I could not decide between this title and another equally apt one inspired by the Liverpool lads: “All You Need Is Not Love.” The target article is an elegantly written paper that advances the important view that traditional perspectives on prejudice emphasize social change by altering the hearts and minds of the intolerant while underplaying the importance of collective social action. If the authors are right, then rectifying problems of discrimination toward classes of people will be achieved not by attitude change campaigns, but only by the active, and often violent, resistance of the disadvantaged groups. There are, I think, two major problems with this analysis. The first is that the authors fail to maintain a careful distinction between the negative evaluation definition of “prejudice” and the implications of this definition for correcting the social ills that prejudice engenders. In essence, I think they are attacking a straw man in claiming that because psychologists define “prejudice” as a negative evaluation, most believe that eradicating this evaluation will eliminate or reduce prejudice. The second problem is that they adduce no evidence to suggest that if prejudice were diminished, commensurate reductions in discrimination would not follow.
It is true, of course, that “prejudice” is routinely defined as a negative attitude or evaluation of a class of individuals. And it is also true that attitudes by themselves do not pose nearly the social problem that is presented by discriminatory behavior and unfair institutional practices. In this regard, it can be said that the traditional distinction between prejudice and discrimination has been overplayed in that discrimination is what ultimately matters. Consider, for example, a prejudiced person who never discriminates and who, instead, promotes the welfare of the groups about whom she holds unfavorable attitudes. Or, someone who passes every implicit and explicit test of egalitarianism with flying colors but nevertheless engages routinely in harmful actions against select groups. An example of the former might be an individual whose religious beliefs commit her to the view that homosexuality is sinful but whose humanitarian instincts lead her to support gay marriage, equal job opportunity, and antidiscriminatory laws. Here, the negative attitude seems to pale in importance compared with her more laudable actions. Conversely, holding no particular animus toward homosexuals does not warrant much credit if an individual consistently behaves in ways that are injurious to gay men and women.
So in one sense, the authors' advocacy of changing the cultural institutions that promote and maintain discrimination is fully justified. What is more difficult to defend is the claim that there is widespread disagreement on this matter. The central thesis of the paper is that psychologists have argued, almost exclusively, that altering prejudicial attitudes is the best means for ameliorating discrimination. For example, the authors assert that “at the heart of most prejudice research is a deceptively simple question: Why don't we like one another?” (sect. 1 para. 4) And more to the point, in the next paragraph: “advocates of prejudice reduction have united around a central imperative … How can we get individuals to think more positive thoughts about, and hold more positive feelings towards, members of other groups?” Here, I believe the authors have made an erroneous leap in attributing to most psychologists the belief that if prejudice is a negative evaluation, then the sole or primary way to reduce it is to make people think more favorably of others.
In fact, defining “prejudice” as a negative evaluation does not necessarily entail, or even imply, that the best way to rectify the social problems that prejudice fosters is by changing individual attitude and value systems. The complexity of the attitude-behavior relationship is so widely acknowledged in social-psychological theories as to preclude any naïve assumptions about a simple relationship between the two. None of the main extant theories of prejudice, including that groups compete for scarce resources (Jackson Reference Jackson1993), that people have stereotypic expectations for group members (Eagly & Wood Reference Eagly and Wood1991), that in-groups are naturally favored over out-groups (Mullen et al. Reference Mullen, Brown and Smith1992), that out-group members are perceived as homogeneous (Quattrone & Jones Reference Quattrone and Jones1980), that negative characteristics are overperceived in minority groups (Hamilton Reference Hamilton and Hamilton1981), that social institutions favor majorities (Fiske Reference Fiske1993), that minority groups are scapegoated for declining economic conditions (Hovland & Sears Reference Hovland and Sears1940), and that victims are blamed for their misfortunes (Lerner Reference Lerner1980), imply that attitude-changing campaigns are the sole, or even the best, route to rectify discriminatory practices.
The strength of the authors' argument is also vitiated by the failure to adduce evidence to support the claim that reductions in prejudice would not produce parallel changes in discrimination. The authors cannot be faulted much for this because the relationship between prejudice and discrimination has received little empirical attention. Anecdotally, their argument for the importance of collective action in reducing or eliminating discrimination is a strong one. But this argument does not diminish the concomitant need for reductions in prejudice. It is virtually impossible to identify any important cultural change that was not preceded or accompanied by a significant change in people's attitudes. In fact, collective social action is often the outgrowth of widespread attitude change. Although the revolutionary action of black South Africans played the major role in ending apartheid in South Africa, it is difficult to imagine this having been achieved without the global demand for a change in these practices.
The same can be said for the abolition of slavery in America and for the achievements of the civil rights movement. Abolitionism had a long history in America before the Civil War, and the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin had an enormous impact on northern white's attitudes about the institution of slavery (McPherson Reference McPherson2003). Slavery as a social and economic system was almost certainly destined to failure even if the Civil War had never been fought, but it also seems certain that it would have lasted longer without increasing recognition of the plight of the enslaved people.
