Get the Log Out of Your Eye

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

It’s a cliché, a logical fallacy: “I can’t be racist; some of my best friends are white!” or “I can’t be racist! My wife is black!”

Nonprejudiced, egalitarian, White individuals were provided with false physiological feedback allegedly indicating that they held racist prejudices against Blacks. In one study, for example, they were shown slides of interracial couples, and the experimenter commented that the subject’s skin response indicated severe intolerance of interracial romance, which was tantamount to racism. After the procedure was ostensibly completed, the participant left the building and was accosted by either a Black or a White panhandler. People who had been implicitly accused of racism gave significantly more money to the Black panhandler than people who had not been threatened in that way. Donations to the White panhandler were unaffected by the racism feedback. The implication was that people became generous toward the Black individual as a way of counteracting the insinuation that they were prejudiced against Blacks.

(from “Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial” by Roy F. Baumeister, Karen Dale, and Kristin L. Sommer; http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/personality/readings/freuddefense.pdf; last accessed 5/13/09)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Another study showed that homophobic men, exposed to videotapes depicting homosexual intercourse, reported low levels of sexual arousal, but physiological measures indicated higher levels of sexual response than were found among other participants. Thus, again, the subjective response reported by these participants was the opposite of what their bodies actually indicated. This finding also fits the view that homophobia may itself be a reaction formation against homosexual tendencies, insofar as the men who were most aroused by homosexuality were the ones who expressed the most negative attitudes toward it.
Prejudice would provide the most relevant form of unacceptable aggressive impulse, because American society has widely endorsed strong norms condemning prejudice. If people are led to believe that they may hold unacceptably prejudiced beliefs (or even that others perceive them as being prejudiced), they may respond with exaggerated displays of not being prejudiced.

(from “Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial” by Roy F. Baumeister, Karen Dale, and Kristin L. Sommer; http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/personality/readings/freuddefense.pdf; last accessed 5/13/09)

I think that “racism” and “prejudice” have little to do with skin color, nationality, or ethnicity – even if that appears, on the surface, to be the primary issue. Shared physical characteristics provide a convenient way to lump people together, to form stereotypes. If a child’s only experience with Hispanic people is being bullied, spit on, and stuffed into a trash can at school, she has little reason to go out of her way to get to know more Hispanic people. The objective reality is that a few bullies – who happened to be Hispanic – picked on her. But it was so traumatic it makes her wary of all Hispanic kids. In time, this perpetuates the bullies’ belief that Whites look down on them – and because the first child is now going out of her way to avoid all Hispanics, the nice Hispanic kids start to believe that she thinks she’s too good to hang out with them – and that she is a “racist.”

Prejudice stems from our fear and loathing of all that is strange or “other” – “not our kind.” We are affected by our families’ prejudicial attitudes from infancy to adulthood; we form our own along the way. Outwardly, it seems that skin color, nationality, and ethnicity are the root of racism, but I would argue that it’s a superficial excuse.

It seems to me that real distrust and loathing has more to do with ideological differences, disparity in terms of wealth and education, and differences in basic values and priorities. It’s easier to be “racist” than to try to get to know one another, or to try to understand beliefs and ideas that are anathema to us.

Some of these differences are truly irreconcilable. There are angry people in the world, and some of them have every reason to be. There are people who would kill one another over insults and injuries incurred over a thousand years ago. Multiple generations of families have been destroyed by violence and rage. Religious fanaticism and power hungry individuals have thrown great civilizations into the Dark Ages. There are people who feel their rights have been trampled, their privileges denied, and their interests ignored for far too long – and they would be right.

There are people who feel entitled to a certain way of life – people who may, in fact, have worked very hard to earn their place in the world – who feel threatened by a “mingling” of what they see as “low class” and “high class.” God forbid we should learn (or acknowledge openly) that the trash collector loves his family every bit as much as the banker.

Gandhi is said to have pointed out that “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” And yet, when we feel that our identity, our most cherished values, and our way of life are threatened, it is the most difficult thing in the world to stop nurturing old grudges and to stop seeking vengeance.

For most of us, though, the perceived differences stem from ignorance and a lack of personal experience when it comes to living, working, and playing with people from other nations, creeds, and cultures. It takes bravery, because we’re not always welcome. Attempts at friendship may be rebuffed or ridiculed. Our shields go up; constructive criticism (such as someone pointing out that in protesting how non-racist you are, you actually prove otherwise) or an innocuous question like, “What a nice accent. Where are you from?” becomes a “racist” remark in our eyes. We’re too quick to deny each other half a chance. But what is the solution? To isolate ourselves further? In a world with vanishing borders, it is more important than ever that we at least try to appreciate and understand one another. We may never agree on every issue, and it’s time we learned that vigorous debate needn’t be rude or threatening. Animated exchange of ideas need not degenerate into ad hominem attacks.

Sure, there are some dearly cherished values, like “Thou shalt not eat thy neighbor” or “Thou shalt not have sex with swine” that don’t really lend themselves to civil debate. But each of us should be free to worship God – or not – as our conscience dictates. Each of us should be free to define “family” according to our hearts. “Freedom” comes with responsibility; responsibility implies respect for the rights and freedoms of others. None of us should go out of our way to offend – and we would all do well to remember that words, once spoken or written – cannot be taken back. But none of us has the absolute right to go through life unoffended, and excessive avoidance of controversy can lead to festering resentments and reinforcement of our own narrow-minded beliefs.