If you take a look again at the weekly resources it is located there under ‘ Articles, Websites, and Videos:’ – It appears like this. This is Harvards Implicit Bias test where y

Chapter: 4

Understanding Racism, Prejudice, and White Privilege

4-1Defining and Contextualizing Racism

4-1

Hoyt Jr. (2012) defines racism as “a particular form of prejudice defined by preconceived erroneous beliefs about race and members of racial groups.” It is supported simultaneously by individuals, the institutional practices of society, and dominant cultural values and norms. Racism is a universal phenomenon that exists across cultures and tends to emerge wherever ethnic diversity and perceived or real differences in group characteristics become part of a struggle for social power. In the case of the United States, African Americans, Latinos/as, Native Americans, and Asian Americans—groups that we have been referring to as people of color—have been systematically subordinated by the white majority.

· Prejudice and racism are not the same thing. Prejudice is a negative, inaccurate, rigid, and unfair way of thinking about members of another group. All human beings hold prejudices. This is true for people of color, as well as for majority group members. But there is a crucial difference between the prejudices held by whites and those held by people of color. whites have more power to enact their prejudices and therefore negatively impact the lives of people of color than vice versa. The term  racism  is used in relation to the racial attitudes and behavior of majority group members. Similar attitudes and behaviors on the part of people of color are referred to as  prejudice  and discrimination (a term commonly used to mean actions taken on the basis of one’s prejudices). Another way of describing this relationship is that prejudice plus power equals racism.

· Racism is a broad and all-pervasive social phenomenon that is mutually reinforced at all levels of society.

· Institutional racism  involves the manipulation of societal institutions to give preferences and advantages to whites and at the same time restrict the choices, rights, mobility, and access of people of color.

· Cultural racism  is the belief that the cultural ways of one group are superior to those of another. Cultural racism can be found both in individuals and in institutions. In the former, it is often referred to as ethnocentrism. Jones (2000) mentioned that historical insults, societal norms, unearned privilege, and structural barriers are all aspects of institutional racism.

· People tend to deny, rationalize, and avoid discussing their feelings and beliefs about race and ethnicity. Often, these feelings remain unconscious and are brought to awareness only with great difficulty.

· When young children hear the stories of people of color, they tend to feel deeply and sincerely with the storyteller. “I’m really sorry that you had to go through that” is the most common reaction of a child. By the time one reaches adulthood, however, the empathy is often gone. Instead, reactions tend to involve minimizing, justifying, rationalizing, or other forms of emotional blocking. Human service providers are no less susceptible to such defensive behavior, but they must force themselves to look inward if they are sincere in their commitment to work effectively cross-culturally. For this reason, this chapter concludes with a set of activities and exercises aimed at stimulating self-awareness.

4-1aIndividual Racism and Prejudice

The burning question that arises when one tries to understand the dynamics of individual racism is: Why is it so easy for individuals to develop and retain racial prejudices? As suggested earlier, racism seems to be a universal phenomenon that transcends geography and culture. Human groups have always exhibited it, and, if human history is any lesson, they always will. The answer lies within the fact that people tend to feel most comfortable with those who are like them and are suspicious of those who are different. They tend to think categorically, to generalize, and to oversimplify their views of others. They tend to develop beliefs that support their values and basic feelings and avoid those that contradict or challenge them. Also, they tend to scapegoat those who are most vulnerable and subsequently rationalize their racist behavior. In short, it is out of these simple human traits and tendencies that racism grows.

4-1bTraits and Tendencies Supporting Racism and Prejudice

The idea of in-group and out-group behavior is a good place to begin any discussion of racism. There seems to be a natural tendency among all human beings to stick to their own kind and to separate themselves from those who are different. One need not attribute this fact to any nefarious motives; it is just easier and more comfortable to do so. Ironically, inherent in this tendency to love and be most comfortable with one’s own are the very seeds of racial hatred. Thus, what is different can always be and often is perceived as a threat. The tendency to separate oneself from those who are different only intensifies the threat because separation limits communication and thus heightens the possibility of misunderstanding. With separation, knowledge of the other also grows vague. This vagueness seems to invite distortion, the creation of myths about members of other groups, and the attribution of negative characteristics and intentions to the other.

Prejudice is also stimulated by the human proclivity for categorical thinking. It is a basic and necessary part of the way people think to organize perceptions into cognitive categories and to experience life through these categories. As one grows and matures, certain categories become very detailed and complex; others remain simplistic. Some become charged with emotion; others remain factual. Individuals and groups of people are also sorted into categories. These “people” categories can become charged with emotion and vary greatly in complexity and accuracy. On the basis of these categories, human beings make decisions about how they will act toward others.

