The Merits of Prejudice
B.W. Wojciechowski
Humans are tribal by nature. Though all of us feel a strong desire to be recognized as individuals, we attach ourselves to and conform to a great variety of groups. Often, we willingly abandon our individualism in order to accept a group’s standards. Unfortunately, most groups are prone to fractious intergroup relations. This leads to conflicts at various levels and is a major cause of social disharmony. It also frequently makes us “prejudge” the members of other groups. Although the word prejudice is most-commonly used in a pejorative sense, prejudice simply means forming an opinion without adequate knowledge. This opinion may be positive or negative.
The tendency of all of us to prejudge individuals on the basis of their affiliations makes it critical that we understand our own group allegiances, how our groups interact with others, and how this influences our own perspective. Because there are simply too many groups for us to evaluate to our personal satisfaction, we are often forced to accept “prejudices,” both positive and negative, based on the opinions of others that we respect.
The groups each of us adhere to are greatly varied. There are national groups: American, German, Italian, Indian, Polish and so on. Then there are ethnic groups: Han, Slav, Arab, Maori, etc. And there are racial groups: Negroid, Oriental, Caucasian and so on. To this we add religious allegiances, fraternal organizations, political parties and a bewildering number of large and small groups whose activities or principles we espouse. Each of us belongs to many identifiable groups. Some of the groups we inherit; others we chose because we are inclined to contribute to their activities.
Most of us belong to more than one group, and we see our individualism, our personality and our character being displayed in the allegiances we choose or ones we belong to by heritage. Besides the groups we inherit, each of us makes choices of the groups we support, and the sum total of our attachments presents a picture of who we are. One can be a Han Catholic who belongs to the Republican party. Or one can be an Arab Buddhist who has taken to acting in amateur theatre. In each case the interests and allegiances give an indication of the makeup of the individual.
Our initial opinions of others are usually based on our “prejudices” regarding groups they belong to. The “weighted average” of our perceptions forms an evaluation of the individual in our minds. How we interpret these perceptions depends on our own allegiances. Thus, a determined atheist may immediately dislike the Han Catholic. A Jew may well see the Arab Buddhist thespian as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Others may see both as well-integrated members of their society. Many such prejudices can influence our thinking before we get to know a person. They will unavoidably color our initial interactions with that individual, depending on how strongly or subtly our prejudices affect us. But is this always wrong?
I submit to you that prejudice is a natural way of distinguishing between people who suit your preferences and those who do not; it saves time in deciding whom one is dealing with if we know their allegiances. There is nothing wrong if we think well of, or are wary of, individuals before we know them. But, as we get to know them, we should be capable of modifying our opinion in a favorable or negative direction, depending on the individual we encounter.
Hatred of individuals on the basis of prejudice is never justified. Individuals should not be irretrievably categorized on the basis of our prejudices. All deserve to have their individuality recognized, and judgement as to who they are should be withheld until we know them.
But we are also well advised to rely on our prejudices if we have no opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the individual. The reason is simple: an individual’s character reflects the groups he/she belongs to and it saves time and potential grief if we assess the individual according to one’s perception of the groups to which he/she belongs.
Groups have principles, track records and policies which are their raison d’etre. For these reasons, any one of us may admire or despise a group. At the same time, we can modify our prejudices regarding individuals who belong to it but who also turn out to be free of the major faults that define the group in our eyes.
Let us say that one despises communism. It is not true that all communists are dedicated to all the features of communism one dislikes. Within each group there is some room for differences of opinion, and individuals exercise this option. The individual you encounter may well reject the things you most dislike and promote things you are willing to tolerate or even admire. You can continue to dislike the group and yet be friends with one of its members.
It is wrong to hold an inflexibly-prejudicial view of an individual resulting from a prejudice towards a group to which he or she belongs, no matter whether it is favorable or hostile. It is not true that all Jews are talented, or that all Muslims are dangerous fundamentalists, or that all Gypsies are thieves. This kind of generalization and resulting prejudice is based on history and on the experiences of others. But, although there are exceptions to generalizations, there may be good reason to expect that certain characteristics are common within these groups. As we approach a group therefore, it is rational to be aware of, or prejudiced by, past knowledge and experience, without being naïve.
Prejudice is the opposite of naivete.
