The following article was submitted by Nicholas Soucy © 2004. Take your time and read it thoroughly. It has a lot to offer on the sociological, philosophical and historical views on bigotry. We thank Nicholas for his insightful contribution to the Ethical Atheist.
Historical Lies and Excuses: An Examination of the Illogical Justifications for BigotryAs decades pass and as critical evaluation of historical documents is done, more is understood about “truth” with regard to human behavior and actions. Even a somewhat censored, conservative view of history will still recognize the existence of several forms of hatred and fear in the form of homophobia and racism. Some have attempted to rationalize such attitudes with various arguments. A growing concern surrounding such bigotry is how to combat each form. As we know, racism unfairly discriminates against a person or a people because of the ascribed ethnic status and subsequently, their moral worth in society. Similarly, homophobia is the irrational fear and hatred of gays and lesbians for various reasons. Considering the definitions and substance of racism and homophobia, there can be no moral justification for either, even when one evaluates historical context. Those who argue contrary to this idea are merely making excuses for bigotry. Morality is not transient; the Golden Rule perseveres through evolving social conditions. Collectively, people ought to work harder to counter bigotry; rather than highlighting historical “reasons” for prejudice, the solution should be found by admitting responsibility for choosing immorality, and working to deny this choice in the future.
Ethicists and sociologists have drafted three perspectives in attempt to understand and classify the genesis of racism and homophobia, respectively. The first, called the moral perspective, offers an important observation: although fear or ignorance or religion might lead people to be bigoted, there is a concrete and deliberate decision involved with being bigoted (Martin). Put differently, people are not bigoted only because of emotional or social pressure, but because they choose to ignore reason, despite their knowledge that it is immoral to practice bigoted thought and action (Martin). The emphasis on the free will exercised in the decision to discriminate is crucial to understanding the moral perspective. The substance that ought to be taken from this theory is that excuses for racism and homophobia ought to be disavowed and ignored. If one has the autonomy to decide to be unjustly prejudiced toward a group, then likewise, a person has equal capacity to choose the opposite. By choosing not to be bigoted, one helps prevent the violation of the rights of other human beings.
Some might consider the persons behind religious ideas act as vehicles through which racism and homophobia have been brought into the world. When discussing religion as a source of racist and homophobic behavior, one has to be careful about which religions contributed to these behaviors, to what degree, and with regard to which of the three perspectives. This helps avoid unfairly criticizing those few religious lifestyles that do not endorse bigotry. Religion engenders ideas that are difficult to discuss because religion involves both abstract, metaphysical ideas and concrete, physical worshippers. Christianity has been especially contributory to homophobia and racism. The Holy Bible, as Christianity's moral bedrock, cites several instances wherein God has discouraged gay behavior. One might argue that religious prejudice has little to do with choice, and more with deference to a higher being. Religious persons, with the Bible as their “proof” of divine command, can use the Will of God as a scapegoat, thus allowing them to avoid blame for bigotry. Certainly, if God were offended by gays and supported slavery, then the autonomy highlighted under the moral perspective ceases to matter, for although one has free will, in order to be a devout Christian, one must not act contrary to God's will. However, this hypothesis is not convincing to atheists who believe in no gods, nor to those gays and lesbians her suffer the pains of religion-endorsed discrimination.
