Download 576 CREATED EQUAL what is necessary to accomplish anything

576
PAKRILLO • CAUSES OK I'HEJUDICE 577
CREATED EQUAL
what is necessary to accomplish anything approaching psychic and economic
parity in the next half century will not only require a fundamental attitude shift
in American thinking but massive amounts of money as well. Before 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 obvious 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.
Rereading America 2004
Edited by: Gary Colombo, Robert
Cullen, Bonnie Lisle
Causes of Prejudice
VINCENT N. PARRILLO
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 restitution for slavery? What evidence does he present to support his contention 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 slavery? 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 problems" (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
What motivates the creation of racial categories? In the following selection,
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 Minorities
(1991). Diversity in America (1996), and Understanding Race and
;j
Ethnic Relations (2002). He has also written and produced two awardwinning 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
Numerous writers, therefore, have defined prejudice as an attitudinal "system
of negative beliefs, feelings, and action-orientations regarding a certain group
or groups of people." 1 The status of the strangers is an important factor in the
development of a negative attitude. Prejudicial attitudes exist among members
of both dominant and minority groups. Thus, in the relations between
dominant and minority groups, the antipathy felt by one group for another is
quite often reciprocated.
Psychological perspectives on prejudice—whether behaviorist, cognitive,
or psychoanalytic—focus on the subjective states of mind of individuals. 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 society
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 psychologist
Gordon Allport argued, besides needing a close study of habits, perceptions,
motivation, and personality, we need an analysis of social settings, situational
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 focusing
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 characteristics. 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):
PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE
579
thick-headed and unintelligent. Generalizations shape both ethnocentric and
prejudicial attitudes, but there is a difference. Ethnocentrism-is a generalized 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 membership 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 lawbreaking. 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 radicals, revolutionaries, Slavs, gypsies, Jews, or peasants.4
The emotional level of prejudice refers to the feelings that a minority
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
economic, political, educational, social, or a combination. Note that an action
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 dangerous, we
may feel justified in discriminating against its members, enslaving them, or
even killing them.
History is filled with examples of people who thought their maltreatment
of others was just and necessary: As defenders of the "true faith," the
Crusaders killed "Christ-killers" (Jews) and "infidels" (Moslems). Participants
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 exploited 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. soldiers fighting in the
Vietnam War felt justified in slaughtering over 300 unarmed 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, resulting
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 perpetuate 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 work5See Marvin B. Scott and Stanford M. Lyman, "Accounts," American Sociologir.nl Review
33 (February 1968): 40-62.
PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE
581
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 status
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 childhood
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 measures
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 emphasize 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 AS (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 themselves 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 Authoritarian Personality" (Glencoe, III.: Free Press, 1954).
582
CREATED EQUAL
responses represented a belief system and that structural variables (such as
ideologies, stratification, and mobility) do not play a role in shaping personality.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
Despite the critical attacks, the underlying conceptions of The Authoritarian Personality were important, and research into personality as a factor in
prejudice has continued. Subsequent investigators refined and modified the
original study. Correcting scores for response bias, they conducted crosscultural studies. Respondents in Germany and Near East countries, where
more authoritarian social structures exist, scored higher on authoritarianism
and social distance between groups. In Japan, Germany, and the United States,
authoritarianism and social distance were moderately related. Other studies
suggested that an inverse relationship exists between social class and F scale
scores: the higher the social class, the lower the authoritarianism.13
Although studies of authoritarian personality have helped us understand
some aspects of prejudice, they have not provided a causal explanation. Most
of the findings in this area show a correlation, but the findings do not prove,
for example, that harsh discipline of children causes them to become
prejudiced adults. Perhaps the strict parents were themselves prejudiced, and
the child learned those attitudes from them. Or as George Simpson and J.
Milton Yinger say:
One must be careful not to assume too quickly that a certain tendency—
rigidity of mind, for example—that is correlated with prejudice necessarily causes that prejudice—The sequence may be the other way
around…. It is more likely that both are related to more basic factors.1'
"Solomon E. Asch, Social Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: l'rentice-Hall, 1952),
p. 545.
10
E. A. Shik, "Authoritarianism: Right and Left," in Studies in the Scope and Method of
"The Authoritarian Personality."