For example, I have the category “Mexican.” As a child, I remember seeing brown-skinned people in an old car at a stoplight and being curious about who and what they were. As we drove by, my father mumbled, “Dirty, lazy Mexicans,” and my mother rolled up the window and locked her door. This and a variety of subsequent experiences, both direct and indirect (e.g., comments by others, the media, what I read), are filed away as part of my “Mexican” category and shape the way I think about, feel, and act toward Mexicans.

The concept of stereotype is related. Weinstein and Mellen (1997) define  stereotype  as “an undifferentiated, simplistic attribution that involves a judgment of habits, traits, abilities, or expectations … assigned as a characteristic of all members of a group” (p. 175). For instance, Jews are short, smart, and money-hungry; Native Americans are stoic and violent and abuse alcohol. Implied in these stereotypes is that all Jews are the same and all Native Americans are the same (i.e., share all characteristics). Ethnic stereotypes are learned as part of normal socialization and are amazingly consistent in their content. As a classroom exercise, I ask students to list the traits they associate with a given ethnic group. Consistently, the lists that they generate contain the same characteristics, down to minute details, and are overwhelmingly negative. One cannot help but marvel at society’s ability to transmit the subtlety and detail of these distorted ethnic caricatures. Not only does stereotyping lead to oversimplification in thinking about ethnic group members, but it also provides justification for the exploitation and ill treatment of those who are racially and culturally diverse. Because of their negative traits, they deserve what they get. Because they are seen as less than human, it is easy to rationalize ill treatment of them. Categorical thinking and stereotyping also tend to be inflexible, self-perpetuating, and highly resistant to change. Human beings go to great lengths to avoid new evidence that is contrary to existing beliefs and prejudices.

4-2Modern Prejudice

4-2

Psychologists, such as Gordon Allport, suggest that the factors just discussed—in-group and out-group behavior, categorical thinking and stereotyping, avoidance, and selective perception—together set the stage for the emergence of racism. But without the existence of some form of internal motivation, an individual’s potential for racism remains largely dormant. Perry, Murphy, and Dovidio (2015) suggested that the awareness of one’s biases is a major factor in the reduction of prejudice. Various theories have been offered regarding the psychological motivation behind prejudice and racism. In reality, there does not seem to be a single theory that can explain the impetus toward racism adequately in all individuals. More likely, there is some truth in all the theories that follow, and in the case of any given individual, one or more of them may be at work. (The summary of theories that follows derives largely from Allport, 1954; Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010; Melamed & North, 2010; Poteat & Anderson, 2012; Carr, Dweck, & Pauker, 2012; Perry, Murphy & Dovidio, 2015.)

· Self-regulation of prejudice : When a low-prejudiced person has a negative implicit evaluation of an outgroup member (of which he or she may or may not be aware), this evaluation leads to the recognition of a discrepancy between his or her egalitarian goals and his or her negative behavior toward the outgroup.

· Frustration-aggression-displacement hypothesis: This theory holds that as people move through life, they do not always get what they want or need, and as a result, experience varying amounts of frustration. Frustration, in turn, creates aggression and hostility, which can be alternately directed at the original cause of frustration, directed inward at the self, or displaced onto a more accessible target. Thus, if my boss reprimands me, I go home and take it out on my wife, who, in turn, yells at the kids, who then kick the dog. Such displacement, according to the theory, is the source of racism.

· Authoritarian personality : This theory holds that prejudice is part of a broader, global personality type. The classical example is the work of Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950). Adorno and his colleagues postulated the existence of a global bigoted personality type manifesting a variety of traits revolving around personal insecurity and a basic fear of everything and everyone different. Such individuals are believed to be highly repressed and insecure and to experience low self-esteem and high alienation. In addition, they tend to be highly moralistic, nationalistic, and authoritarian; to think in terms of black and white; to have a high need for order and structure; to view problems as external rather than psychological; and to feel anger and resentment against members of all ethnic groups.

· Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory: This maintains that individuals have a natural propensity to strive toward a positive self-image, and social identity is enhanced by categorizing people into in-groups and out-groups.

· Rankism , offered by Fuller (2003), is the persistent abuse and discrimination based on power differences in rank or hierarchy. The experience of being ranked above or below others, which Fuller refers to as being a somebody or a nobody, exists throughout our social system and persists “in the presence of an underlying difference of rank signifying power.” Somebodies receive recognition and experience self-satisfaction and pride in themselves; on the other hand, nobodies face derision and experience indignity and humiliation. Somebodies use the power associated with their rank to improve or secure their situation to the disadvantage of the nobodies below them. Fuller argues that a person’s self-esteem and identity are based on the recognition and appreciation that he or she receives and that a lack of recognition can have serious mental health consequences.