Alternatively, one could argue that prejudice is traced to biological reasons (Martin). This idea suggests that the human tendency to form groups for survival leads to prejudice that is relatively natural and that it cannot be prevented. Natural, under this theory, would mean that historical behaviors largely defined modern behaviors; relative to this definition, natural prejudice does not necessarily correlate to the rules of the natural world (e.g., the laws of gravity). This perspective acknowledges that racism and homophobia exist, but that historical tendencies to form groups are to blame for the hatred of other “groups” of people. Clearly, this theory is flawed. While one definition of grouping refers to several people banding together against nature to survive, the second definition refers to groups who have abstract differences, such as lifestyle and ideological differences. It may have been true that a pack of six Neanderthals fought with another pack to prevent theft of food and usurpation of shelter. However, one cannot correctly suggest that in a modern city (where gays, lesbians, heterosexuals, blacks, Latinos and whites typically live and work together) people would need to alienate one of these groups in order to survive. Whereas Neanderthals were concerned with survival, the racists and bigots of today are concerned with their own tastes and preferences. For instance, neighboring a Mexican lesbian couple will not elicit a primal biological need for self-defense. With this we can understand how claiming that modern bigotry is akin to prehistoric grouping does not logically follow. The biological perspective is incorrect and based on mere excuses and false conclusions.
Historians find a different explanation under the psychological-sociological perspective, which offers that such things as economic inequality and conformity to social behaviors reveal the existence of bigotry. This is a misleading definition; this theory proposes that bigotry would exist because people conform to “society”. This thinking greatly reveals what is wrong with this historical analysis, that people attempt to blame nonhuman abstractions like “society” for their own human immorality. A society would not exist without the humans who live within it, and social deviance and bigotry only exist because people choose to engage in it. One related argument claims that an idea called presentism (which fits under the umbrella of the psychological-social perspective) must be used to understand context, relativity and the ideas of the times (Romantic). For instance, although slavery of Africans by North Americans has since been recognized as an abhorrence in history, a presentist might argue that it is unfair to judge a slave owner of the eighteenth century because slavery was socially acceptable. This thinking is often referred to ethical conventionalism (Martin). The problem with this is that ethical conventionalism is not a consistent enough theory because it can lead to the unjust exoneration of persons, simply because the times in which they lived did not oppose bigotry. To cite the customs of one's society as satisfactory justification for discrimination is little more than a self-deceiving tactic (Martin). Conveniently acquiescing to social pressures is also a weakness of will (Martin). Instead of doing what ought to be done (morally), the conventionalist is deliberately lethargic and submits to the urge to be immoral as others do. If racists, sexists and homophobes are granted amnesty because of historical presence of bigotry, then historians have implicitly turned modern people into deniers of the truth. In this effort to contextualize historical events or attitudes, the presentist claims that what modern culture assumes immoral is not necessarily what people of different centuries thought immoral. Such arguments try to maintain that social convention becomes the mandate of the masses, thereby alleviating the responsibility of evaluating moral behavior. The mantra that a person does or did not “know any better”, is escapist thought. A presentist believes that one who allows bigotry or perpetuates it is simply a victim of ignorance and should not be blamed for his or her immorality (Romantic).
Hopeful philosophers have offered two goals regarding the end of prejudice. Under the assimilationist ideal, skin color and racial or ethnic classification would have no particular connection with how individuals are treated (Martin).
The second goal, called the pluralistic ideal, would continue to recognize racial-ethnic and gender differences as socially significant instead of pretending that physical differences do not actually exist (Martin). Though matters of legal justice would be blind to these salient and recognized human distinctions (e.g., body type, facial features, hair and skin color, etc.), the distinctions would remain to help with educational and social groups, or perhaps to maintain unique cultural heritage (Martin). Each ideal has its respective flaws, but the pluralistic ideal is more realistic and practical especially in the efforts made to preserve and study human heritage for historical memory.Some sociologists have suggested for racism to be resolved that extensive contact must be established between the bigot and the cultural minority. They qualify this definition of contact theory with a few stipulations (Sociology). First, the contact must be between two persons of equal social status. For instance, the interaction of an impoverished Latino janitor and a wealthy white CEO in the same office would do little to reduce prejudice. Second, the interaction must be sustained long enough to allow a true relationship to evolve. Weeklong interactions would not be ample enough for each involved party to gain a new understanding of one another. Finally, contact theorists recommend that the two parties involved interact willingly (Sociology). A forced interaction between Black Panthers and Klansmen, for example, would not produce favorable results for obvious reasons. It is probable that principles of contact theory could be directly applied to homophobes and the gay community. However, the contact theory used to combat either racism or homophobia would not be effective under enough circumstances to completely eradicate the bigotry.
