Nurturing my intellectual desire to study race and interpersonal communication, I attended a seminar titled “Expanding the Notion of Prejudice: Why we study some prejudices and miss others.” Dr. Chris Crandall, a professor from the University of Kansas, analyzed academia’s tendency to research certain racial groups over others; he ultimately challenged his audience to recognize the importance of cultural and social influences on American prejudice. From a social psychologist’s perspective, Dr. Crandall made some strong arguments and several controversial statements that I hope to iron out in this blog…
To begin, Dr. Crandall defined prejudice as “negative affect toward a group of people or individuals who belong to a particular group.” Using this definition as a touchstone for his lecture, Dr. Crandall suggested that social psychologists tend to study groups that are personally relevant and also suffer from real- yet unwarranted- prejudice. Groups that seem to “deserve” prejudice (such as rapists, murders, and people who steal kids’ lunch money) and groups that seem to be “free” of prejudice (firefighters from 911 and other altruistic parties) tend to be overlooked in academia.
Overall, Dr. Crandall provided an interesting interpretation of research on prejudice and race in academia. However, several of his suggestions warrant further examination. He suggested that we need to challenge the prejudices our culture deems acceptable. Indeed, negative attitudes and affect toward child rapists, serial killers, and school bullies who stole are lunch money seem socially acceptable. When society embraces certain prejudices, it can have a dehumanizing effect. But what are the ethical ramifications if we try to erase the negative affect toward these groups of people? Is it wise to essentially portray these dangerous groups as victims of prejudice? Is it ethical to eradicate negative attitudes and affect to people who have committed truly atrocious crimes (for the record, I am NOT necessarily lumping the lunch money thefts in this category here…).
I strongly support Dr. Crandall’s argument that cultural norms shape commonly held prejudices. Our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are highly intertwined with our cultural and social contexts. However, we must continue to value the individual as an agent in the formulation and maintenance of prejudice. Individuals and cultural norms are important and are conceptually intertwined. They should not be portrayed as mutually exclusive. Asserting that cultural norms are the influential factors on prejudice undermines the personal ability and ethical responsibility of the individual human being. Asserting that the individual is the influential factor on prejudice is also problematic. We should be able to respectfully consider both factors while we study race and prejudice.
There are several other points that I would like to make (such as his avoidance of the word "conservatist" and his statement about the push for equality in America), but I just realized that this entry has become quite lengthy. If you would like to discuss the issue of research on race and prejudice, please send me an email or post a comment…