The Racism Problem - Essay Example

?Social psychologist need to be careful how they approach research on racism so they do not add to the problem. Critically discuss this ment. The issue of racism or racial discrimination is a social phenomenon. It is brought about by both individual and institutional actions and behavior. This is the reason why social psychologists are frequently called upon to explain the concept, identify problems, suggest solutions, criticize and affirm relevant policies, perspectives, and so on. They figure prominently in the attempt to make sense of the problem, where a need to examine the psychology of the relationship between individuals and individuals and institutions and their impact on racial prejudice are paramount. While this situation is ideal, there are instances when problems arise because some social psychological research theories can aggravate racism either by faulty analysis, misinterpretation and bias of various forms. Mainstream View Racism is currently perceived to be in decline in the United States. Since the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s, America has adopted several policies and initiatives that sought to address this issue and discrimination and vigorously pursued the goal of equality. This entails a mainstream view that what the American government has done and is doing is adequate and no further action or improvement is needed on existing policies. However, this mainstream view is currently considered as the new racism. It is characterized by a clear denial of discrimination and cases such as an irritation or anger directed at minorities who ask for equal treatment. (Pennington 2000, p. 124) One can identify this when whites raise the issue of the so-called reverse racism, as they resent the fact that minorities are perceived to receive special treatment. The mainstream view that the racism problem is in decline can attributed to the how the mainstream social scientists are mostly composed of white analysts. According to Feagin (2010), because of this, the social sciences in America, which is responsible for the extremely influential racism theories and concepts, have usually found it difficult to examine the problem from any but a white racial framing. (p.4) Although, admittedly, most of the theories about race and ethnic relations such as those posited by imminent social scientists like Robert Park and Milton Gordon are liberal in their perspectives, the theories still fail to account for a truly minority point of view. What this reflects is that the tools and instruments by which society and the policy networks peruse in their actions and behaviors can often be constrained by a number of variables that contribute to the limited understanding of the issue. When this is added to the complexities of the social environment it brings about an overload, which is usually negotiated through categorization. Categorization McGarty (1999) explained that categorization is selective and over-generalized perception that eventually ends up in erroneous and biased perspectives. (p. 82) As previously cited, many social scientists are dominated by white Americans, highlighting a limited perspective that, unfortunately, is still the single major resource in the study of racial prejudice. The problem is highlighted by the fact that racism has cognitive origins because it is based on stereotypical beliefs and attitudes. Social scientists are not immune to categorization. Most social scientists will agree that it is impossible to assume a purely objective role in the study of racism. Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson (2009), for instance, argued that it is natural to be biased and that humans who think rationally and systematically are prone to make prejudiced judgments. (p. 21) In the study and theoretical development of racism, hypotheses are made, social phenomena have to be observed, conflicting variables have to be assessed and conclusions have to be drafted. Social scientists, as humans, have their own thoughts, biases and predispositions that impact their perceptions, theories and propositions. A negative consequence that can be identified among the works of the predominantly white social scientists in the United States is how, for several decades, research on anti-black racism and discrimination has focused the source of the hatred and prejudice among white people. According to Jackson and Weidman (2005), the oppressed and victimized never received any focus as scholars attempt to understand the hatred not primarily for the sake of the victims but for the sake of the American democratic values. (p. 188) The authors also cited how social scientist view the Black and Jewish experiences. It was noted how, in the body of literature, many social scientists focus on how the Black psyche are damaged as a result of racism while the Jews are perceived as unharmed. (p. 188) It is clear from these examples that there are generalizations involved in social sciences. This is further depicted in the field of social cognition. Social Cognition and New Racism In social cognition, the relationship between social scientists and racism or its aggravation can easily be understood. Social cognition is concerned with cognitive processes that emerge as people think about and perceive the social world. According to Roskos-Ewoldsen and Monahan (2007), it emphasizes critical cognitive concepts such as perspective, memory and thought in investigating how social information is acquired and used as knowledge and what processes transpire when people act and make judgments and decisions. (p. 1) Social cognition is an important field in social science. Unfortunately, it has similarities with new racism. For example, Augoustinos and Reynold (2001) pointed out that both assume race as a natural category, an assumption, which, of course, leads categorization and stereotyping. The variables entailed in this argument are numerous but it brings everything back to the fundamental principle of ethnic prejudice that emerges as people generalize others into categories. (p. 7) This led to the reification of race as the concept is believed to be socially constructed and that it was elevated to an ontological status that is not unlike social class. (Niemonen 2002, p. 49) Unfortunately, this encourages stereotyping in the social sciences especially in cases of unreflective experimental methods, which is opposed to the deliberative thought process, which ideally prevents such stereotyping. It also leads to the prevailing view that is generally oriented to individual or small-group processes, eventually, failing to cover what Feagin called as the deep structural foundation wherein acts of discrimination are always found. (p. 5) Conclusion Social scientists are first and foremost human. They are prone to the biases that characterize humans as rational species. Often, these biases are reflected in their work and theories. The similarities between social cognition and the new racisms demonstrated this argument best. This is the reason why there is a need for reflective experiments and deliberative approaches wherein biases are evaluated and declared in social scientific investigations and publications. All in all, these points collectively underscore how social scientists can add to the racism problem. Perhaps, the identification of this dilemma should help social scientists to be more careful in their practice. References Augoustinos, M. and Reynolds, K. (2001). Understanding prejudice, racism, and social conflict. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Blackwell, J., Murray, E.G. and Sorenson, J. (2009). Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Feagin, J. (2010). The white racial frame: centuries of racial framing and counter-framing. New York: Taylor & Francis. Jackson, J. and Weidman, N. (2005). Race, racism, and science: social impact and interaction. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. London: SAGE. Niemonen, J. (2002). Race, class, and the state in contemporary sociology: the William Julius Wilson debates. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pennington, D. (2000). Social cognition. London: Routledge. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. and Monahan, J. (2007). Communication and social cognition: theories and methods. London: Routledge. Read More