a coke.” These may not be part of the linguistic issue of prejudice, but I hope to see them addressed when “prejudice” is discussed.
when your group is no longer on top, do you think the now dominant groups are going to show you any more forbearance than your group did them?
Indeed, will non-whites treat whites as well as they (non-whites) were treated under Western rule? (Not to defend imperialism/colonialism, let me stress.)
I believe when you are on top, treating people decently actually is more likely to lead to staying on top longer, and yes, being treated better if you lose that position. But as a Christian, I simply believe in treating people as worthy of respect. The libertarian non-aggression principle assumes, it seems to me, that other people have value. Not all systems of thought do so.
@ Fresh Prince below, I believe I used to talk that way, despite knowing about the Opium Wars. Having heard more about what the Brits did to the Kikuyus (and the Indians if they rebelled), what the Belgians did to the Congolese, and so forth, I don’t think it’s a very straightforward question anymore. There are plenty of other horrors in the world by many groups, but the historical record of “whites” (a group with varying cultures at any given moment and over time) isn’t any steady shining light–although there are bright spots in it. (And yes, I’m as white as my name–and not an American “liberal”).
And I could have added earlier, if my group is on the bottom I can also absorb a wildly negative view of the “others.”
i don’t believe that the christian tradition requires that all people and all races be cookie-cutter equal, that sounds more like cultural marxism. recognition of differences doesn’t imply attribution of moral superiority to any single population group.
zimbabwe shows, in any case, that whites can expect no less brutality than what their forbears meted out to the indigenous peoples.
Your first sentence: agreed. On your second: I trust you’re not saying either set of brutalities was justified.
Craig White,
I certainly don’t dispute the ugly record of colonialism and imperialism, hence as I noted I mean no defense of these. (Although note that the Europeans did establish in these areas a capital structure that would not have existed otherwise and has for the most part been allowed to rot in the absence of European influence [eg, in black Africa or Haiti].) In general colonialism was bad for everyone concerned (except I suppose a few state-favored enterprises who made out like bandits), as now the former colonial subjects are flooding the former empires, threatening to destroy many of the institutions libertarians claim to support.
And this is the larger point: whites cannot expect anything like a system of classical liberalism, or even a system of modern liberalism that bends over backwards to accomodate members of the out-group (perversely with no expectation of reciprocation), to be established as the West becomes more non-white. Small tastes of this can be seen in urban areas in the US, whenever blacks and hispanics acquire political power. There is absolutely no consideraton that whites should be shown the accomodating treatment that whites showed non-whites, quite the opposite.
FPD, thanks for these comments. I wouldn’t identify attachment to classical liberalism with “whites,” as you seem to in that last paragraph. I think whites have been attached to the best and the worst sets of ideas and practices in the world (cf. David Gordon’s recent review of Ralph Raico’s book on LRC). As other groups acquire power, I expect the same to be true of them. I note that there are black and Hispanic libertarians and conservatives, for example.
Who could have predicted that the UK would go socialist and PC, or that China would be so amazingly free market (even if there are manipulations of that)?
In 1900, it was a “white man’s world,” the culmination of centuries of breaks, and perhaps some fine ideas as well, and I would argue that Christianity contributed positively in many ways to the positive aspects of European civilization. Then the 2 suicidal civil wars of Euro-man changed all that. Incredible pride helped with the suicidal madness. Then the madness of communism, followed by the hubris of Americanism.
What’s ahead? Prophets only can hint for us. I think we just have to do the best we can–without too much prejudice
. Just kidding.
It’s not so much that I associate attachment to classical liberalism with whites, it’s that I view the white world as possessing (however imperfectly) the preconditions that make acceptance of an ideology like classical liberalism possible. This includes not just various “breaks” (as you put it), but biological makeup (or character, if you prefer a less loaded term) as well. Obviously there is no reason other groups could not embrace this ideology (not to say whites’ embrace has been perfect in any way), but it would require a reversal of many factors (some of them will-independent) that have not provided the necessary preconditions. Sad to say, there are not nearly enough black libertarians, and there is a reason for that.
Here’s an article that may be of interest (HT to newson):
http://is.gd/7FLnhA
to craig white:
science took a step backwards as boas pushed darwin out of the anthropology department (see chapter 2 – http://is.gd/bhrE2d). those who slavishly pay lip service to boas generally scorn him in their private lives – where they live, whom they frequent, which schools they choose for their children. darwin must be pissing himself laughing at the sheer hypocrisy of it all.
good point on christianity, but it’s not a one-way street.
http://is.gd/kHSBZR
to fpod:
what is genuinely sad is the desperate search by soi-disant conservatives for the standard-bearer to prove you wrong. http://is.gd/kSraKC
One point about being a classic liberal, however, is not to force classical liberalism on others who don’t want it. So, as long as others leave us alone, or we dissuade them from bothering us, it is fine with all involved. We don’t have to sit by the campfire and roast marshmellows together, just peacefully coexist (while being well armed just in case).
the ballot box and demographics means a whole lot of bother is going to be visited on classical liberalism and its adherents in the west. when everyone is equally armed, it’s those most able to organize who win both campfire and marshmellows.
Perhaps the first step in such a dialog is to take the Socratic approach of asking for a definition, such as for ‘prejudice’. This soon shows that the criticizer has a contradictory definition, or else that his view actually favors using the available information as does a prejudiced person.
One of the common practices of our day is to employ contradictory definitions, or arbitrary ones dependent upon the context. As an aside, ‘bigotry’ is often used to refer to a judgment against a particular view, although the reason for that opprobrium is because the original meaning was intolerance toward any opinion that was not one’s own.