All these theories share the idea that through racist beliefs and actions, individuals meet important psychological and emotional needs; to the extent that this process is successful, their hatred remains energized and reinforced. Within such a model, the reduction of prejudice and racism can occur only when alternative ways of meeting emotional needs are found.

4-2aMicroaggressions and Implicit Bias

In more recent studies, researchers have increasingly argued that overt racist acts and hate crimes do not do as much damage to people of color as subtler microaggressions and implicit biases that tend to be unconscious, invisible, and thus more insidious forms of attack (Constantine and Sue, 2007). Racial microaggressions “are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities … that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 273). Jones (2008) summarizes an emerging picture of  implicit bias ; that is, negative, cognitive racial attributions held unconsciously, interacting with brain activity at the core of white racism:

The implicit measures of racial attitudes have proven to be powerful detectors of racial biases. Moreover, we have utilized social neuroscience to show that racial biases are often “hard-wired.” For example, we have learned that the amygdala region of the brain, commonly associated with fear responses, is activated when the faces of out-group members are detected. Implicit measures of racial attitude such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) have demonstrated strong connections between positive concepts (heaven, ice cream) and negative concepts (devil, death) and Blacks. (p. XXVIII)

Thus, it seems that the small and repetitive racial slights, misconceptions, and diminutions routinely experienced by people of color are no less destructive and, in many ways, more debilitating than more overt forms of racism. Microaggressions were discussed in Chapter 3 in relation to their traumatizing impact on people of color and will be discussed further in Chapter 8 in regard to unconscious racial slights and biases within therapy.

4-2bImplications for Providers

What does all this information about individual racism have to do with human service providers? Put most directly, it is the source or at least a contributing factor to many problems for which culturally diverse clients seek help. Some clients present problems that revolve around dealing with racism directly; they live with it on a daily basis. Relating to the racism that they encounter in a healthy and non-self-destructive manner, therefore, is a major challenge. To be the continual object of someone else’s hatred, as well as that of an entire social system, is a source of enormous stress, and such stress takes its psychological toll. It is no accident, for example, that African American men suffer from and are at particularly high risk for stress-related physical illnesses.

Other clients present with problems that are more indirect consequences of racism. A disproportionate number of people of color find themselves poor and with limited resources and skills for competing in a white-dominated marketplace. The stress caused by poverty places people at high psychological risk. More affluent people of color are no less susceptible to the far-reaching consequences of racism. Life’s goals and aspirations are likely blocked (or at least made more difficult) because of the color of their skin. There is a saying among professionals of color that one has to be twice as good as one’s white counterpart to make it. This is also a source of inner tension, as are the doubts that a professional of color may have as to whether he or she received a job or promotion because of his or her ability, or because of skin color.

It is critical that providers become aware of the prejudices that they hold as individuals. (Exercises at the end of this chapter, if undertaken with honesty and seriousness, can provide valuable insight into your feelings and beliefs about other racial and ethnic groups.) Without such awareness, it is all too easy for providers to confound their work with their prejudices. For example, if I think stereotypically about clients of color, it is very likely that I will define their potential too narrowly, miss important aspects of their individuality, and even unwittingly guide them in the direction of taking on the very stereotyped characteristics I hold about them. My own narrowness of thought will limit the success that I can have working with culturally diverse clients. It is critical to remember that prejudice often works at an unconscious level and that professionals are susceptible to its dynamics. It is also critical to be aware that, after a lifetime of experience in a racist world, clients of color are highly sensitized to the nuances of prejudice and racism and can identify it very quickly. Finally, it is important to re-emphasize that professional codes of conduct consider it unethical to work with a client with whom one has a serious value conflict. Prejudice and racism are such value conflicts.

4-3Institutional Racism

4-3

Consider the following statistics from various sources about African Americans in the United States:

· Of the prisoners in the United States in 2014, 34 percent are African Americans (NAACP).

· In 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 25.4 percent of African Americans, in comparison to 10.4 percent of non-Hispanic whites, were living at the poverty level (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health).

· The death rate for African Americans was generally higher than whites for heart diseases, stroke, cancer, asthma, influenza and pneumonia, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and homicide (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health).

· According to a 2015 Census Bureau report, the average African American household median income was $36,515 in comparison to $61,394 for non-Hispanic white households (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health).

· In 2015, the unemployment rate for African Americans was twice that for non-Hispanic whites (11.4 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively). This finding was consistent for both men and women (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health).

