Reflection Paper

By: Damian Niolet

The views expressed in this paper belong solely to the author and do not reflect the views of the USAF.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The Origins Dilemma

I would like to begin my paper by identifying a fallacy in most all studies conducted by

psychologists, sociologists, etc. I believe that most all of the studies in these fields (as with

many “scientific” fields), attempt to pinpoint the origin of a particular phenomenon in human

thinking, feeling, and/or behavior, as if human life was so linear, so causal that, like a snowball

rolling down a large hill, human life can be watched from beginning to end, the origin of a phe-

nomenon discerned, the growth in magnitude of a phenomenon meticulously measured along its

trajectory, and the ultimate affects of a phenomenon’s climatic collision with an obstacle

painstakingly recorded in absolute detail. While this is a fallacy in and of itself, the bigger fal-

lacy is on the part of the researchers themselves, who are wrapped in a cloak of hubris as they

raise their studies above others and say their treatises on any given phenomenon is the more ap-

propriate, accurate, and truthful.

For instance, Herbert Blumer in his article “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position”

decrees all previously held notions regarding the origin of race prejudice as irrelevant and lauds

his own theories as undeniable truth. He explains how race prejudice does not find its begin-

nings in individual self-construction, but from group position.1 If Blumer would have logically

followed through with that theory, then he might have concluded that race prejudice could not

exist where there exists solitary individuals. There are individuals who form certain aspects of

their personal identity apart from what would be their “group.” It is possible for people to form

their own prejudices towards another race in the absence of a group of similar individuals. Fur-

ther, Blumer should have asked himself whether the opposite of racial prejudice, racial tolerance,

is formed at an individual or group level, because very clearly racial tolerance is often in the face

1 Herbert Blumer, “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position,” The Pacific Sociological Review, Spring (1958): 86-93

1

of severe ridicule of a group. So, how can racial prejudice be only a group level construct, but its

opposite be more individually based?

My point is, human life is not so linear or causal. The snowball that is life actually jumps

through space and time at seemingly random sequences gathering snow and debris from obscure

places unknown to the researchers studying the snowball on its path down the proverbial hill.

Any study conducted in the fields of psychology, sociology, etc. should answer the question,

“What are the origins of this or that phenomenon?” with the statement, “It depends.” The study

should commence to explain what relevant trends can be derived from the studies, but in no way

profess a definitive conclusion as to the origins of a phenomenon. The fact is, the answer to such

a questions depends on far too many variables for there to be such a self-assured air in the re-

searchers’ writings. Science is far less exact than people want to believe, especially in the area

of human thinking, feeling, and behavior.

Another example comes from Gordon W. Allport’s article, “The Young Child.” Allport

explains how studies (based primarily on surveys of mothers) have shown that stricter homes

breed more prejudiced children. From this he concluded the reverse to be true, that more tolerant

parents breed more tolerant children.2 Why did Allport not see that it is possible for parents to

demand strict adherence to tolerance of their children? What then? Would the parents’ strict-

ness counter their demand for tolerance to where the child would be neither prejudiced nor toler-

ant? Of course not. The child would wish for their parents’ approval, in most cases, and be tol-

erant. There was more going on in the lives of these mothers and children than simply a strict

home environment. Did the survey even ask about prejudice in the parents themselves? Maybe

that’s where the child picked up on prejudice.

2 Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 94.

2

I have an example from my own life. I witnessed a 4 year old say in front of a group of

people, while watching figureskating during the Olympics, “I don’t like her, ‘cause she’s black.”

Obviously, the child did not get this notion from his parents. They were tolerant people in re-

gards to race and probably espoused the same in front of their children very often. In that mo-

ment the parents instantly chided the child, then took him into another room for further strict rep-

rimanding. Does Allport really think that the child is going to grow up prejudiced? That child is

likely to avoid being prejudiced like the plague because of the strict response. Children need

boundaries and often only learn boundaries via strict guidelines. These boundaries and guide-

lines are vital so that when the parent sees that their child is about to hurt themselves or others,

the child will instantly stop when the parent yells out, “Stop!” Allport’s article has the potential

to turn young, impressionable parents off to any sort of scolding for fear of breeding a prejudiced

child.

My Personal View on the Origin of Prejudice

I believe that prejudice can be the result of many factors on both an individual and group

level. People can form their own biases regarding others through daily interaction. Those preju-

dices can be solidified by interaction with a group comprised of “like” individuals. Prejudice can

in this environment be less about the individual prejudices and more about obtaining a sense of

security through group cohesion. But the exact opposite can be true. Biases can form during

group interaction and be reinforced on an individual level through daily interaction with “oth-

ers”, thereby, providing a sense of personal security. The individual will feel they are on the

right path in life.

It is common to think that the primary factor in the formation of prejudice are parents.

However, so many children are raised apart from their parents that prejudice training can come

3

from just about anywhere - in daycares, orphanages, foster homes, etc. If a child’s upbringing

was the primary factor in growing prejudiced children, then how is it that people are able to shed

their prejudiced pasts? Once a child comes of age, depending on the society, he/she may make

value judgements that contradict their upbringing. It does not just depend on the society; it also

depends on the individual. Individuals with higher capacities of intellect are likely to make these

reassessments. And then on top of that, it depends on what aspects of life the society and indi-

vidual place value. If there is a society or individual who places a higher value on intellect over

relationships, then the reassessment might never occur.