"D. Stewart and T. Hoult, "A Social-Psychological Theory of 'The Authoritarian Personality.'" American Journal of Sociology 65 (1959): 274.
12
H, C. Kelman and Janet Barclay, "The F Scale as a Measure of Breadth of Perspective,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (1963): 608-15.
l3
For an excellent summary of authoritarian studies and literature, see John P. Kirscht and
Ronald C. Dillehay. Dimensions of Authoritarianism: A Review of Researcli and Theory
(Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1967).
H
Ceorce E. Simpson and [. Milton Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of
PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE
583
For some people, prejudice may indeed be rooted in subconscious
childhood tensions, but we simply do not know whether these tensions directly cause a high degree of prejudice in the adult or whether other powerful
social forces are the determinants. Whatever the explanation, authoritarianism is a significant phenomenon worthy of continued investigation.
Recent research, however, has stressed social and situational factors, rather
than personality, as primary causes of prejudice and discrimination. 13
Yet another dimension of the personality component is that people with 20
low self-esteem are more prejudiced than those who feel good about themselves.
Some researchers have argued that individuals with low self-esteem deprecate
others to enhance their feelings about themselves.16 One study asserts that "low
self-esteem individuals seem to have a generally negative view of themselves,
their ingroup, outgroups, and perhaps the world," and thus their tendency to be
more prejudiced is not due to rating the outgroup negatively in comparison to
their ingroup.17
. 'Frustration. Frustration is the result of relative deprivation in which
expectations remain unsatisfied. Relative deprivation is a lack of re~ sources,
or rewards, in one's standard of living in comparison with those of others in
the society. A number of investigators have suggested that frustrations tend to
increase aggression toward others.18 Frustrated people may easily strike out
against the perceived cause of their frustration. However, this reaction may not
be possible because the true source of the frustration is often too nebulous to
be identified or too powerful to act against. In such instances, the result may
be displaced aggression; in this situation, the frustrated individual or group
usually redirects anger against a more visible, vulnerable, and socially
sanctioned target, one unable to strike back. Minorities meet these criteria and
are thus frequently the recipients of displaced aggression by the dominant
group.
Blaming others for something that is not their fault is known as scapegoating. The term comes from the ancient Hebrew custom of using a goat
"Ibid., pp. 62-79.
"Howard J. Ehrlich, The Social Psychology of Prejudice (New York: Wiley, 1974); G.
Sherwood, "Self-Serving Biases in Person Perception," Psychological Bulletin 90 (1981): 44559; T. A. Wills, "Downward Comparison Principles in Social Psychology," Psychological
Bulletin 90 (1981): 245-71.
"Jennifer Crocker and Ian Schwartz. "Prejudice and Ingroup Favoritism in a Minimal Intergroup Situation: Effects of Self-Esteem," Personality ami Social Psychology Bulletin 11 (4)
(December 1985): 379-86.
"John Dollard, Leonard W. Doob, Ncal E. Miller. O. II. Mowrer, and Robert P. Sears,
Frustration and Aggression (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1939); A. F. Henry and
J. F. Short, Jr.. Suicide and Homicide (New York: Free Press, 1954); Neal Miller and Richard
Bugelski, "Minor Studies in Aggression: The Influence of Frustration Imposed by the Ingroup on
Attitudes Expressed Toward Out-Croups," Journal of Psychology 25 (1948): 437-42; Stuart
Palmer, The Psychology of Murder (New York: T. Y. Crowell. 1960); Brendcn C. Rule and
Elizabeth Percival, The Effects of Frustration and Attack on Physical Aggression," journal of
584
CHEATED EQUAL
during the Day of Atonement as a symbol of the sins of the people. In an
annual ceremony, a priest placed his hands on the head of a goat and listed the
people's sins in a symbolic transference of guilt; he then chased the goat out
of the community, thereby freeing the people of sin. 19 Since those times, the
powerful group has usually punished the scapegoat group rather than allowing
it to escape.
