Research Paper on "Multiple Kinds of Prejudice"

Research Paper 6 pages (1879 words) Sources: 6

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Prejudice

Human beings engage in a wide variety of prejudicial thoughts and behaviors, but perhaps the most pernicious form of prejudice is that based on ethnic and racial stereotypes, because these appeal to individuals' most basic notions of in-group identity. Throughout history this prejudice has been both explicit and subtle, and in general the movement has been from the former to the latter; that is to say, as explicit racial or ethnic prejudice becomes socially unacceptable, it does not merely disappear, but rather emerges in subtle, implicit forms. In order to understand this prejudice more clearly, one may examine studies of prejudice against those of Jewish descent, because while explicit anti-Semitism represented one of the most important constituent elements of Western society for centuries, the horrific events of World War II made more explicit, blatant examples of anti-Semitic prejudice verboten. Furthermore, examining the transition from explicit prejudice to implicit prejudice in the case of individuals of Jewish descent will reveal strategies to reduce this particular kind of prejudice.

To begin it will be worthwhile to briefly discuss some of the sociological factors which contribute to prejudicial attitudes and behavior, because perhaps more than any other form of prejudice, prejudice based on ethnic or racial stereotypes depends heavily on in-group identification and the relationship between one's primary social group and others. The body of work examining the relationship between individual prejudice and larger social groups is referred to as "intergroup threat theory," and this theory goes a long way toward explaining the underlying practical causes of racial or ethnic prejudice (Nelson, 2009, p. 43). In short, intergroup threat theory focuses on the "social groups [which] shape our identities and our lives, [….] characterized by membership criteria and boundaries," and "although it is not logically necessary for these boundaries to imply any tensions between groups, in practice relations between groups are far more likely to be antagonistic than complementary" (Nelson, 2009, p. 43). This antagonism becomes all too easy in the case of racial or ethnic groups, because the boundaries between groups are both obvious and practically impossible to traverse (after all, one cannot yet change one's race or ethnicity).

This phenomenon of "tribal" prejudices in evident throughout the history of Jewish people, to the point that the legendary history of the Jewish people included in the Torah is rife with genocide and racial prejudice carried out against opposing tribes, and, when this mythology gave birth to the arguably more virulent strain of superstitious belief known as Christianity, Jewish people rapidly became the target of the very same sort of racial prejudice. Although prejudice against Jewish people has changed in practice and stated motivation over the course of subsequent centuries, on the whole the strong line of antisemitism in Western society may be traced back to the early Christian persecution of Jews, because many of the stereotypes and assumptions about Jewish people that inform contemporary prejudice were developed by early Christian leaders and thinkers (Stangor, Sullivan, & Ford, 1991, p. 360). The waves of oppression and genocide committed against Jewish people at the behest of Christianity are a prime example of the potential impact of prejudice when exhibited explicitly, but to understand the potential impact of implicit prejudice, it is necessary to consider more recent histories of the subject.

Having examined the history and underlying social causes of racial and ethnic prejudice in general, it is now possible to address recent research regarding prejudice against Jewish people in order to better understand its explicit and implicit iterations as well as strategies for reducing it. As discussed above, much anti-Semitic prejudice was based on Christianity's hegemonic control of Western society, and as a result, anti-Semitic prejudice was blatant and widespread until very recently. In fact, explicit, blatant anti-Semitic prejudice only became socially unacceptable following World War II, because the horrors of the Holocaust essentially shocked Western society into acknowledging the logical endpoint of allowing this kind of blatant prejudice to go unchallenged (Billig, 2002, p. 176). Thus, the first study that will offer some insight into contemporary forms of prejudice against Jewish people concerns itself with psychology's response to the Holocaust, and in particular it attempts to provide "an overview of what seem [...] to be our primary stepping stones (so far) on the path to understanding some of humanity's most appalling actions" (Suedfeld, 2000, p. 1). While the study's research focus is on psychology's response to the Holocaust rather than prejudice itself, it nevertheless offers some important insights into the transition from explicit prejudice to implicit prejudice, because it addresses the effects the Holocaust had on popular conceptions of group identity and prejudice as such.

For the purposes of this study, the most important insights offered by the 2000 research is its summation of the psychological study of prejudice that developed in the decade immediately following the Holocaust, and particularly the way in which this study demonstrated the changing social standards regarding the acceptability of explicit anti-Semitic prejudice. Prior to the Holocaust, what little psychological research into prejudice existed focused largely on individual experiences and case studies, and did not view prejudice as a general phenomenon with specific iterations or flavors (Suedfeld, 2000, p. 1). However, these theories about prejudice were insufficient to explain the Holocaust, because the sheer scale of the atrocities and the number of individuals who participated (either actively or passively) demanded a much broader view of prejudice and its causes; while these earlier theories could potentially partially explain Hitler's beliefs and actions as the result of "fear of having 'Jewish blood' himself, and his resentment because a Jewish doctor was unable to cure his mother's cancer," this kind of individual case study was insufficient to explain the participation or at least acquiescence of the German population as a whole (Suedfeld, 2000, p. 1). As a result, psychology began to develop theories that could more accurately account for the widespread implicit prejudice exhibited by wider society, including theories of "the kind of family constellation and resultant personality Gestalt that makes people likely recruits to Fascism and other ethnocentric ideologies" and the importance of moral projection and assumption (Suedfeld, 2000, p. 1).

