Beyond Reason
By DONALD DeMARCO
Gordon W. Allport, author of the landmark study, The Nature of Prejudice, states: “A prejudice, unlike a simple misconception, is actively resistant to all evidence that would unseat it.” Reason and appropriate evidence may correct a misconception. But prejudice runs deep and involves more than what the mind conceives. In Herman Melville’s classic, Moby Dick, Captain Ahab says to his crew: “I do not give reasons; I give orders.” Benito Mussolini said to the world, “I don’t want advice; I want applause.” When the ego excludes reason, prejudice loses its only liberating factor. The two examples, one drawn from fiction, the other from nonfiction, epitomize how deeply entrenched prejudice can be.
The world seems to be of one voice in overcoming prejudice. But it continues to fail because it does not consider its roots, which often are in the reformer. Reason alone is an ineffective corrective. Yet, we must find a way to eliminate prejudice because it can become increasingly irrational and consequently increasingly dangerous.
Wendy Ashby, a member of the Waterloo, Ontario, Catholic District School Board, has stated: “The most dangerous creature on the planet is the White Christian male. They’re [sic] a threat to anyone who is not them.” Her statement has been met with outrage and a petition is being circulated demanding her resignation. She exempts females of any color from her charge. She apparently does not want to go against the grain of feminist orthodoxy.
Whiteness, or any color, for that matter, cannot be a cause of prejudice. Neither can the presence of two x chromosomes cause prejudice. They are not personal factors. Prejudice is a personal attitude associated with intelligence and choice. If the basis of prejudice is sub-personal it is irremovable. But it is only too well known that people can rise above prejudice and dedicate their lives to justice. Neither color nor genes can do that. Ashby’s rant represents a broad spectrum of ignorance, and even a tinge of hatred.
Prejudice can be blinding. Ms. Ashby does not realize that her comment redounds upon herself and not those whom she indicts. It is a pure fabrication that has no relationship with reality. More than a million men attend Promise Keepers conferences annually. Every Promise Keeper is encouraged “to begin the process of racial reconciliation with one person from a racial background disparate from his own” (Ken Abraham, Who Are the Promise Keepers?). Racial reconciliation can hardly be characterized as a pre-eminently dangerous activity. Can the Promise Keepers, who are mostly white male Christians, be more dangerous than, let’s say, the Taliban or Al-Qaeda?
Prejudice has a long and far-flung history. Why is it such a commonality? Allport reasons that, at least to a large extend, it is a byproduct of the necessary shortcuts the human brain uses in order to process that vast amount of information that it takes in on a daily basis. Because people want to utilize as little effort as possible, they tend to fall back on stereotypes. Many, who witnessed the death of George Floyd on television leapt to the conclusion that all white men are racist and that the police should be defunded or even abolished.
This is a case in which a person makes the illogical jump from the singular to the universal. If one person does something wrong, then everyone else in his class is presumed to act in the same manner. The entire group, therefore, is tarred with the same brush. Allport concluded that our cognitive approach is the most significant factor in accounting for prejudice.
One widespread form of prejudice that seems to be becoming more virulent is prejudice against Catholics. If some priests are found guilty of sexual abuse, then none of them are to be trusted. If some Catholics stray from Catholic teaching, then Catholicism is an unreliable religion and provides good reason for leaving the Church. It is neither fair nor logical, however, to judge the whole by the part or the group by one of its members. This is a form of prejudice akin to judging the master by his disciple.
Angela Hewitt is one of the world’s foremost interpreters of Johann Sebastian Bach. In an interview, she said that when she was very young, she covered her ears and hid when she listened to what she instinctively recognized as a poor interpretation of Bach’s music. At a tender age, she was able to distinguish between the master and the disciple, the composer and the performer. She did not judge the former by the latter. She did not hold Bach responsible for the poor performance of his music. By making this simple distinction, she did what many Catholics fail to do, namely, to distinguish between Christ and His disciples, God and His fallible followers. The example of Judas did not invalidate the teaching of Christ.
Despite the many attempts to eradicate prejudice, that sin against justice prevails. In fact, in some circles, it has even become fashionable. Ms. Ashby’s rant is an example of how extreme prejudice can go if it is left unchecked. In the absence of reason, it can align itself with hatred and vengeance. Hitler’s attitude toward Jewish people exemplifies this.
Prejudice can be overcome, but not by irrational vilification. It can be overcome through knowing people more thoroughly and thus freeing them from the straitjacket of a convenient stereotype. This is the reasonable approach. It requires getting to know people better and understanding that one can belong to a group without losing his identity as a unique person.
- + + (Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario.)