· African Americans are overrepresented in low-pay service occupations (e.g., nursing aides and orderlies, 30.7 percent) and underrepresented among professionals (e.g., architects, 0.9 percent) (Hacker, 1992).

· In 2015, as compared to non-Hispanic whites 25 years and over, a lower percentage of African Americans had earned at least a high school diploma (84.8 percent and 92.3 percent, respectively); 20.2 percent of African Americans have a bachelor’s degree or higher, as compared with 34.2 percent of non-Hispanic whites (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health).

These are the consequences of institutional racism: the manipulation of societal institutions to give preferences and advantages to whites and at the same time restrict the choices, rights, mobility, and access of people of color. In each of these varied instances, African Americans are seen at a decided disadvantage or at greater risk compared to whites. The term  institution  refers to “established societal networks that covertly or overtly control the allocation of resources to individuals and social groups” (Wijeyesinghe, Griffin, and Love, 1997, p. 93). Included are the media, the police, courts and jails, banks, schools, organizations that deal with employment and education, the health system, and religious, family, civil, and governmental organizations. Something within the fabric of these institutions causes discrepancies, such as those just listed, to occur on a regular and systematic basis. Jones (2000) explained that institutional racism can manifest in two conditions: material and access to power. The author added that examples of material conditions include housing, employment, education, and appropriate medical facilities. Example of access to power include access to information, presence in government, and financial resources.

In many ways, institutional racism is far more insidious than individual racism because it is embedded in bylaws, rules, practices, procedures, and organizational culture. Thus, it appears to have a life of its own and seems easier for those involved in the daily running of institutions to disavow any responsibility for it.

4-3aDetermining Institutional Racism

How does one go about determining the existence of institutional racism? The most obvious manner is through the reports of victims themselves—those who regularly feel its effects, encounter differential treatment, and are given only limited access to resources. But such firsthand reports are often held suspect and are too easily countered by explanations of “sour grapes” or “they just need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” by those who may not, for a variety of reasons, want to look too closely at the workings of racism.

A more objective strategy is to compare the frequency or incidence of a phenomenon within a group to the frequency within the general population. One would expect, for example, that a group that comprises 10 percent of this country’s population would provide 10 percent of its doctors or be responsible for 10 percent of its crimes. When there is a sizable disparity between these two numbers (i.e., when the expected percentages do not line up, especially when they are very discrepant), it is likely that some broader social force, such as institutional racism, is intervening.

One might alternatively argue that something about members of the group itself is responsible for the statistical discrepancy, rather than institutional racism. Such explanations, however—with the one exception of cultural differences (to be described later in this chapter)—must be assessed very carefully because they are frequently based on prejudicial and stereotypical thinking. For instance, members of Group X consistently score lower on intelligence tests than do dominant group members. One explanation may be that members of Group X are intellectually inferior. However, there has long been debate over the scientific merit of taking such a position that has yet to prove anything more than the fact that proponents who argue on the side of racial inferiority in intelligence tend to enjoy the publicity they inevitably receive. An alternative and more scientifically compelling explanation is that intelligence tests themselves are culturally biased and, in addition, favor individuals whose first language is English.

There are indeed aspects of a group’s collective experience that predispose its members to behave or exhibit characteristics in a manner different from what would be expected statistically. For instance, because of ritualistic practices, Jews tend to experience relatively low rates of alcoholism. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the percentage of Jews suffering from alcohol abuse is disproportionately lower than their representation in the general population.

“I never owned slaves; neither did my ancestors. That happened 150 years ago. Why should I be expected to make sacrifices in my life for injustices that happened long ago and were not of my making?”

Currently, People of Color are underrepresented on the staff of Agency X. In the units under study, only two workers are of Color: a Latino and an African American male. Neither are supervisors. In the entire office, only seven staff members are of Color: two Latino/as, one African American, and three Asian Americans. Two of the Asian Americans are supervisors. There are no People of Color in higher levels of management. An often-cited problem is the fact that there are few minority candidates on the state list from which hiring is done. To compensate requires special and proactive recruitment efforts to get People of Color on the lists, as well as the creation of special positions and other strategies for circumventing such lists. At a systems level, attention must be given to screening practices that may inadvertently and unfairly reject qualified minority candidates. While parity in numbers of Staff of Color to population demographics should be an important goal, holding to strict quotas misses the point of cultural competence. The idea is to strive for making the entire organization, all management and staff, more culturally competent, that is, able to work effectively with those clients who are culturally different. Nor is it reasonable to assume that all Staff of Color will be culturally competent. While attempting to add more Staff of Color, it is highly useful to fill the vacuum th

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.