I object to the current “politically correct” view that some groups are shielded from rational evaluation by some “right” and all their members are to be tolerated; this is totally unacceptable. I object to showering praise and unlimited tolerance on groups because they claim victimhood or rights to this or that. Equally. I object to declaring any groups so unacceptable they do not have the right to be considered on a rational basis. All groups do indeed have their goals, virtues and negatives. But there should be no proscription against discussing and judging pertinent facts and qualities by both insiders and outsiders. After due consideration, we all have a right to accept or reject the goals of groups and so form our own rationally-based prejudices. Those who espouse unbridled tolerance or total intolerance are wrong.
There is, however a form of prejudice which I reject; call it “extreme prejudice”. This kind of prejudice does not inform or save time. It is the kind that involves foul language, hatred, lies, anger, and denunciation by hostile ideologues and their followers. It is a common form of prejudice among fundamentalists of all kinds. When it is tolerated within the context of political or racial or religious or any other dialogue, it forms a barrier to rational discourse and can lead to violence. I condemn “extreme prejudice” without reservation. Groups that one believes are deserving of condemnation should have their faults identified by facts and by rational argument, not by hate, name-calling, persecution or mob action. Reason and reality will allow dangerous groups to be identified and weeded out, thus protecting society from such groups’ malign activities, or inviting violence, or risking descent into decadence. Today extreme prejudice is common.
There is also an “induced prejudice.” This is a form of prejudice created purposefully by a group seeking some form of social advantage. While the induced prejudice may be fully justified, political correctness can be successful in decrying it and fostering the “victims.” The game goes like this: a group wants to obtain untrammeled acceptance by the power brokers of a society. To do this they create disturbances which show their cause in what would normally be an unacceptable light but, in a tolerant setting, it turns out that the more offensive and offended they act, the better their chances of success of “inducing” acceptance. The forces of tolerance, the media, and political correctness begin to condemn resistance to the group’s behavior and demands because, according to the politically correct, prejudice against such aberrant behavior is “phobic” or backward, or “anti-something” that is worthy of defending. Objectors, however rational, are silenced.
The avant garde of the intellectual and political establishment, the “plugged-in” elites, the “cognoscenti,” come on side, and defend whatever the aberrant group’s demands may be, to show how tolerant and understanding they are (not to mention any resulting political gain by bringing on-side a vociferous and activist faction). Critics (aka “dissenters” or “deniers” or “deplorables”) are vilified and condemned as ignorant and out of touch. The end result of a series of successes by such outlier groups leads to what the cognoscenti call “progress,” regardless of its impact on the majority. But the embedding society becomes disoriented and disunified by the presence of proliferating groups with newly minted “rights.” The so-called “progress” has a negative influence on social cohesion. (See my book on “Democracies” available from Amazon.com, where I consider ways of avoiding this problem). Today induced prejudice is tearing societies apart.
Intellectuals, single-agenda proponents, political power brokers and fundamentalists often drive societies to destruction by pursuing worthy goals to untenable extremes. If the survivors who build succeeding social structures are wise, they will avoid the excesses of the past.
Various groups do have their pluses and minuses. On the plus side, they satisfy the mindset and goals of their adherents. However, that does not mean that they are good for all concerned, and that their goals must become applied to the entire embedding society. Non-members have a right, even an obligation, to take note of each group, its goals, and its activities. Those that past experience has shown to be threats to common well-being deserve to be identified and rejected. The average person who does not interact with a group’s members and does not belong to its admirers has a right to accept positive or negative prejudice based on their own evaluation or the consensus of others they trust. We all have a right to hold a prejudice against unacceptable groups that threaten social stability.
No single person is in a position to evaluate all the groups that surround us. Those who do not trust or agree with available prejudgments are free to conduct their own evaluations. They may find they want to adhere to or reject the group’s goals and principles. If that kind of evaluation proves too onerous, it seems reasonable to accept the opinions of a community you trust. After all, no individual can know all there is to know. Information about and from all groups should be freely available so public opinion can be well-informed. The debate should be civil and factual. Anger and hysteria have no place in rational evaluation of alternatives.
Pick your prejudices wisely. Validate them as you go along and be careful how you apply them to individuals you encounter. Your set of prejudices will define your character and wisdom. Make sure your prejudices are rationally defensible and will help others understand where you stand, and why.
Many of the prejudices of today are rightly condemned because they tend to be extreme, not rational. That is not to say that these prejudices are wrong, it simply says that we are being stampeded by influences which thrive on hatred which overwhelms understanding.
Prejudices can be good for societies; they help to define its principles.
�8�8�i� l�<