The psychological theories of prejudice that developed after the Holocaust would prove extremely useful over the subsequent decades, because just as the Holocaust precipitated new psychological investigations, it also precipitated a shift in the most common forms of anti-Semitic prejudice, because social pressures forced it to become more implicit. In turn, psychological theory continued to develop, and one of the most important tools to emerge from this contemporaneous development of theory and object is the Implicit Association Test, which is a way of measuring implicit prejudices and assumptions. A 1999 study examined the utility of the Implicit Association Test in regards to anti-Semitic prejudice, and the results prove useful for this study. In particular, the authors were attempting to determine what correlation, if any, existed between implicit prejudices and religious and ethnic affiliation (among others) (Rudman, et. al., 1999, p. 437). They found that Christian affiliation increases the likelihood of exhibiting implicit prejudice against Jewish people, but decreases the likelihood of exhibiting explicit prejudicial attitudes (Rudman, et. al., 1999, p. 447). This is an important discovery, because it demonstrates how implicit prejudices can flourish even when explicit prejudice becomes socially unacceptable, and furthermore, how the same ideology that previously reinforced explicit prejudice can transition to providing support for implicit prejudice.

The final study under discussion here concerned itself not only with prejudice against Jewish individuals from outside the social group, but also intragroup prejudice and stereotyping that can occur (Ruttenberg, 1996, p. 209). This study is particularly useful, because it demonstrates how prejudice and stereotyping can occur within a social group when an individual internalizes some of the biases of larger society. In particular, the study examined the possible connection between Jewish religious affiliation and prejudice against both Jewish and Arab individuals. The researchers found that religious affiliation decreased the likelihood that Jewish individuals would exhibit both implicit and explicit prejudices against Arab individuals, as well as the likelihood that they would find jokes which played on stereotypes of Jews and Arabs to be funny (Ruttenberg, 1996, p. 218). When considered in conjunction with the previous study, this demonstrates that prejudice is not automatically correlated with higher religiosity; instead, it appears that while antisemitism is encouraged by Christianity, prejudice is not correlated with Judaism. Instead, those Jewish individuals who were less religious were more likely to find humor in jokes featuring Jewish stereotypes, suggesting that their lack of close affiliation with the religious elements of their social group meant that they more closely allied themselves with wider Western society, which (as a result of centuries of Christian hegemony) tends to be more implicitly anti-Semitic. This demonstrates one of the more damaging potential impacts of implicit prejudice, because it shows how internalizing prejudice and stereotype actually helps individuals perpetuate prejudice against themselves and their larger social group, sometimes without realizing it.

After considering these examinations of implicit and explicit… READ MORE

How to Reference "Multiple Kinds of Prejudice" Research Paper in a Bibliography

Related Research Papers:

Pride and Prejudice an Analysis Essay

Pride and Prejudice

An Analysis of Mrs. Bennet's Relationship with Her Daughters in Pride and Prejudice

In Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, Mrs. Bennet has only one goal in life… read more

Essay 4 pages (1320 words) Sources: 1 Topic: Literature / Poetry

---

Policy-Related Suggestions (E.G., Education, Legal Issues, Prejudice-Related) Essay

policy-related suggestions (e.g., education, legal issues, prejudice-related) can social psychologists make? What contributions can they make, say, differently than economists? Think of possible effects, biases, research findings that policy-makers could… read more

Essay 3 pages (1208 words) Sources: 6 Style: APA Topic: Psychology / Behavior / Psychiatry

---

Theories of Learning and Educational Psychology Term Paper

Learning

Educational Psychology

Multiple Choice: select the best answer

The ultimate goal of teaching is knowledge lifelong expert learning motivation volition

Which one of the following factors does NOT influence… read more

Term Paper 13 pages (3789 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Education / Teaching / Learning

---

Theme and Narrative Essay

Carver

A Different Kind of Seeing

In "Cathedral," Raymond Carver explores multiple ways of human seeing through the strained interactions between a prejudiced but sighted man and an open minded… read more

Essay 2 pages (656 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Literature / Poetry

---

To Intercultural Communication and Leadership Research Paper

BIAS

Intercultural communication and leadership

Intercultural communication: Implicit bias

What is the theory behind these tests and how does implicit bias work?

According to the FAQ section of the HIAT,… read more

Research Paper 4 pages (1285 words) Sources: 4 Topic: Race / Ethnic Studies / Racism

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>