RC8 wrote:
Coombs wrote:
The reason for being casual or oblivious in acts of prejudice is because they are learned behaviors, habits, and senses of entitlement that stem from centuries of oppressive societal structures, i.e. they are systemic.
This is ultimately where we strongly disagree.
Discrimination and prejudice against outgroups is present in most if not all human cultures, and appears more or less spontaneously among children. Our brains are wired to generalise, and it requires indoctrination or sophisticated critical thinking to disregard this impulse.
People who firmly oppose arbitrary discrimination are either critical thinkers who have gradually come to subscribe to egalitarian ethics, or most likely regular people who have been socialised into acting this way.
It is not surprising, of course, that the forms of discrimination most typically found in what are now the world's dominant cultures are particularly pervasive and damaging. Institutionalising prejudice has obviously created positive feedback loops that indeed compound and perpetuate the learning of particular types of discrimination among youth everywhere. The Indian caste system is one of the most disturbing examples of this.
What is crucial, I think, is to acknowledge that while specific types of discrimination are more hurtful and harder to extirpate than others due to these vicious cycles, ultimately a standard human left unattended will likely develop a worldview rife with prejudice and generalisations (and magical/religious thinking, among other things).
As such, it seems fair to call out people when their comments or actions are sexist/racist/etc, or when they are just being generally cruel to others. If done right it holds them accountable and socialises them towards fair treatment, non-discrimination, etc.
What makes no sense, however, is to argue that discrimination always (or even mostly) stems from pro-discrimination moral convictions (let alone learned moral convictions!). It sure does in scary sophisticated Adolf Eichmann types, but most instances of 'casual' discrimination I have witnessed or been a victim of have been perpetrated by people who are - above all - a combination of frightened, careless, thoughtless, ignorant, cruel, or just plain stupid.
A standard human left unattended? This is absurdly essentialist thinking. It amounts to a casual, substanceless quip that insidiously justifies bad behavior. That's always been the trouble with the idea that individual actions as self-contained. They are not.
What I have consistently put forward accounts for everything you're staying and much, much more. You're version here is a narrow view based in a rationalization of human nature that suits you as an individual alone, rather than as an individual in a society with a history.
The only real difference is in scope. Nothing about what I said absolves anyone from responsibility for their actions, nor does it preclude criticism on an individual level or the possibility of holding people accountable for their actions. it just has the potential to more accurately and productively describe their context. What is uncomfortable about it is that it implicates us all, and I think most people are quite afraid to accept that they are part of it whether they like it or not, even if they fight against prejudice and bigotry or if they think of themselves as "enlightened" or some such. No human is "left unattended", there is always a context, which makes the suggestion that our brains are somehow hardwired to be racist absolutely ridiculous. That context must be critically examined, reflected upon, and acted upon if any progress is to be made. The big stories and the public examples made of bigots is a kind of scapegoating. It follows the pattern of the predominant Judeo-Christian philosophy that demands a scapegoat, a la Girard, i.e. a small violence (in this case a condemnation) of a subject that commits a heinous act that, once punished, provides a partial absolution of society as a whole. The scapegoat then achieves a sort of deification or mythification, it becomes the referent and as such gains a sort of divine status. In contemporary terms, I'd argue that this is similar to the celebrity that becomes a hashtag for all the wrong reasons. While I am sympathetic to many of the efforts that, at least in part, resort to this strategy, I do think that the unfortunate result is a kind of perpetuation of the very thing it rails against.
I'm not interested in absolution for our societies. I'm especially disinterested in the idea of "socialising" someone towards "fair treatment, non-discrimination, etc." It's fascistic language that renders people as objects to be acted upon, rather than as acting subjects with the capacity for critical consciousness and reflection. Anyone can be given the tools to do this, there aren't categories like "critical thinkers" or "regular people", there are just people.
We don't disagree in the way you think we do. You're view is just narrow and, in being so, quite inadequate. Mine is comprehensive, and allows for more productive action to be taken, i.e. "work to be done" that I mention above, both on the level of what we think of as "individual" and every other societal structure.
