Prejudice and Discrimination - Coursework Example

Prejudice and Discrimination PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Introduction Prejudice and discrimination can be considered as integrative power that is manifested negatively and, instead of holding or bringing society together, discrimination and prejudice tend to pull society apart. However, discrimination and prejudice involve a form of relationship because people in society must be aware of the existence of another group or person. This presence of a relationship in any form, including a negative one, denotes the presence of integration, which Phillips (2013: p55) referred to as disintegrative power that involves integration in society that is based on the fear, hatred, and threat of a common foe or enemy. Such a relationship is visible in nationalism, military patriotism, and other situations that involve negative identity, especially where a particular group is defined in terms of what they are not. This situation could be particularly destructive and obvious if it occurs on a scale as large as that witnessed in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Somalia, and the Balkans. However, it also happens on a smaller scale, in which a specific group negatively stereotypes another and holds prejudicial and discriminatory views about them on the basis of their stereotypes (Phillips, 2013: p57). This paper will seek to discuss the impact of prejudice and discrimination on overall international peace and security, its implication on human rights and future violent conflict, and possible methods of reducing its causes and consequences. Theoretical Framework There are two theories that seem especially relevant in explaining the prevalence of prejudice and discrimination in societies across the world, which are the realistic conflict theory and the relative deprivation theory. The realistic conflict theory posits that hostility among groups is bred by direct competition for resources that are limited but valuable. If one group performs poorly, it becomes resentful and frustrated, while the group that performs better in accessing these resources feels protective and threatened; a situation, which potentially can degenerate into conflict (Davidson, 2013: p62). This theory also uses inter-group hostility as an explanation for prejudicial and discriminatory feelings, towards the out-group within the disintegrative relationship. The realistic conflict theory aids in explaining prejudice and discrimination against various racial and ethnic communities, such as in cross-cultural studies that contend that hostility and conflict between various groups escalates, in correlation, to resource shortage. In situations where a community or group feels that, there are resources only available to another group, and they are limited in nature. They could attempt to remove their main source of competition for those resources. This competition can be removed by decreasing the out-group’s proximity to the resources via punitive immigration laws and decreasing the out-group’s capabilities through punitive tariffs and expression of negative attitudes, i.e. prejudice and discrimination (Davidson, 2013: p68). The relative deprivation theory posits that people resent specific groups because they feel relatively deprived in comparison to them. Some groups in society feel discontented when they compare their position to other groups in the same society, especially if they feel the other group has more of what they also feel entitled to. Lee (2011: p102) contends that relative deprivation is a potential cause of social deviance and movements, which, in turn, could lead to political violence and subsequent violation of human rights. Prejudicial and discriminatory social movements rise from grievances of groups that are deprived of values they feel entitled to and when they cannot match their goals, they turn to such deviant behaviour. These feelings of deprivation tend to be relative due to their origin in social norm comparisons, especially those that differ from place and time and are not absolute. When a specific group feels that their social norms, in comparison to another, are not compatible, they begin to stereotype these groups, resulting in prejudice and possible discrimination (Lee, 2011: p104). Impact of Prejudice and Discrimination on Overall International Peace and Security The UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has sought to mainstream an agenda item for some years concerning the threat to global peace and security, especially that resulting from prejudice and discrimination that is not attended to (Lauren, 2011: p22). This threat becomes ever more potent when it affects religious, ethnic, or racial groups, which is especially evident in European history. In this case, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities based on years of prejudice and discrimination provided justification and opportunity for armed intervention, both internal and external. Most countries in the world are plural societies, meaning that they consist of religious, racial, and/or ethnic groups that have pervasive divisions among them that may have led to