Você está na página 1de 9

Reflection Paper

By: Damian Niolet

The views expressed in this paper belong solely to the author and do not reflect the views of the USAF.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The Origins Dilemma


I would like to begin my paper by identifying a fallacy in most all studies conducted by psychologists, sociologists, etc. I believe that most all of the studies in these fields (as with many scientific fields), attempt to pinpoint the origin of a particular phenomenon in human thinking, feeling, and/or behavior, as if human life was so linear, so causal that, like a snowball rolling down a large hill, human life can be watched from beginning to end, the origin of a phenomenon discerned, the growth in magnitude of a phenomenon meticulously measured along its trajectory, and the ultimate affects of a phenomenons climatic collision with an obstacle painstakingly recorded in absolute detail. While this is a fallacy in and of itself, the bigger fallacy is on the part of the researchers themselves, who are wrapped in a cloak of hubris as they raise their studies above others and say their treatises on any given phenomenon is the more appropriate, accurate, and truthful. For instance, Herbert Blumer in his article Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position decrees all previously held notions regarding the origin of race prejudice as irrelevant and lauds his own theories as undeniable truth. He explains how race prejudice does not find its beginnings in individual self-construction, but from group position.1 If Blumer would have logically followed through with that theory, then he might have concluded that race prejudice could not exist where there exists solitary individuals. There are individuals who form certain aspects of their personal identity apart from what would be their group. It is possible for people to form their own prejudices towards another race in the absence of a group of similar individuals. Further, Blumer should have asked himself whether the opposite of racial prejudice, racial tolerance, is formed at an individual or group level, because very clearly racial tolerance is Herbert Blumer, Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position, The Pacific Sociological Review, Spring (1958): 86-93
1

often in the face of severe ridicule of a group. So, how can racial prejudice be only a group level construct, but its opposite be more individually based? My point is, human life is not so linear or causal. The snowball that is life actually jumps through space and time at seemingly random sequences gathering snow and debris from obscure places unknown to the researchers studying the snowball on its path down the proverbial hill. Any study conducted in the fields of psychology, sociology, etc. should answer the question, What are the origins of this or that phenomenon? with the statement, It depends. The study should commence to explain what relevant trends can be derived from the studies, but in no way profess a definitive conclusion as to the origins of a phenomenon. The fact is, the answer to such a questions depends on far too many variables for there to be such a self-assured air in the researchers writings. Science is far less exact than people want to believe, especially in the area of human thinking, feeling, and behavior. Another example comes from Gordon W. Allports article, The Young Child. Allport explains how studies (based primarily on surveys of mothers) have shown that stricter homes breed more prejudiced children. From this he concluded the reverse to be true, that more tolerant parents breed more tolerant children.2 Why did Allport not see that it is possible for parents to demand strict adherence to tolerance of their children? What then? Would the parents strictness counter their demand for tolerance to where the child would be neither prejudiced nor tolerant? Of course not. The child would wish for their parents approval, in most cases, and be tolerant. There was more going on in the lives of these mothers and children than simply a strict home environment. Did the survey even ask about prejudice in the parents themselves? Maybe thats where the child picked up on prejudice.

Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 94.
2

I have an example from my own life. I witnessed a 4 year old say in front of a group of people, while watching figureskating during the Olympics, I dont like her, cause shes black. Obviously, the child did not get this notion from his parents. They were tolerant people in regards to race and probably espoused the same in front of their children very often. In that moment the parents instantly chided the child, then took him into another room for further strict reprimanding. Does Allport really think that the child is going to grow up prejudiced? That child is likely to avoid being prejudiced like the plague because of the strict response. Children need boundaries and often only learn boundaries via strict guidelines. These boundaries and guidelines are vital so that when the parent sees that their child is about to hurt themselves or others, the child will instantly stop when the parent yells out, Stop! Allports article has the potential to turn young, impressionable parents off to any sort of scolding for fear of breeding a prejudiced child.

My Personal View on the Origin of Prejudice


I believe that prejudice can be the result of many factors on both an individual and group level. People can form their own biases regarding others through daily interaction. Those prejudices can be solidified by interaction with a group comprised of like individuals. Prejudice can in this environment be less about the individual prejudices and more about obtaining a sense of security through group cohesion. But the exact opposite can be true. Biases can form during group interaction and be reinforced on an individual level through daily interaction with others, thereby, providing a sense of personal security. The individual will feel they are on the right path in life. It is common to think that the primary factor in the formation of prejudice are parents. However, so many children are raised apart from their parents that prejudice training can come