Solutions to immoral acts associated with racism and homophobia are not as clear and expedient as one might hope. Time can be a great weapon to be implemented against human ignorance. With time, one can hope to see discrimination disappear as the world becomes more tolerant. Generational tolerance comes with its own problems, however: political correctness, language codes and protection laws can appear to be more helpful than they actually are. It is not enough to force tolerance by censoring bigots, euphemizing the vernacular, and implementing bureaucratic programs to protect rights. While these may be steps in a direction that leads to the end of some bigotry, there remains a baggage of resentment carried by those racists and homophobes who still oppose the prospect of interracial marriage, affirmative action and gay adoption. The assumption is naïve that time will heal the wounds caused by bigotry without demanding extensive human education about the worthiness of human cultural differences. The belonging of a homosexual orientation or a racial minority group is often considered to be a belonging to a subculture. Accepting and embracing sub-cultural differences in sexual orientation or race and ethnicity is a different act than merely tolerating them.
Instead of battling for compromises that leave both parties unsatisfied, certain people should realize that a need for compromise does not actually exist. The premises of racism and homophobia are false, and they deny human rights to human beings. In other words, the idea is false that there is a moral ambiguity about irrationally discriminating against another person; morality unambiguously demands that bigotry not exist. The idea that one group would need to learn to tolerate another seems counterintuitive, for if all humans are indeed human, then what rights would need negotiating? Unfortunately, this idealistic hypothesis has not proven very accurate throughout history. In many cases, people of different moral codes cohabit one area, and therefore compromise is necessary to prevent wars and to protect each respective party from rights deprivation and general unhappiness.
The three aforementioned perspectives that claim to describe sources of racism are merely suggesting scapegoats, blameworthy proxies that can be hung like cloth in front of the humans who are to blame, so that no one will see the proverbial “man behind the curtain”. One cannot propose a singular solution that will guarantee the end of human bigotry. History suggests that as long as humans have the choice to be bigoted toward others, then at least a few (million) will make this decision. However, subtle steps can be taken legally, morally and religiously to ensure that prejudice and discrimination are at least minimized. The re-evaluation or personal morals is fundamental for compromise; if one simply considers the absurdity of choosing to be bigoted, then the reality might just become evident. Once racists and homophobes are willing to admit that no excuses exist for bigotry, then the social repairs can commence. This is the clearest way to address the problem: recognize that blaming only religion or social standards or history for bigotry is deceitful and nonsensical. The truth is that religion, society and history would not exist without the humans who created them. Blaming religion or society for bigotry is comparable to blaming guns for killing living creatures. True, religion and social standards can make prejudice more easily realized, as guns can help end a life, but none of these things would exist if not for the human decision to create them. Indeed, the only reason a society would ever allow racism or homophobia is because the persons who make up that society willingly choose to be bigoted, or to conveniently allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking bigotry is excusable. Social and historical standards that endorse racism only exist because in the beginning, as now, there were people who chose to endorse it. The Golden Rule asks that all persons treat others with respect and without harm. Despite that previous societies may have believed so, bigotry is not an exception to this rule.
Article submitted by Nicholas Soucy © 2004.
Works CitedHoly Bible. “God”; various prophets and kings. Date of creation unknown.
Mike W. Martin: Everyday Morality third edition. Wadsworth. 2001. Belmont, Canada. Classroom Text.
Romantic Circles Website: University of Maryland. 2004. 26 April 2004. Par. 8.
http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/contemporary/mandell/forum_intro.htmlSociology: the Essentials. Second ed. Anderson, Margaret, Taylor, Howard. 2003. Wadsworth. P.635 par. 11. This is a standard textbook that introduces the fundamentals of the science of sociology.