conflict in the past. As some of these countries have just become independent in the last sixty or so years, they are yet to integrate these sections of society, whose differences are strained further by power struggles and resource limitation. Where there are prejudicial and discriminatory feelings among the groups, inherent instability offers the opportunity for other outside powers to intervene in protection of their fellow group’s rights, increasing the levels of international tension (Lauren, 2011: p22). An intricate relationship exists between international tensions in an ever more polarized global society and internal violence among groups in plural societies that have pervasive discriminatory tendencies (Stroebe et al, 2010: p193). Groups that feel discriminated against resort to destabilization tactics if no other realistic basis for regime change is available. If there are similar groups in power in other countries, this could result in armed support for these out-groups. The level of internal violence in Lebanon, for example, was raised due to the discrimination against Shi’a Muslims who received support from the mainly Shiite Iran. This, in turn, drew other Middle Easter powers into the fray and resulted in further conflicts, in Syria. Another example, according to Stroebe et al (2010: p195), is the civil war in Nigeria, in which the Ibo sought self-determination due to years of prejudice and discrimination in the North of Nigeria that resulted in several massacres of the Ibo people. Their quest for self-determination drew in either several world powers who supported the Ibo or the Nigerian government, which, in turn, destabilized the Western African region and spilled over into the Ivory Coast and Niger. In some circumstances, there are well-defined self-determination cycles that could start with reform demands by a group that suffers prejudice and discrimination in a pluralistic society, such as the PLO in Israeli-occupied Palestinian lands (Dixon et al, 2010: p409). In this case, the government may either ignore the demands or legislate reforms that they do not intend to implement, or even make insignificant and minor concessions. This leads to resentment as the demands from the discriminated group get more extensive and, finally, they seek to move away from the government through a secession movement. This could be in the form of sabotage or movements steeped in fundamentalism and subsequent terrorism, to which the government that represents the holders of prejudice and discrimination overreacts through indiscriminate violence and repression against the racial or ethnic out-group (Dixon et al, 2010: p410). This escalates the discrimination into violence and generates a refugee situation. In addition, these out-groups could have members who extend to more than one country, which will give the out-group’s activities an international dimension, threatening international peace and security. Implications for Progression in Relation to Human Rights Freedom from discrimination, as well as prejudice, is recognized internationally as a human right, especially by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as being enshrined in international human rights laws like the ICCPR and the ICESC (Maoz & McCauley, 2011: p897). This right is particularly relevant for those groups that have a historical tendency to be discriminated against, such as racial and ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and women. However, discrimination due to these factors continues to be a pervasive part of societies across the world, such as Shi’a Muslims being discriminated in countries with majority Sunni Muslim populations. There is now an almost universal consensus that everyone is entitled to at least the most fundamental rights, whatever the circumstances. Some of these rights include political rights and civil rights that are fundamental to the physical safety and right to life of minorities and under-threat populations (Maoz & McCauley, 2011: p897). Human rights articulate the need for societal mutual respect, tolerance, justice, and human dignity. Although these perpetrators of discriminations, as well as the settings in which discrimination occurs, could vary, prejudice and ignorance are at the centre of all types of discrimination (Kallen, 2014: p82). Discrimination in society or from the hands of government officials involves human rights violations. Discrimination, which is the systematic denial of an out-group’s human rights due to their beliefs or identity, ends up benefiting those responsible for the acts of discrimination. If the discrimination is extended by enshrining it in law, such as the restriction of religious rights, it essentially denies these out-groups their human rights. Lerner (2013: p77) holds that discrimination leads to specific people being denied equal rights and protection under the law, and when there are international tensions resulting from discrimination, there are usually attacks that target people due to their religious, ethnic, or racial orientation. When discrimination extends to law enforcement agencies, specific out-groups are considered potential criminals by the