There have been many instances throughout world history of minority
groups serving as scapegoats, including the Christians in ancient Rome, the
Huguenots in France, the Jews in Europe and Russia, and the Puritans and
Quakers in England. Gordon Allport suggests that certain characteristics are
necessary for a group to become a suitable scapegoat. The group must be (1)
highly visible in physical appearance or observable customs and actions; (2)
not strong enough to strike back; (3) situated within easy access of the
dominant group and, ideally, concentrated in one area; (4) a past target of
hostility for whom latent hostility still exists; and (5) the symbol of an unpopular concept.20
Some groups fit this typology better than others, but minority racial and
ethnic groups have been a perennial choice. Irish, Italians, Catholics, Jews,
Quakers, Mormons, Chinese, Japanese, Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and
Koreans have all been treated, at one time or another, as the scapegoat in the
United States. Especially in times of economic hardship, societies tend to
blame some group for the general conditions, which often leads to aggressive
action against the group as an expression of frustration. For example, a study
by Carl Hovland and Robert Sears found that, between 1882 and 1930, a
definite correlation existed between a decline in the price of cotton and an
increase in the number of lynchings of Blacks.21
In several controlled experiments, social scientists have attempted to measure
the validity of the scapegoat theory. Neal Miller and Richard Bugelski tested a
group of young men aged eighteen to twenty who were working in a government
camp about their feelings toward various minority groups. The young men were
reexamined about these feelings after experiencing frustration by being obliged to
take a long, difficult test and being denied an opportunity to see a film at a local
theater. This group showed some evidence of increased prejudicial feelings,
whereas a control group, which did not experience any frustration, showed no
change in prejudicial attitudes.22
Donald Weatherley conducted an experiment with a group of college
students to measure the relationship between frustration and aggression
against a specific disliked group.23 After identifying students who were or
"Leviticus 16:5-22.
^Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Weslcy,
1954), pp. 13-14.
2l
Carl 1. Hovland and Robert R. Sears, "Minor Studies of Aggression: Correlation of
Lynchings with Economic Indices," Journal of Psychology 9 (Winter 1940): 301-10.
22..,11 -------- J „ --------1.1„- »»<;.,„,<:.„,)!„»;„ ACTorn«!nn " nn 437—42
PARRII.LO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE
585
were not highly anti-Semitic and subjecting them to a strongly frustrating experience, he asked the students to write stories about pictures shown to them.
Some of the students were shown pictures of people who had been given Jewish names; other students were presented with pictures of unnamed people.
When the pictures were unidentified, the stories of the anti-Semitic students
did not differ from those of other students. When the pictures were identified, however, the anti-Semitic students wrote stories reflecting much more
aggression against the Jews in the pictures than did the other students.
For over twenty years, Leonard Berkowitz and his associates studied
and experimented with aggressive behavior. They concluded that, confronted
with equally frustrating situations, highly prejudiced individuals are more
likely to seek scapegoats than are nonprejudiced individuals. Another
intervening variable is that personal frustrations (marital failure, injury, or
mental illness) make people more likely to seek scapegoats than do shared
frustrations (dangers of flood or hurricane).24
Some experiments have shown that aggression does not increase if the
frustration is understandable.25 Other experiments have found that people
become aggressive only if the aggression directly relieves their frustration.
Still other studies have shown that anger is a more likely result if the person
responsible for the frustrating situation could have acted otherwise. 27 Clearly,
the results are mixed, depending on the variables within a given social
situation.
Frustration-aggression theory, although helpful, is not completely satisfactory. It ignores the role of culture and the reality of actual social conflict
and fails to show any causal relationship. Most of the responses measured in
these studies were of people already biased. Why did one group rather than
another become the object of the aggression? Moreover, frustration does not
necessarily precede aggression, and aggression does not necessarily How from
frustration.
The Sociology of Prejudice
Sociologist Talcott Parsons provided one bridge between psychology and
sociology by introducing social forces as a variable in frustration-aggression
theory. He suggested that both the family and the occupational
"Sec Leonard Berkowitz, "Whatever Happened to the Fnist ration-Aggression Hy]K>thesis?" American Behavioral Scientist 21 (1978): 691-708; L. Berkowitz. Aggression: A Social
Psychological Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962).
B
D. Zillman, Hostility and Aggression (Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbauiti. 1979); R. A.
Baron, Human Aggression (New York: Plenum Press, 1977); N. Paslore, "Tlie Hole of Arbitrariness in the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis," Journal of Abnotvtal and Social Psychology 47 (1952): 728-31.
