It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Two recent papers, hot off the press in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology present some alarming data. Daniel A. Effron, a graduate student at Stanford University and his collaborators conducted three studies to test whether endorsing Obama would cause people to favor Whites at the expense of Blacks. They predicted that this would indeed be the case, based on the idea of "moral credentials" put forward by Benoit Monin and Dale Miller. Monin and Miller found that people were more willing to express potentially prejudiced attitudes when their past behavior had given them a bit of credentials as a nonpredjudiced person. Effron and his collaborators applied this idea to the Obama election and found that after Obama supporters expressed support for Obama in the experiment, they were more willing to say that a police job at a force characterized by racial tension was better suited for Whites than for Blacks.
In another alarming study, Cheryl R. Kaiser at the University of Washington and her colleagues tracked people's perceptions of the need for affirmative action and other policies that address racial injustice both prior to and after the election. They found that Obama's election was associated with (a) greater perceptions that anyone, regardless of life circumstances, can achieve success in the U.S. through hard work, (b) decreased perception that the U.S. has a long way to go to achieve racial equality, (c) less support for policies that address racial inequality such as affirmative action, desegregation programs that promote diversity in public schools, business efforts to promote diversity in the workplace, and equal access to healthcare for minorities.
These results are troublesome. Look. I'm not saying we need to tone down our optimism. But I do think we need to increase our realism. The truth is that there are pervasive racial disparities in nearly all aspects of American society. Kaiser and colleagues list only a few examples. Black men over 18 years of age are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than White men of the same age range. Black families are nearly three times more likely to live below the poverty line as white families. Compared to Whites, Blacks are 30% more likely to die from heart disease as well as cancer. I totally agree with Kaiser and colleagues when they say, "If Americans assume that racism is less of a problem now that they have elected a Black president, their misperception could make it difficult to garner resources and support for efforts that are so desperately needed to address these racial disparities."
Sure, Obama's election was huge. And trust me, I look forward to the increased opportunities for individual expression and the broader appreciation for ethnic diversity this presidency is sure to generate (see Are conservatives less creative than liberals?). But let's make sure we don't think we've completely fulfilled our moral credentials just because we voted for Obama and told all our friends how fabulous he is. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to reduce racial inequalities in America. Let's not get complacent, OK?
No doubt, racism is one of the most important evils in our pluralistic, open societies need to confront. And various programs are meant to do so. But what are the odds that these programs will work? Psychology can help us answer this question.
There are roughly two distinct ways to fight against racism. One can attempt to weaken people’s disposition to classify themselves and others into races. The thought goes as follows. Suppose people treat race as they treat eye color—viz. as an irrelevant, superficial, psychologically and morally meaningless physical character. Then, people would not despise, hate, envy, be afraid of, etc., others because of their race. After all, we do not despise, hate, envy, etc., others on the basis of the color of their eyes.
Alternatively, one can leave people’s disposition to classify themselves and others into races as it is, and attempt to eliminate people’s negative attitudes (such as their negative emotions) toward members of other races. If this approach were to work, people would still view themselves as Black, White, and so on, but they would have no negative attitude toward other individuals qua members of specific races.
Now, will the attempts of fighting racism that are inspired by these two approaches work? What can psychology tell us about their chances of success? It is fair to say that lawmakers and social activists have ignored the potential contributions of psychology to answering these questions. In this post, I want to make a case for the relevance of psychology with respect to the design of anti-racist programs.
I will first focus on the first way to fight racism, leaving the second one for another occasion. So, what does psychology tell us about the attempts to fight against racism by eliminating or weakening our disposition to classify into races? To answer this question, we need to turn toward the research on the nature and evolution of the cognitive mechanisms underlying racial categorization. This is what I will do in the remainder of this post. In my next post (in a week or so), I will explain why it matters to anti-racist programs. The literature on racial classification is too vast to be reviewed here (see, e.g., Machery and Faucher, 2005b for an overview of what evolutionary have to say on the topic). I will merely present what I take to be the best hypothesis (Machery and Faucher, 2005a).
Following anthropologist Francisco Gil-White, I have proposed that we evolved a capacity to determine to which cultural group people belong to. We pay attention to cues or markers that indicate people’s affiliation to specific groups. These markers include accents, clothes, behaviors, and maybe subtle physical features; many cultures physically shape the body of their members: think, e.g., about the Padaung Giraffe women, about the split and cut penises in Papua New Guinea, about our own tattoos.
Why did this system evolve? Well, the idea is that it is important to know whether people belongs to one’s own or to another culture when one undertakes some cooperative ventures with them. In the latter case, they might comply with different norms, have different expectations, etc., which might prevent success.
Now where does racial classification come in? The idea is that our disposition to identify cultural markers and to infer cultural membership misfires. We take various racial properties (skin color, etc.) to be cultural markers and as a result, we draw distinctions between races. Racial classification is thus some kind of accident. We have not evolved to classify into races, but, rather, into cultural groups. And we mistake races for cultural groups.
Originally posted by pieman
having a black president doesn't mean that black people in america are all of a sudden going to be on an equal footing with white people, it just proves that black people have an equal opportunity to succeed.
it doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, it means that there isn't enough of it around to hold you back, so stop using it as an excuse.
in every other westerised country, there is a section of people that are more likely to be locked up, be poor and have a higher incidence of disease but the only country that calls it racism is america.
the thing is, calling it racism will, by itself, hold people back. it allows them to abdicate their responsibility for their own short comings. "i'm not in prison because i committed a crime, i'm here because of racism", "i'm not poor because i don't strive to succeed, i'm poor because of racism". it allows people to blame others for their shortcomings rather than man up and take responsibility for their own actions.
if you treat poverty as a social issue, which it is, then you emphsise the fact that it is within each persons power to rise above their own poverty and it is each persons responsibility to do so.
poverty is the issue described in those studies, not racism, and the only person who can do anything about poverty is the poor person themselves.
[edit on 22/9/09 by pieman]
Originally posted by useless eaters
S and F
IMO, racism was over when slavery was obolished.
Originally posted by useless eaters
We are talking Orientals,....Right?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
the fact that we have elected our first black president is a signal that the majority of the country is ready to make the changes we need to have a more accepting, open society.
Originally posted by pieman
don't you think that it suggests the changes have already taken place?
surely,a black president is the culmination of the civil rights movement rather than any kind of beginning.
what more needs to be done?
Black men over 18 years of age are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than White men of the same age range. Black families are nearly three times more likely to live below the poverty line as white families. Compared to Whites, Blacks are 30% more likely to die from heart disease as well as cancer.
doesn't this suggest that the majority of americans have already moved beyond race?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Plenty more. From the OP:
Black men over 18 years of age are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than White men of the same age range. Black families are nearly three times more likely to live below the poverty line as white families. Compared to Whites, Blacks are 30% more likely to die from heart disease as well as cancer.
It's possible, but it also suggests that people wanted a change from the Bush years SO badly that they held their noses and voted for the black man, hoping that he would begin to heal what the previous administration did to this country.
And besides, having the majority move beyond race doesn't mean anything if those in power (a minority) still haven't.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As long as you're in denial about the fact of racism being real, then you're going to think and feel the way you do.
Originally posted by useless eaters
So others are wrong and you are the only one who can know anything about this ambiguous, esoteric, subject.
So when exactly is us mere mortals going to be enlightened by your wisdom on the subject?
Do we need to burn candles and hold hands?
You are exploiting race on this website and are thereby doing a disservice.
The issue is no longer “racism” but is now those who want to continually bring it up, stop beating a dead horse to death.