authorities, which makes them more likely to be imprisoned or arrested arbitrarily. In addition, they will also tend to suffer harsher treatment that could include ill-treatment and torture when they are in the criminal justice system. The identity of an individual in overtly prejudicial and discriminatory societies also impact on the nature of ill treatment (Kallen, 2014: p82). Prejudice and discrimination based on race are present in majority of societies and, according to Crandall et al (2011: p1493), most victims of police brutality and violation of human rights are members of a minority community, especially black people. Ill-treatment of minorities and subsequent human rights violations is increasingly nourished by prejudicial and discriminatory responses perpetuated by society and the criminal justice system to immigrants and refugees fleeing from violent discrimination in other countries. For instance, human rights violations against indigenous people in the US, South Africa, and Australia, particularly with regards to land rights, continues to be a legacy of centuries of discrimination. This is because the indigenous people of these countries are not proportionately represented and tend to be the poorest population in these countries. This poverty, which could be considered a human rights violation, is rooted in years of colonization and systematic discrimination of these populations, particularly with regards to their collective and individual rights, such as forced societal assimilation, and loss of control over resources (Crandall et al, 2011: p1493). Implications Relating to Future Violent Conflicts Since minority-majority relations that are at the core of prejudice and discriminations in most societies normally exist as a relationship and function of power, the potential for conflict and actual conflict is an ever-present threat (Gabarrot et al, 2009: p263). In situations where the out-group that is discriminated against attempts to alter power distribution, there is likely to be overt conflict, as a result. The size of a specific group does not automatically determine the power of that group, as is evidenced by the case in Apartheid South Africa, in which the minority held more political representation and power than majority black South Africans. This attempt to redress the balance of power by out-groups, who suffer prejudice and discrimination, as is in the example in Syria and Bahrain today, could lead to conflict. These conflicts could progress, as they have in Syria, beyond the point at which the government or international law could intervene. Thus, as victims of conflict grow in number, the legal resolution of discriminatory acts of violence becomes more difficult to take up (Gabarrot et al, 2009: p263). In circumstances such as these, it is more difficult to reconcile resolution of long-standing resentment and discrimination, conflict resolution, and human rights protection. Pereira et al (2010: p1236) contends that initiatives meant to reduce tensions emanating from majority-minority relations have largely failed due to deep rooted prejudice and discrimination, especially where tensions exist within states. Intra-state conflicts between out-groups and in-groups normally have the potential to escalate into violence. Where there are no countries willing to absorb refugees fleeing from violent manifestations of discrimination, widespread aggression against out-group civilians, crimes against humanity, and/or genocide is usually the result. Out-group/in-group dynamics tend to dehumanize one group though stereotyping and prejudice, which leads to discrimination as the more powerful groups seek to maintain political control at the expense or others (Pereira et al, 2010: p1237). Resultant conflict is mainly based on differences between the groups, rather than ideas or principles, which makes the potential for severe discrimination more psychologically feasible. At the heart of conflicts, resulting from severe prejudice and resultant discrimination is an attack on human rights. Herrmann et al (2009: p732) notes the strong interdependence between severe discrimination, human rights violations, and inevitable conflict, noting that severe discrimination usually leads to human rights abuses and conflict, while conflict also leads to more entrenched severe discrimination and human rights abuses. Therefore, it is not surprising that discrimination is often at the core of most conflicts and that the protection of out-groups and their human rights is a central tenet in resolution of conflicts. Severe discrimination and prejudicial attitudes in Crimea, for example, has led to denial of cultural life, employment, housing, and food to Tartar out-groups who are excluded from decision making in society, which has the potential to result in social unrest. Severe discrimination and prejudicial attitudes also result in overall poverty and food shortages for the out-groups, which leads to increased human rights violations as these groups attempt to arrive, at self-determination, to improve their situation (Herrmann et al, 2009: p734). This makes reconciliation more difficult and, when conflict arises, peace-building is almost