M
A. H. Buss, "Instrumentality of Aggression, Feedback, and Frustration as Determinants
of Physical Aggrcssion,"/t>urna/ of Persanalltu and Social Psurhnlnan n 11 QflfiV i ";i_RO
586
CREATED EQUAL
structure may produce anxieties and insecurities that create frustration. 28
According to this view, the growing-up process (gaining parental affection
and approval, identifying with and imitating sexual role models, and competing with others in adulthood) sometimes involves severe emotional strain.
The result is an adult personality with a large reservoir of repressed aggression
that becomes free-floating—susceptible to redirection against convenient
scapegoats. Similarly, the occupational system is a source of frustration: its
emphasis on competitiveness and individual achievement, its function of
conferring status, its requirement that people inhibit their natural impulses at
work, and its ties to the state of the economy are among the factors that
generate emotional anxieties. Parsons pessimistically concluded that
minorities fulfill a functional "need" as targets for displaced aggression and
therefore will remain targets.29
Perhaps most influential in staking out the sociological position on prejudice
was Herbert Blumer, who suggested that prejudice always involves the "sense
of group position" in society. Agreeing with Kramer's delineation of three levels
of prejudice, Blumer argued that prejudice can include beliefs, feelings, and a
predisposition to action, thus motivating behavior that derives from the social
hierarchy.30 By emphasizing historically established group positions and
relationships, Blumer shifted his focus away from the attitudes and personality
compositions of individuals. As a social phenomenon, prejudice rises or falls according to issues that alter one group's position vis-à-vis that of another group.
Socialization) In the socialization process, individuals acquire the
values, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality, and social class. Generally, the child conforms to
the parents' expectations in acquiring an understanding of the world and its
people. Being impressionable and knowing of no alternative conceptions of
the world, the child usually accepts these concepts without questioning. We
thus learn the prejudices of our parents and others, which then become part of
our values and beliefs. Even when based on false stereotypes, prejudices
shape our perceptions of various peoples and influence our attitudes and actions toward particular groups. For example, if we develop negative attitudes
about Jews because we are taught that they are shrewd, acquisitive, and clannish—all-too-familiar stereotypes—as adults we may refrain from business or
social relationships with them. We may not even realize the reason for such
avoidance, so subtle has been the prejudice instilled within us.
^Talcott Parsons, "Certain Primary Sources and Patterns of Aggression in the Social
Structure of die Western World," in Essays in Sociological Theory (New York: Free Press,
1964). pp. 298-322.
raFor an excellent review of Parsonian theory in this area, see Stanford M. Lyman, The
Black American in Sociological Thought: A Failure of Perspective (New York: Putnam, 1972),
pp. 145-69.
MHerbert Blumer, "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." Pacific Sociological
PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PHEJUDICE
587
People may learn certain prejudices because of their pervasiveness. The
cultural screen that we develop and through which we view the surrounding
world is not always accurate, but it does permit transmission of shared values
and attitudes, which arc reinforced by others. Prejudice, like cultural values, is
taught and learned through the socialization process. The prevailing
prejudicial attitudes and actions may be deeply embedded in custom or law
(e.g., the Jim Crow laws of the 1890s and the early twentieth century
establishing segregated public facilities throughout the South, which
subsequent generations accepted as proper, and maintained in their own adult
lives).
Although socialization explains how prejudicial, attitudes may be transmitted from one generation to the next, it does not explain their origin or why
they intensify or diminish over the years. These aspects of prejudice must be
explained in another way.
Economic-Competition. People tend to be more hostile toward others when
they feel that their security is threatened; thus many social scientists conclude that
economic competition and conflict breed prejudice. Certainly, considerable
evidence shows that negative stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination increase
markedly whenever competition for available jobs increases.
An excellent illustration relates to the Chinese sojourners in the
nineteenth-century United States. Prior to the 1870s, the transcontinental
railroad was being built, and the Chinese filled many of the jobs made available by this project in the sparsely populated West. Although they were expelled from the region's gold mines and schools and could obtain no redress
of grievances in the courts, they managed to convey to some Whites the
image of being a clean, hard-working, law-abiding people. The completion of
the railroad, the flood of former Civil War soldiers into the job market, and
the economic depression of 1873 worsened their situation. The Chinese
became more frequent victims of open discrimination and hostility. Their
positive stereotype among some Whites was widely displaced by a negative
one: They were now "conniving," "crafty," "criminal," "the yellow menace."
