wrc@brunix.UUCP (William Cook) (08/08/84)
[] The Natural Death of Prejudice It is impossible to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex, color, class or any other visible arbitrary factor, by constantly reminding people of the distinction; by forcing them to consciously act fairly. This futile practice is called emphasizing the difference to make it go away. It never works. People just become more aware of differences and less able to be clearheaded. In this article I discuss another solution to the problem of prejudice. I am not arguing against judgement in itself. The process of determining the value of alternatives is, I believe, fundamental to everyday life. We must constantly judge ideas, plans, and actions to be good or bad. What I argue against is an irrational pre-judgement based on arbitrary qualities, such as the gender or skin color of the person presenting an idea, or doing something. No, the elimination of prejudice does not lead to a world in which all value judgements are meaningless. Rather, it makes value judgements more meaningful, because they are based on rational analysis of each individual case. It also must be recognized that prejudice is probably a very natural human tendency. It is very closely coupled with more general leaning behavior. I am prejudiced against city dogs: I don't feed them or try to pet them, or like them very much. I have learned that they are likely to attack me. And you can hardly argue that I should lay aside this prejudice, and judge each case individually, by giving each dog the benefit of doubt. That would be suicidal to early man, and dangerous for me. It is simply unfortunate that there are necessary human functions which do not fit into civilized society. To return to the failure of current methods. If women wish to be treated equally, they must not go around screaming at men that they are women and must be treated equally because they are women. The form, `Treat me equally because I am different', can never work. All that happens is that the differences are emphasized. Though this method seems very direct and powerful, for the bull has been taken by the horns, it is not effective. The same goes for race discrimination. I propose a more natural, though subtle, death for prejudice and discrimination. This process is already occurring, and may achieve its goal without conscious promotion. The key to the discovery of this process is in the usage of words. Words have many purposes. They have denotations, which are often straightforward references to every day objects, activities, and properties. Words also have connotations, which tend to attach ordinarily unrelated meanings to a word. In the case of prejudice, an ordinary property, such as woman, black, white, southern, or northern, takes on so many connotations that judgement is impossible. The mere mention of the word automatically supplies a value judgement. The word discrimination itself has suffered from this process. It was once a mark of praise to say `What a discriminating gentleman.' (I should, of course, use the word `person' instead of `gentleman.' But the original was more common; it also gives a better insight into the cause of the semantic shift that took place.) Since words are the vehicle of prejudice, what is needed is a shift in the meaning of words. The key is to notice that the word `black' is sometimes applied to caucasians, and the word `white' is sometimes applied to negroes. (The actual intent of these applications is not important here.) A certain set of attributes which at one time were associated with black or white skin are now less closely tied to skin color, and the these words are now used as an individual judgement, not merely of a physical description. More exactly, the usage of the words has shifted from the original denotation to its connotation. The `denotation' is no longer active. The words female, male, negro, and caucasian are not affected. A similar, though opposite shift seems to be occurring in the word `chairperson', which originally meant a man or woman in charge of a meeting, but now is used to describe a militant feminist in charge of a meeting. Chairwoman is used on chairmen who are wimps. Chairperson is used on pushy chairwomen. Chairman is used for everyone else. This is a regrettable shift, but it was probably caused by people trying to emphasize the difference to make it go away. As a final test of you liberty, a demonstration of the stranglehold words have on us, consider this social reform. Imagine that you best male friend were named "Susan", or that your best female friend were named "Thomas". What if the presidential family had different names: Ronald and David, or Lisa and Nancy (of course the physical people are the same, just the names are changed). And how many of you can read the names Cleveland Washington, Angus Mgee, or Elizabeth Windsor, without images comming to mind, and with them, judgements? Must we cease this selective naming, as with hurricanes? Are you ready for it? We may lose some history, local color, or cultural identity, but you can't have everything. So name your son "Cynthia" and you daughter "Wilfred". Teach them both how to cook and type and think and manage. Then you will be free. -william cook brunix!wrc "Freedom is not the destruction of authority, it is the rejection of habits"