from just about anywhere - in daycares, orphanages, foster homes, etc. If a childs upbringing was the primary factor in growing prejudiced children, then how is it that people are able to shed their prejudiced pasts? Once a child comes of age, depending on the society, he/she may make value judgements that contradict their upbringing. It does not just depend on the society; it also depends on the individual. Individuals with higher capacities of intellect are likely to make these reassessments. And then on top of that, it depends on what aspects of life the society and individual place value. If there is a society or individual who places a higher value on intellect over relationships, then the reassessment might never occur. In my belief, the formation of prejudice is entirely circumstantial, to the extent that it is nearly futile to attempt to pinpoint the origins. However, trends and statistics can be telling. They can demonstrate some of the primary factors and reveal some clues about majorities, but should not be taken as representative of origins. In a sense, every point on a statistical graph is an outlier because two points in proximity to one another could themselves have different origins. Such charts are typically 2D. If they were 3D we might actually see that the points are miles apart from each other by way of the Z axis. Hazel Rose Markuss article does the best job of considering the dichotomy that exists in such studies. She does not seek to limit the study by any means; rather, her goal is to integrate existing studies in seemingly disparaging fields and then continue anew with the studies.3

Some Pieces of Certainty


While it is nearly futile to attempt to pinpoint the origins of a human behavior phenomenon like prejudice, there can be extracted a degree of certainty from defining the phenomenon. For instance, what constitutes a prejudice act? This question is not so much Hazel Rose Markus, Pride, Prejudice, and Ambivalence: Toward a Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity, American Psychologist, (November 2008): 651-665
3

focused on how prejudiced acts are carried out, that type of question would be just as bound to circumstance as the question of origin. The intent is to define prejudice in such a broad manner as to encompass all possible acts of prejudice. In-so-doing, a definition might be formed that comprehensively presents the hidden components of prejudice that have to exist for prejudice to exist. As was stated in a few of the articles, there is most certainly a sense of superiority on behalf of the individual or group exhibiting prejudice. Conversely there will exist a sense that some other individual or group is inferior in some way to the superior individual or group. There will likely be some form of generalizing, or what might be called stereotyping, on the part of the individual or group exhibiting prejudice. Is there a linear process amongst these components? I do not think so. The mind moves so quickly that a generalization is formed about another group concurrent with the compartmentalizing of feelings of superiority. The inward formation of a prejudice act is instanteous; the outward formation may be less so because space and time bind our physical actions more than our minds and hearts.

Prejudice in Action
What is funny to me is that these phenomena are very much the same fallacies as those which scientific researchers fall into - wrapping themselves in a sense of superiority and not giving credence to circumstances. The researchers of these articles were themselves prejudiced while conducting the studies and writing the articles. They may not think so because so much of their studies and writings on prejudice focuses on racial prejudice, but the fact is prejudice can exist within cloistered groups as well. Just look at geeks versus jocks, the rich versus the poor, or in these researchers cases, nerds versus nerds. Therefore, I do not believe that prejudice is a

product of structural factors. Prejudice transcends any societal structural factors such as economy, group affiliation, etc. I, for instance, am very open about a prejudice I have. I am prejudice against simultaneously apathetic and hedonistic people. Apathy and hedonism can spread its tentacles out and into any group indiscriminately and comes in numerous flavors, from college frat mentalities to lazy mass consumers. My prejudice is against a lifestyle (possibly even a philosophy) and does not target any particular group based on age, wealth, etc. I try my hardest to avoid generalizing when acting on this prejudice; I try to treat everyone I meet as an equal until such time as they show that they are imbued with this lifestyle. Even then, I do what I can to show them what might very well be a better lifestyle, depending on their level of outward unhappiness, rather than dismiss them entirely. It is important to understand that in this country any given individuals position in life, poverty stricken, for example, may or may not be the result of personal values and choices. Their position could just as easily be a product of something beyond their control, such as prejudice. And, it more than likely is the result of both factors at work. Take an individual who has been passed up for well-paying jobs several times because of his/her race as an example. Yes, a prejudice society is a big contributor to their continued poverty; however, it is the individuals choice not to continue trying in the face of defeat. In more suppressive circumstances, such as in a prison camp, one could not blame an individual for giving up, survival is more of a concern at that point.

Conclusion
The string running through the entirety of this paper is the notion that without an understanding of the full scope of the circumstances surrounding the study of any given human

phenomenon, a feat which is virtually impossible, a thorough and complete understanding of the origins of a human phenomenon is impossible. This notion meets its realization ironically when researchers attempt to study the origins of prejudice, in that, the researchers cannot help but be prejudiced - generalizing with an air of superority - while objectively pinpointing the origins of prejudice. Do their actions conincide with their theories on the origin of prejudice? Did Blumer form his prejudiced theories on prejudice in a group? Did Allport grow up in a strict home that brought him to be prejudiced against other studies? Perhaps I too am being prejudice in some way. I certainly cannot take into account the full scope of the circumstances that surrounded these individuals studies and writings, but at least I am cognizant of this fact, and therefore minimize assertions, endeavoring instead to reveal my shortcomings and prejudices in the form of opinions. But, this being an opinion piece, a degree of prejudice is expected.

Você também pode gostar