Why the current dialogue on prejudice needs major revamping

In 2009, social psychologist Daniel Effron and colleagues demonstrated why there is more to prejudice than meets the eye. In separate studies, they identified a group of people (mostly White and Asian) who expressed support of Barack Obama for President. They then asked what seemed to be two redundant questions in separate experimental scenarios: Would Obama supporters choose Whites or Blacks for a job?, And would they allocate money to a White or Black organization? The findings were surprising and humbling, to say the least.

People who expressed preference for Barack Obama showed an overwhelmingly preference for a White candidate for a job, but this did not happen in the group that voted for a White democrat. In addition, among the people who preferred Barack Obama, there were a significant number of people who tested positive for racial prejudice. These people allocated more money to a White than Black organization.

This phenomenon, known as moral credentialing, implies that when you do something regarded as morally transcendent or admirable (i.e. relieve your guilt receptors — metaphorically), you feel the permission to do whatever you like, afterwards. You’ve done your job, so to speak, and you can go back to your older stereotypes.

These experiments question all of our real feelings — including yours and mine. And they also remind us that we cannot rely on the stated stances of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump either.

This doesn’t just apply to racial differences…

Another study in 2001 led by psychology professor Benoît Monin showed that participants given the opportunity to disagree with blatantly sexist statements were later more willing to favor a man for a stereotypically male job. (Surprised?)

And of course this inability to stop impulses applies to wolfing down a sugary treat after a run (guilty as charged), as well as blatantly socially reprehensible behavior in prominent political figures such as Newt Gingrich.

These stories may make our stomachs turn because we’d like to believe that we breathe the rarefied air of the moral high-ground, when in fact, we are climbing the mountain of being human, just like everyone else, trying our best to make a difference. Even if we are individuals who have great intentions for social good, we can’t always assume to override our biology, or that anyone else will either, for that matter.

Maybe that’s why “diversity programs” and “public humiliation” are poor and ineffective strategies to enhance inter-group sensitivity. They are often lip service, bound to have a backlash. (In my practice, many school students have confided in me about how “diversity programs” make them want to throw up.) No amount of anti-racist bullying is going to address the core issues that surround the dubious prejudices inherent in being human. In fact, they may make things worse.

That’s not to say that we should not consider or support victims of racial, gender, social, personality, height, weight, or temperament attacks. But where will our victimhood stop? It hurts to be short, heavy, female, introverted, homosexual, transgendered, racially different and a little moody. Is there anyone who does not have some kind of victimhood? Will we only focus on external differences?

Some studies demonstrate we are wired for implicit prejudice and that rather than being the victims of the sado-masochistic tendencies of bullying White extroverted Christian males, we may in fact have diverted our aggression into having maso-masochistic relationships with everyone. We may be competing for who the greatest victim is.

It’s a losing game. In the long run, this disempowers us as individuals and societies. (Of course, the opposite of what I am saying is also correct, but that’s the problem.)

Let’s get real about the fact that your not voting for Chris Christie may have as much to do with your implicit anti-fat bias as it has to do with your political views. (The research clearly supports that hypothesis.) And that Donald Trump’s Mexican wall fantasies may or may not translate into a generalized racial bias (in fact, he denies this explicitly in a believable way). Also, Bernie Sanders’ fairness stance may or may not have a short half-life. Any sure view is nonsense. We can say nothing about any of them or us with reasonable conviction.

We believe what suits us — and perhaps, what our brain biology demands. One study on Democrat and Republican brain differences suggests that we choose political parties due to our brain differences or that we develop these differences, which in turn impact who we choose. Can we transcend this? Instantly?

What do we do?

Here are my suggestions. But I really need your help here, because this research is mind boggling and confusing.

I would suggest that we could start by opening up about prejudice and the severe limitations we all have. Enough with the judgment.

Let’s get off our anti-prejudice high horses and recognize that we are all prejudiced. Then, let’s try to solve the problem without blaming and shaming, but conversing about our views so that we can tap into a collective intelligence borne from open discussions between opposing parties.

Let’s stop the polarized discussions of our society (rich-poor, Black-White, Wall Street-non-Wall Street). This is driven in part by politicians who want the votes of poorer people, because there are more poorer people than rich people. (Do you think politicians would serve a middle class if most people in the world were super rich? They wouldn’t make their numbers!) But even this is polarizing: politicians and non-politicians!

Realistically, I don’t think we have a solution to the crisis in prejudice. But if we start by being real and human, we might get somewhere. Complaining endlessly may provide temporary relief, but eventually we will likely end up in the same rut that we have been in for centuries.

Let’s start a conversation and see what all prejudiced views feel like in the same pot, rather than the sterilized drivel that the bullying moralistic media expects people to espouse. The next time someone calls you prejudiced, see what happens if you say, “You are too.” If you both really want to address the issue, you’ll probably keep on talking.