You have
Access
I could not decide between this title and another equally apt one inspired by the Liverpool lads: “All You Need Is Not Love.” The target article is an elegantly written paper that advances the important view that traditional perspectives on prejudice emphasize social change by altering the hearts and minds of the intolerant while underplaying the importance of collective social action. If the authors are right, then rectifying problems of discrimination toward classes of people will be achieved not by attitude change campaigns, but only by the active, and often violent, resistance of the disadvantaged groups. There are, I think, two major problems with this analysis. The first is that the authors fail to maintain a careful distinction between the negative evaluation definition of “prejudice” and the implications of this definition for correcting the social ills that prejudice engenders. In essence, I think they are attacking a straw man in claiming that because psychologists define “prejudice” as a negative evaluation, most believe that eradicating this evaluation will eliminate or reduce prejudice. The second problem is that they adduce no evidence to suggest that if prejudice were diminished, commensurate reductions in discrimination would not follow.
It is true, of course, that “prejudice” is routinely defined as a negative attitude or evaluation of a class of individuals. And it is also true that attitudes by themselves do not pose nearly the social problem that is presented by discriminatory behavior and unfair institutional practices. In this regard, it can be said that the traditional distinction between prejudice and discrimination has been overplayed in that discrimination is what ultimately matters. Consider, for example, a prejudiced person who never discriminates and who, instead, promotes the welfare of the groups about whom she holds unfavorable attitudes. Or, someone who passes every implicit and explicit test of egalitarianism with flying colors but nevertheless engages routinely in harmful actions against select groups. An example of the former might be an individual whose religious beliefs commit her to the view that homosexuality is sinful but whose humanitarian instincts lead her to support gay marriage, equal job opportunity, and antidiscriminatory laws. Here, the negative attitude seems to pale in importance compared with her more laudable actions. Conversely, holding no particular animus toward homosexuals does not warrant much credit if an individual consistently behaves in ways that are injurious to gay men and women.
So in one sense, the authors' advocacy of changing the cultural institutions that promote and maintain discrimination is fully justified. What is more difficult to defend is the claim that there is widespread disagreement on this matter. The central thesis of the paper is that psychologists have argued, almost exclusively, that altering prejudicial attitudes is the best means for ameliorating discrimination. For example, the authors assert that “at the heart of most prejudice research is a deceptively simple question: Why don't we like one another?” (sect. 1 para. 4) And more to the point, in the next paragraph: “advocates of prejudice reduction have united around a central imperative … How can we get individuals to think more positive thoughts about, and hold more positive feelings towards, members of other groups?” Here, I believe the authors have made an erroneous leap in attributing to most psychologists the belief that if prejudice is a negative evaluation, then the sole or primary way to reduce it is to make people think more favorably of others.
In fact, defining “prejudice” as a negative evaluation does not necessarily entail, or even imply, that the best way to rectify the social problems that prejudice fosters is by changing individual attitude and value systems. The complexity of the attitude-behavior relationship is so widely acknowledged in social-psychological theories as to preclude any naïve assumptions about a simple relationship between the two. None of the main extant theories of prejudice, including that groups compete for scarce resources (Jackson Reference Jackson1993), that people have stereotypic expectations for group members (Eagly & Wood Reference Eagly and Wood1991), that in-groups are naturally favored over out-groups (Mullen et al. Reference Mullen, Brown and Smith1992), that out-group members are perceived as homogeneous (Quattrone & Jones Reference Quattrone and Jones1980), that negative characteristics are overperceived in minority groups (Hamilton Reference Hamilton and Hamilton1981), that social institutions favor majorities (Fiske Reference Fiske1993), that minority groups are scapegoated for declining economic conditions (Hovland & Sears Reference Hovland and Sears1940), and that victims are blamed for their misfortunes (Lerner Reference Lerner1980), imply that attitude-changing campaigns are the sole, or even the best, route to rectify discriminatory practices.
The strength of the authors' argument is also vitiated by the failure to adduce evidence to support the claim that reductions in prejudice would not produce parallel changes in discrimination. The authors cannot be faulted much for this because the relationship between prejudice and discrimination has received little empirical attention. Anecdotally, their argument for the importance of collective action in reducing or eliminating discrimination is a strong one. But this argument does not diminish the concomitant need for reductions in prejudice. It is virtually impossible to identify any important cultural change that was not preceded or accompanied by a significant change in people's attitudes. In fact, collective social action is often the outgrowth of widespread attitude change. Although the revolutionary action of black South Africans played the major role in ending apartheid in South Africa, it is difficult to imagine this having been achieved without the global demand for a change in these practices.
The same can be said for the abolition of slavery in America and for the achievements of the civil rights movement. Abolitionism had a long history in America before the Civil War, and the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin had an enormous impact on northern white's attitudes about the institution of slavery (McPherson Reference McPherson2003). Slavery as a social and economic system was almost certainly destined to failure even if the Civil War had never been fought, but it also seems certain that it would have lasted longer without increasing recognition of the plight of the enslaved people.