We have a problem with prejudice against us. Many of us do not even bite; some aren’t even poisonous. We need 25 Libertarian volunteers to help demonstrate these principles.
I think that in general what words like prejudice, racism, and censorship mean is that the person doesn’t like what someone is doing, and is doing something similar to what these words refer to. For example, if someone of a different skin color as you is saying something you don’t like about someone of the same skin color of you, it’s racism. Or here, if someone is being assessed in a way you don’t like, it’s prejudice. This reminds me of an xkcd comic.
“…we are frequently put in positions where we require judgments about people we have never met or interacted with and know very little about.” Who is putting us in these positions?
tykhe, the sovereign of all the gods.
“Who is putting us in these positions?”
Why is that so many libertarians take figures of speech so literally?
You’re walking down an alley at night. A person approaches you. Run the other way or keep walking forward?
Perhaps, O’neill does not want to take ownership here; an occasional and hence avoidable action. It is where someone else or a mythical being is doing it to us, never the self.
I don’t get what you’re driving at. It is that he worded it as if someone else is imposing these situations of having to make judgements without all possible information? That if he took responsibility for getting himself into such situations, he could learn to avoid them? I don’t see how you’re going to avoid such things unless you go live alone in the middle of nowhere. Daily you have to make choices about how to interact with people and what to expect, based on limited information.
I agree with Shay. We have these daily choices–although unless we are poor and live in terrible neighborhoods, the dark alley choice is likely rare. Still, once you choose to walk down the dark alley, you are either packing heat or taking a big risk.
Jesse Jackson’s comment a few years ago was poignant.
To Get Rid Of Prejudice Get Rid Of Interventionism.
The elimination of prejudice is a continuous process since we are always encountering knowledge and this knowledge is beyond what we currently know. Anything that maximizes the flow of knowledge is an important ingredient in this process of perfecting and refining ourselves as humans.
A free market is the order that maximizes the nature and role of knowledge. All intervention into this infinitely intricate order is puny and ego-driven and leads to a corruption of the process of the flow of knowledge. Contrary to the unsubstantiated and scientifically invalid rhetoric of the sympathizers of statism all intervention, whether economic or social, prevents the resolution of prejudices and creates and intensifies the existing prejudices. Every act of intervention creates even more problems and worsens the ones it was supposed to address.
To work towards the elimination prejudice it is absolutely essential to get rid of all interventionism and to abandon the erroneous belief that the State is necessary for human civilization.
Bandwidth might have been conserved if the author knew the word, discrimination,” and how it differs from “prejudice.”
Thank God you’re here to help us. Please, elaborate.
Until recently “discrimination” was a good quality meaning selecting the best and rejecting the trash. People of discrimination were upper class. When one selects a Rolls (or most any car ) over Chrysler it is discriminating. In the old days of radio an FM tuning circuit was called a discriminator because it selected on station out of the available stations.
As noted, “prejudice” is forming an opinion before all the available facts are considered.
Hi all,
Thanks for your comments on my article, and the interesting discussion that has followed. As usual, I will try to respond to the points made, but please accept my apologies if I miss any important points.
Craig White: Thanks for your comment. As you say, I think we are both on the same page on this issue. It’s certainly useful from time to time to point out one’s objection to lynching, genuine racism, collectivism, etc., but I would think that most people on this site would take that for granted. I respect the fact that you would have preferred a wider ambit to the discussion in the article. I chose to stick to the issue of prejudgement, and closely related issues, mostly as a means of delimitation (the article is already on the large side for a Mises Daily piece) and because I have elaborated on issues of discrimination and racism in other articles.
Also, I think there is definitely an issue of interpretation when people make coarse assertions about racial/sex/class groups ―sometimes they mean only to draw attention to empirical correlation between characteristics of groups, and sometimes they mean it in a causal or racial-determinist way that cannot be reconciled with individualism and free will. My own view is that people tend to jump to the worst conclusion too easily, and take offense before determining exactly what is meant.
Prettyskin Thanks for your comment. As with some of the others here, I’m not quite clear on what you’re objecting to. It’s not clear to me whether this is an objection to my use of the passive voice, or a substantive objection. Anyway, I can give an example of the kind of thing I have in mind if that will help. I have previously written about taxi drivers in Washington DC who avoid fares from young black males, because they are afraid of being robbed or assaulted. In these cases taxi drivers are faced with a decision problem where they need to decide whether or not to pick up a would-be passenger based solely on a short period of observation, as the person waits for a taxi. A driver requires a judgement about the person in order to make his decision, and yet, he has never met or interacted with the person. In such cases, all that the driver is able to determine from a short observation of a person is their sex, race, approximate age, clothing, posture, and apparent demeanour. Based on this information he must make a judgement as to the level of risk involved in picking the person up, and thereby make his decision. In this case I guess you could say that the driver is being put in this position by his choice of career, or by the taxi company. Although this is just one kind of example, these kinds of decisions are ubiquitous.
Billwald: Thanks for your comment. However, I’m not sure I see how your understanding of discrimination differs from mine. In point of fact, I have written a previous article on discrimination that echoes essentially that point. (See http://mises.org/daily/3545/Its-Discrimination) If you have some argument as to how I fail to understand the term “discrimination” then it would be useful to hear it. Otherwise, I suggest that your criticism is misplaced.
Thanks again for everyone’s comments.
Cheers,
Ben.
test
Comments on this entry are closed.