impossible to achieve, contributing to escalation into violent conflict. Possible Methods for Elimination or Drastic Reduction of Causes and Consequences of Prejudice and Discrimination Prejudice must be studied extensively in different situations under which it manifests because it is the pre-cursor of discrimination. According to Boucher (2011: p138), single or multiple causes act as contributing factors to prejudice and subsequent discrimination and, in order to at least reduce the conditions that cause it, there needs to be implementation of simultaneous and multiple methods. Although research has claimed that evolutionary and genetic changes should be the first step in the study to tackle causes of prejudice and discrimination, these remain highly unrealistic and more realistic methods like legislative changes and changes to interpersonal influence and widespread norms should be used to change evolutionary and genetic inheritance of prejudice. Changes to widespread norms and discriminatory laws are the most powerful means to change and influence human interaction via mandatory desegregation. In addition, changes in influence processes for large groups in society, such as labour roles, the education system, and mass media will have a significant impact due to their broad-based effort scale (Boucher, 2011: p139). Processes that seek to influence interpersonal relations transform groups and individuals through psychotherapeutic methods, which concentrate on altering the attitudes of individual members in society. Grusky & Szelényi (2011: p45) contends that attempts to effect a reduction of discrimination and prejudice and their impact on society should delve into the initial causes of discrimination and prejudice. This involves the identification of behavioural, affective, and cognitive dimensions of attitudes in society, which combine in individuals, to come up with prejudicial attitudes and subsequent discriminatory beliefs and actions. In addition, these dimensions of attitudes are developed and propagated through social, inter-group, and intra-group interactions. Thus, it is up to social science researchers to develop wide scale methods for reduction of discrimination and prejudice from these attitude dimensions for implementation. Through changes in the manner through which people interact within society, it is hoped that there will be a consequential long term change in deep rooted and evolutionary predispositions that cause people to engage in prejudice and discrimination (Grusky & Szelényi, 2011: p48). In the short term, this will also reduce the consequences of prejudice and discrimination noted in the sections above. References Boucher, J.-N. (2011). The Approach of Emotional Deactivation of Prejudice. Education, Knowledge & Economy: A Journal for Education and Social Enterprise. 4(3), 135-141. Crandall, C.; Bahns, A.; Warner, R. & Schaller, M. (2011). Stereotypes as justifications of prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 37(11), 1488-1498. Davidson, T. (2013). Prejudice. New York, Franklin Watts. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L., Clack, B., & Eaton, L. (2010). A Paradox of Integration? Interracial Contact, Prejudice Reduction, and Perceptions of Racial Discrimination. Journal of Social Issues. 66(2), 401-416. Gabarrot, F., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Mugny, G. (2009). Being similar versus being equal: Inter-group similarity moderates the influence of in-group norms on discrimination and prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology. 48(2), 253-273. Grusky, D. B., & Szelényi, S. (2011). The inequality reader: contemporary and foundational readings in race, class, and gender. Boulder, CO, Westview Press. Herrmann, R. K., Isernia, P., & Segatti, P. (2009). Attachment to the Nation and International Relations: Dimensions of Identity and Their Relationship to War and Peace. Political Psychology. 30(5), 721-754. Kallen, E. (2014). Social inequality and social injustice: a human rights perspective. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Lauren, P. G. (2011). Power and prejudice: the politics and diplomacy of racial discrimination. Boulder, Westview Press. Lee, G. (2011). Discrimination. Vero Beach, Fla, Rourke. Lerner, N. (2013). Group rights and discrimination in international law. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Maoz, I., & McCauley, C. (2011). Explaining Support for Violating Out-Group Human Rights in Conflict: Attitudes Toward Principles of Human Rights, Trust in the Out-Group, and Inter-group Contact¹. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 41(4), 891-905. Pereira, C., Vala, J., & Costa-Lopes, R. (2010). From prejudice to discrimination: The legitimizing role of perceived threat in discrimination against immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology. 40(7), 1231-1250. Phillips, A. (2013). Discrimination. New York, New Discovery Books. Stroebe, K., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2010). Experiencing Discrimination: How Members of Disadvantaged Groups Can Be Helped to Cope with Discrimination. Social Issues and Policy Review. 4(1), 181-213. Read More