In Defense of Prejudice by Jonathan Rauch - Essay Example

?Prejudice is necessary for a Healthy Society Introduction Pluralists are in contradiction of the opinion of altering linguistics to eliminate prejudice. Prejudices may not be all malicious in its entireness and consequently need not to be eliminated from any civilization but the superior need is to direct these prejudices in the optimistic track to get the better use of it. This is the chief motive that some of the journalists have disliked the possibilities for eliminating prejudices and bias from the society. Jonathan Rauch is one of the writers who contend that by capitalizing more on prejudices we might be able to play on the fundamental prejudices in any culture. In his article, In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech must be Protected, Jonathan Rauch proclaims that his object is not of protecting any type of prejudice rather his article is supporting ‘intellectual pluralism’.  Thesis Societies cannot flourish without prejudice. Analysis of "In Defense of Prejudice" Jonathan Rauch asserts in his article "In Defense of Prejudice" that in its effort to defend smaller factions of society from "hate speech" civilization is confining intellectual freedom and proposes that a methodology permitting liberty of expression and discussion of detestable philosophies will eventually lead to a more flexible and welcoming society. To nurture admiration for his proposal rather than laying it off as the nonsense of a romantic and an idealist, it is imperative to comprehend the article’s context and author’s circumstances. Jonathan Rauch is a homosexual, Jewish author, journalist and a futurist, born 1960 in Phoenix, Arizona. After his graduation from Yale University, Rauch started work at the Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina, for the National Journal magazine, and ultimately as a self-employed writer. A criticizer of U.S. government civic policy in general, and particularly in its association with homosexuals, Rauch has followed homosexual-related subjects as an explicitly homosexual author since 1991, and is a keen supporter of same-sex matrimony. The author, being a Jew and a homosexual has clearly been exposed to bias in the past, which makes his writing-piece all the more influential. The article is not coming from a disgruntled individual on the top of the social ladder, it is written by the kind of individual who believes that hate-crime regulations are meant to safeguard. Rauch initiates by asserting that bias is an inevitable aspect of humankind, that "Homo sapiens is a tribal species for whom "us versus them" comes naturally and must be continually pushed back." This intolerant nature he says is accountable for small factions being battered, as what is inexplicable is naturally dreaded, he senses that this nature is an inherent component of civilization, "for as thickheaded and wayward an animal as us, the realistic question is how to make the best of prejudice, not how to eradicate it." So how to make the better and the most of prejudice? Rauch proposes that to disapprove prejudice only makes it stronger, and lashes out against those "crusaders for sweetness and light" whom he tags as "purists." He asserts that in the purist’s effort to eliminate cruel words from general use they have lent a type of "shamanistic" supremacy to them, as however the words could now cause corporal destruction. He quotes a sample of the use of the word "nigger" by Charles Lawrence in 1990; "The experience of being called 'nigger,' 'spic,' 'Jap,' or 'kike' is like receiving a slap in the face," In their benevolent effort to defend the purists have become authoritarian in substance, like the church in its effort to terminate McCarthyites and heretics trying to abolish communalism the purists have gone way too far. The philology used by the purists takes on a terrifyingly acquainted attitude. In his assessment it is not only for ease and parity that prejudice must be demolished, it is for the very protection of the individuals. It advances a whole new logic of earnestness to the purist’s grounds. If an individual, in front of the public lets an aggressive word to slide then he/she must be immediately muzzled, Rauch cites numerous examples of university professors losing their professions or being forced into taking therapy for accounts ranging from accidental to slightly offensive. The effort to eliminate prejudice is not possible asserts Rauch, which he infers to reflect that at some point in our lifetimes we all get involved in prejudice or discriminatory feelings. Bias or Prejudice is not a "mental disease" asserts Rauch, he deliberates it completely natural, it is the fierce or destructive action grounded in prejudice that is incorrect. Additionally how does one eradicate prejudice or bias? Is it by banning all linguistics that can be perceived as detestable? The terminologies of the racialist are endless says Rauch, if they aren't permitted to say "kike" then they will utter "Hebe" or "Jew-boy", and if those are banned then ultimately words as inoffensive as table and jug will be used. But if there is no effort to condemn "hate speech" then won't prejudice run widespread? Won’t subgroups be harassed and mistreated? Rauch doesn't think so, he supports "intellectual pluralism" with which we "kill our mistakes, rather than each other." Rauch hold true that if racists are permitted to openly express their views rather than simmer them in secretive places they will be subject to communal inquiry and will be obligated to protect their principles rationally. He asserts that only in rational pluralism is discord permitted, and though the dissenter may be incorrect, at least they are generously permitted to express their thoughts. In his arguments "bigotry and brilliance are empowered in the same stroke." He associates this model to the scientific technique where all ideas are tried, inspected, and eventually established or refuted. Nevertheless the structure itself is as impartial as anything; the science experts that use the method are just as prejudiced as every Tom, Dick, and Harry in society. In the scientific technique, good designs are selected and bad ones fade away. Just as in culture, Rauch asserts, if discrimination is permitted liberty of expression and freedom of speech, then the racists become the social dissenters of their own settlement, rather than being coerced into muteness by the purists, his expectation is that such a scheme will eventually lead to parity and acceptance, without the requirement for cerebral despotism. Therefore it can be concluded that bias is a necessary evil which plays a crucial role in the development of society. Hence societies cannot flourish without prejudice Works Cited Rauch, Jonathan. In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected. PDF. Read More