In my belief, the formation of prejudice is entirely circumstantial, to the extent that it is

nearly futile to attempt to pinpoint the origins. However, trends and statistics can be telling.

They can demonstrate some of the primary factors and reveal some clues about majorities, but

should not be taken as representative of origins. In a sense, every point on a statistical graph is

an outlier because two points in proximity to one another could themselves have different ori-

gins. Such charts are typically 2D. If they were 3D we might actually see that the points are

miles apart from each other by way of the Z axis. Hazel Rose Markus’s article does the best job

of considering the dichotomy that exists in such studies. She does not seek to limit the study by

any means; rather, her goal is to integrate existing studies in seemingly disparaging fields and

then continue anew with the studies.3

Some Pieces of Certainty

While it is nearly futile to attempt to pinpoint the origins of a human behavior phenome-

non like prejudice, there can be extracted a degree of certainty from defining the phenomenon.

For instance, what constitutes a prejudice act? This question is not so much focused on how

3 Hazel Rose Markus, “Pride, Prejudice, and Ambivalence: Toward a Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity,” American Psychologist, (November 2008): 651-665

4

prejudiced acts are carried out, that type of question would be just as bound to circumstance as

the question of origin. The intent is to define prejudice in such a broad manner as to encompass

all possible acts of prejudice. In-so-doing, a definition might be formed that comprehensively

presents the hidden components of prejudice that have to exist for prejudice to exist.

As was stated in a few of the articles, there is most certainly a sense of superiority on be-

half of the individual or group exhibiting prejudice. Conversely there will exist a sense that

some other individual or group is inferior in some way to the superior individual or group. There

will likely be some form of generalizing, or what might be called stereotyping, on the part of the

individual or group exhibiting prejudice. Is there a linear process amongst these components? I

do not think so. The mind moves so quickly that a generalization is formed about another group

concurrent with the compartmentalizing of feelings of superiority. The inward formation of a

prejudice act is instanteous; the outward formation may be less so because space and time bind

our physical actions more than our minds and hearts.

Prejudice in Action

What is funny to me is that these phenomena are very much the same fallacies as those

which scientific researchers fall into - wrapping themselves in a sense of superiority and not giv-

ing credence to circumstances. The researchers of these articles were themselves prejudiced

while conducting the studies and writing the articles. They may not think so because so much of

their studies and writings on prejudice focuses on racial prejudice, but the fact is prejudice can

exist within cloistered groups as well. Just look at geeks versus jocks, the rich versus the poor,

or in these researchers’ cases, nerds versus nerds. Therefore, I do not believe that prejudice is a

5

product of structural factors. Prejudice transcends any societal structural factors such as econ-

omy, group affiliation, etc.

I, for instance, am very open about a prejudice I have. I am prejudice against simultane-

ously apathetic and hedonistic people. Apathy and hedonism can spread its tentacles out and into

any group indiscriminately and comes in numerous flavors, from college frat mentalities to lazy

mass consumers. My prejudice is against a lifestyle (possibly even a philosophy) and does not

target any particular group based on age, wealth, etc. I try my hardest to avoid generalizing

when acting on this prejudice; I try to treat everyone I meet as an equal until such time as they

show that they are imbued with this lifestyle. Even then, I do what I can to show them what

might very well be a better lifestyle, depending on their level of outward unhappiness, rather

than dismiss them entirely.

It is important to understand that in this country any given individual’s position in life,

poverty stricken, for example, may or may not be the result of personal values and choices.

Their position could just as easily be a product of something beyond their control, such as preju-

dice. And, it more than likely is the result of both factors at work. Take an individual who has

been passed up for well-paying jobs several times because of his/her race as an example. Yes, a

prejudice society is a big contributor to their continued poverty; however, it is the individual’s

choice not to continue trying in the face of defeat. In more suppressive circumstances, such as in

a prison camp, one could not blame an individual for giving up, survival is more of a concern at

that point.

Conclusion

The string running through the entirety of this paper is the notion that without an under-

standing of the full scope of the circumstances surrounding the study of any given human phe-

6

nomenon, a feat which is virtually impossible, a thorough and complete understanding of the ori-

gins of a human phenomenon is impossible. This notion meets its realization ironically when re-

searchers attempt to study the origins of prejudice, in that, the researchers cannot help but be

prejudiced - generalizing with an air of superority - while objectively pinpointing the origins of

prejudice. Do their actions conincide with their theories on the origin of prejudice? Did Blumer

form his prejudiced theories on prejudice in a group? Did Allport grow up in a strict home that

brought him to be prejudiced against other studies? Perhaps I too am being prejudice in some

way. I certainly cannot take into account the full scope of the circumstances that surrounded

these individuals’ studies and writings, but at least I am cognizant of this fact, and therefore min-

imize assertions, endeavoring instead to reveal my shortcomings and prejudices in the form of

opinions. But, this being an opinion piece, a degree of prejudice is expected.

7