Only after they retreated into Chinatowns and entered specialty occupations
that minimized their competition with Whites did the intense hostility abate.
One pioneer in the scientific study of prejudice, John Dollard, demonstrated how prejudice against the Germans, which had been virtually nonexistent, arose in a small U.S. industrial town when times got bad:
Local Whites largely drawn from the surrounding farms manifested
considerable direct aggression toward the newcomers. Scornful and
derogatory opinions were expressed about the Germans, and the native Whites had a satisfying sense of superiority toward them ___ The
chief element in the permission to be aggressive against the Germans
588
CREATED EQUAL
native Whites felt definitely crowded for their jobs by the entering
German groups and in case of bad times had a chance to blame the
Germans who by their presence provided more competitors for the
scarcer jobs. There seemed to be no traditional pattern of prejudice
against Germans unless the skeletal suspicion of all out-groupers (always present) be invoked in this place.31
Both experimental studies and historical analyses have added credence to
the economic-competition theory. Muzafer Sherif directed several experiments showing how intergroup competition at a boys' camp led to conflict
and escalating hostility.32 Donald Young pointed out that, throughout U.S.
history, in times of high unemployment and thus intense job competition,
nativist movements against minorities have flourished.33 This pattern has held
true regionally—against Asians on the West Coast, Italians in Louisiana, and
French Canadians in New England—and nationally, with the antiforeign
movements always peaking during periods of depression. So it was with the
Native American Party in the 1830s, the Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s,
the American Protective Association in the 1890s, and the Ku Klux Klan after
World War I. Since the passage of civil rights laws on employment in the
twentieth century, researchers have consistently detected the strongest
antiblack prejudice among working-class and middle-class Whites who feel
threatened by Blacks entering their socioeconomic group in noticeable
numbers.34 It seems that any group applying the pressure of job competition
most directly on another group becomes a target of its prejudice.
Once again, a theory that offers some excellent insights into prejudice—
in particular, that adverse economic conditions correlate with increased
hostility toward minorities—also has some serious shortcomings. Not all
groups that have been objects of hostility (e.g., Quakers and Mormons) have
been economic competitors. Moreover, why is hostility against some groups
greater than against others? Why do the negative feelings in some
communities run against groups whose numbers are so small that they cannot
possibly pose an economic threat? Evidently values besides economic ones
cause people to be antagonistic to a group perceived as an actual or potential
threat.
31
John Dollard, "Hostility and Fear in Social Life," Social Forces 17 (1938): 15-26.
Muzafcr Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William Hood, and Carolyn Sherif, Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: Tlw Robbers Cave Experiment (Norman: University of Oklahoma Institute of Intergroup Relations, 1961). See also M. Sherif, "Experiments in Croup
Conflict." Scientific American 195 (1956): 54-58.
M
Donald Young, Research Memorandum on Minority Peoples in the Depression (New
York: Social Science Research Council, 1937), pp. 133-41.
34
Andrew Greeley and Paul Sheatsley, "The Acceptance of Desegregation Continues to
Advance," Scientific American 210 (1971): 13-19; T. F. Pettigrew, "Three Issues in Ethnicity:
Boundaries, Deprivations, and Perceptions," in M. Yinger and S. J. Cutler (eds.), Major Social
Issues: A Multidisciplinary View (New York: Free Press, 1978); R. D. Vanneman and T. F.
32
PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE
589
Social Norms. Some sociologists have suggested that a relationship exists
between prejudice and a person's tendency to conform to societal expectations.35 Social norms—the norms of one's culture—form the generally
shared rules defining what is and is not proper-behavior. By learning and
automatically accepting the prevailing prejudices, an individual is simply
conforming to those norms.
