Prejudice, said Mark Twain, is “the very ink with which history is written”. It is the inevitable consequence of dividing the world into “us” and “them” – what psychologists call “ingroups” and “outgroups” – whether in the form of tribes, faiths, nations or even football teams. We are “hardwired” to think favourably of our own group – known as ingroup bias – and unfavourably of others – known as prejudice.
There are countless forms of prejudice in the world. Racism and sexism are perhaps the most common, but there is also widespread prejudice on the basis of class, age, sexuality, disability and religious affiliation, to name but a few. In all of these cases, prejudice forms from a preconceived belief in the superiority of one’s own group over another; the behavioural manifestation of this belief is termed discrimination.
At its core, prejudice is a matter of categorisation. It’s about how we divide up the world in ours heads, grouping things together for ease of cognition. We use these categories to define ourselves as well as those around us. Thus, “I” may be male, European, young, Buddhist, vegetarian, teetotal, and so on, while “They” are anything outside this: female or Asian or elderly or Christian or alcoholic, and so on. Clearly, there are innumerable groups in society, some of which we’re a part, others we are not. Crucially, some of these categories are stigmatised, which marks their members as inherently inferior to the dominant group. (In Ancient Greece, a stigma was literally a mark, like a tattoo, that was cut or burnt into the skin of criminals, slaves or other disgraced persons.)
So, prejudice arises when (a) we put people into categories, and (b) some of these categories come with a social stigma, meaning their members are seen as lower status. And since some categories, such as race and sex, are so obvious to us that we use them chronically – that is, continually, without thinking – so prejudice comes to be ingrained in society. Let us consider these two cases in more detail.
Racism is prejudice against someone based on their race or ethnicity. In the past, racial prejudice was largely overt and blatant, meaning it was expressed openly in the form of negative stereotypes and derogatory language. Identifying a particular race as lazy, stupid, greedy or dishonest is an example of this form of discrimination, which is often referred to as old-fashioned racism – the type your grandparents may have used. In the West, such explicit racist attitudes are now socially taboo, and it is therefore tempting to conclude that racism is on the decline. However, there is a second, more pervasive form of racism that is implicit or unconscious, which psychologists refer to as aversive racism.
Aversive racism is a distinctly modern phenomenon. It is characterised by the presence of both egalitarian attitudes and negative feelings towards particular minorities. In other words, it is a form of racism that persists (unconsciously) even when we know racism to be wrong. This dissonance provokes feelings of shame and guilt, which we seek to suppress by avoiding triggering encounters and concealing our “true” emotions. And since people rarely admit to this form of prejudice, it is difficult to investigate.[1]
Sexism is prejudice against someone based on their sex or gender. Though sexism can affect anyone, it is typically directed at women and girls, whether overtly (as in sexual harassment) or covertly (as in workplace inequality). Around the world, sexual discrimination has been observed in almost every cultural sphere, from politics and education to legal justice and employment. At its most extreme, it can lead to the murder, rape and mutilation of women, girls and new-born babies.
Like racism, sexism comprises two distinct strains: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism refers to blatant expressions of sexual prejudice, such as the view that women are irrational or incompetent in comparison to men. This underlying prejudice is manifested in myriad forms of discrimination, from the gender pay gap to female infanticide. Benevolent sexism, in contrast, refers to sexist attitudes that are subjectively positive, such as the reverence of women as wives, mothers and homemakers, and as the objects of male affection. Although these attitudes may appear harmless to their holder, they are in fact detrimental to gender equality, since they restrict women to particular roles (such as mother, lover, homemaker) and thus limit their personal and professional opportunities.
Benevolent sexism can be difficult to counteract, since it is often conflated with tradition and politeness. An obvious example is modern-day chivalry, which may take the form of men holding the door open for women or paying the bill in a restaurant. For many people – both men and women – this is simply “the done thing” – an unquestioned, apparently harmless, social norm born of kindness and consideration. However, traditions such as these are rooted in historical ideas of women as the “weaker” or “fairer” sex, and as such serve to perpetuate these sexist notions. This ambivalence can lead to disagreements between people over what constitutes sexism in today’s world. Furthermore, it is possible for people to hold both hostile and benevolent sexist views simultaneously, such as a man who feels threatened by women in the workplace but venerates them in the home. This may explain why sexism is so hard to stamp out.
Racism and sexism are just two of the many forms of prejudice that exist in society. And since all individuals belong to numerous, fluid and often overlapping groups, they may be subject to multiple modes of discrimination acting simultaneously – a phenomenon known as intersectionality.
According to the contact hypothesis, developed by the social psychologist Gordon Allport, overcoming such prejudice depends on establishing closer relations between ingroups and outgroups. Above all else, these groups must be interdependent, working together to achieve common goals. Only then, Allport argues, can the stain of prejudice be erased.
[1] The psychologists Samuel Gaertner and Leonard Bickman found one way around this in a now-famous 1971 study.