This theory holds that a direct relationship exists between degree of
conformity and degree of prejudice. If so, people's prejudices should decrease
or increase significantly when they move into areas where the prejudicial
norm is lesser or greater. Evidence supports this view. Thomas Pettigrew
found that Southerners in the 1950s became less prejudiced against Blacks
when they interacted with them in the army, where the social norms were less
prejudicial.36 In another study, Jeanne Watson found that people moving into
an anti-Semitic neighborhood in New York City became more anti-Semitic.37
John Dollard's study, Caste and Class in a Southern Town (1937), provides an in-depth look at the emotional adjustment of Whites and Blacks to
rigid social norms.38 In his study of the processes, functions, and maintenance
of accommodation, Dollard detailed the "carrot-and-stick" method social
groups employed. Intimidation—sometimes even severe reprisals for going
against social norms—ensured compliance. However, reprisals usually were
unnecessary. The advantages Whites and Blacks gained in psychological,
economic, or behavioral terms served to perpetuate the caste order. These
gains in personal security and stability set in motion a vicious circle. They
encouraged a way of life that reinforced the rationale of die social system in
this community.
Two 1994 studies provided further evidence of the powerful influence of
social norms. Joachim Krueger and Russell W. Clement found that consensus
bias persisted despite the availability of statistical data and knowledge about
such bias.39 Michael R. Leippe and Donna Eisenstadt showed that induced
compliance can change socially significant attitudes and that the change
generalizes to broader beliefs.'10
•""See Harry H. L. Kitano. "Passive Discrimination in the Normal Person," Journal of Social Psychology 70 (1966): 23-31.
^Thomas Pettigrew, "Regional Differences in Anti-Negro Prejudice," Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psycliology 59 (1959): 28-36.
a7
Jeanne Watson, "Some Social and Psychological Situations Related to Change in Attitude." Human Relations 3 (1950): 15-56.
^John Dollard, Caste and Class in a Southern Town, 3d cd. (Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books. 1957).
•^Joachim Krueger and Russell W. Clement, "The Truly False Consensus Effect: An Ineradicable and Egocentric Bias in Social Perception," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (1994): 596-610.
^Michael R. Ix-ippe and Donna Eisenstadt, "Generalization of Dissonance Reduction:
Decreasing Prejudice through Induced Compliance," Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
590
CREATED EQUAL
Although the social-norms theory explains prevailing attitudes, it does not
explain either their origins or the reasons why new prejudices develop when
other groups move into an area. In addition, the theory does not explain why
prejudicial attitudes against a particular group rise and fall cyclically over the
years.
Although many social scientists have attempted to identify the causes of 45
prejudice, no single factor provides an adequate explanation. Prejudice is a
complex phenomenon, and it is most likely the product of more than one causal
agent. Sociologists today tend either to emphasize multiple-cause explanations or
to stress social forces encountered in specific and similar situations—forces such
as economic conditions, stratification, and hostility toward an outgroup.
ENGAGING THE TEXT
1. Review Parrillo's discussion of the cognitive, emotional, and actionoricntcd levels of prejudice. Do you think it's possible for an individual to
hold prejudiced beliefs that do not affect her feelings and actions? Why or
why not?
2. How can prejudice arise from self-justification? Offer some examples of
how a group can assume an attitude of superiority in order to justify illtreatment of others.
3. How, according to Parrillo, might personal factors like authoritarian
attitudes, low self-esteem, or frustration promote the growth of prejudice?
4. What is the "socialization process," according to Parrillo? In what different
ways can socialization instill prejudice?
5. What is the relationship between economic competition and prejudice? Do
you think prejudice would continue to exist if everyone had a good job with
a comfortable income?
EXPLORING CONNECTIONS
6. Which of the theories Parrillo outlines, if any, might help to explain the attitudes toward blacks expressed by Thomas Jefferson (p. 551)? Which
apply most clearly to the life story of C. P. Ellis (p. 591)?
7. Read or review Carmen Vazquez's "Appearances" (p. 489). How useful are
the theories presented by Parrillo in analyzing prejudice against gays and
lesbians? To what extent can concepts like levels of prejudice, selfjustification, frustration, socialization, and economic competition help us
understand antigay attitudes?
EXTENDING THE CRITICAL CONTEXT
8. List the various groups that you belong to (racial, economic, cultural, social,
TERKEL • C. p. ELLIS
591
had the greatest impact on your socialization? Which groups isolate you the
most from contact with outsiders? 9. Working in small groups, research
recent news stories for examples of incidents involving racism or prejudice.
Which of the theories described by Parrillo seem most useful for analyzing
the motives underlying these events?