SCI - Minorities and Prejudice Lesson

Minorities and Prejudice Lesson

What is a minority? Within sociology, the term "minority" refers more to a level of power than an actual head count of the people classified as a minority. For example, the percentage of women making up the overall population on the planet is roughly equal to the percentage of men; however, in certain situations women are classified as a minority. The defining characteristic of being a minority is that of being part of a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct social category that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant category. As women form a social category that is often dominated by men in social institutions, women are classified as a minority.

What does it mean to be a member of a minority? It means that a person is a member of a social category with a distinctive identity that is either physical (gender, race or disabilities) in its nature or cultural (age, ethnicity or sexual orientation). Based on that distinctive identity, the person experiences subordination within society. This subordination can come in multiple forms. Consider the history of South Africa. While the actual number of black South Africans outnumbered the number of white South Africans, black South Africans formed a distinct minority within the nation under apartheid. They were barred from living in certain neighborhoods, holding political positions or earning a living in certain jobs. With the demise of apartheid, black South Africans moved around their nation more freely and entered the political realm; but the wealth of South Africa is still concentrated in the hands of white South Africans. The result is that black South Africans are no longer a minority politically but are still a minority economically. Subordination is a definitive characteristic of a minority status and can be based on more than one description.

As part of the subordination, minorities often experience prejudice. Prejudice stems from holding a set attitude toward an entire category of people. Some define prejudice as a negative attitude toward an entire category of people. According to this definition, when people argue that female members of the military should not be allowed in combat situations because females are not capable of fighting in mortal combat, we see an example of prejudiced reasoning based on a negative attitude about females. They are assuming that one social category is not as capable as another. Sociologists must be careful with the term "prejudice." It does not always rely on a negative attitude towards one group. What if the argument against female military members entering a combat zone is based on the idea that the capture of female soldiers could result in a more dangerous situation for females than for males and that this situation might result in a compromising change in how the government handles negotiations to retrieve prisoners of war? Do you see the difference in the attitudes expressed in the two arguments? One seems more negative towards the social category of females than the other. The latter argument might be a prejudice that exemplifies a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. However, what if the government had data to support the argument that retrieval of female prisoners of war did result in putting the government in a more vulnerable position than it had ever experienced before? Is it still a prejudiced argument then? Prejudice can also stem from positive attitudes about an entire category. If the argument against women fighting in combat zones was that women were better at strategy than men and, therefore, needed more in the military conference rooms to determine plans of attack, wouldn't that be just another form of prejudice, even if it was more complimentary? As you can see, the concept of prejudice can be a tricky subject to navigate as it embodies both positive and negative prejudgments that produce myriad stereotypes. Paraphrasing the Thomas Theorem, when people see stereotypes as real, they become real in their consequences.

Origins of Prejudice

Watch the presentation below to learn the social factors that sociologists identified as possible contributors to prejudice and the theories they created to explain the presence of prejudice in society.

Emory Bogardus created a scale to measure prejudice in the 1920s. His Social Distance Scale determined how closely people were willing to interact with members of other social categories than their own. Bogardus used a series of questions that asked a participant how willing he or she was to having members of another social category:

As close relatives by marriage (score 1.00)
As close personal friends (2.00)
As neighbors on the same street (3.00)
As co-workers in the same occupation (4.00)
As citizens in the participant's country (5.00)
As only visitors in the participant's country (6.00)
As excluded from the participant's country (7.00)

The lower the score a person received in answer to the questions displayed a willingness for a closer proximity to another social category and the less prejudice present. The higher the score went, the more distance the participant wanted between themselves and the other social category with an increased probability of prejudice. The Bogardus Social Distance Scale is still used today. Using the scale, sociologists determined a number of recent trends in America with regards to prejudice:

Americans are moving towards a greater social acceptance of diverse social categories.
Americans are recognizing fewer differences between various minority groups.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks may have reduced the levels of social acceptance that Arab and Muslim groups were experiencing prior to the attacks. However, sociologists are still studying this issue to see if time changes that trend.
Data supports the Intersection Theory that argues that membership in more than one minority social category results in multiple or increased disadvantages.

Ways Prejudice may be Reduced or Eliminated

Despite a trend in the reduction of prejudice in America over the last half century, prejudice still exists. For decades, sociologists have looked for ways of reducing and eliminating conflicts and prejudices between groups:

Select each > in the activity below to learn more.

So far none of these hypotheses for eradicating prejudice have been successful across the board in purging any society of prejudice. Instead, sociologists found that even unprejudiced people can, under specific conditions perceived as threatening, become highly prejudiced against their perceived "rivals" or out-groups.

It is true that new laws have helped to silence some prejudiced attitudes over the years. Without changes in the law, minorities might never have been allowed to vote, own property, unconditionally use public facilities or be served by private businesses. Still, laws do not necessarily alter people's attitudes. For instance, many integrated schools in America have witnessed the formation of ethnic cliques that battle other out-groups to defend their own social identities. In some cases, new laws can increase antagonism toward minority groups; although the United States Commission on Civil Rights determined that when local governments support and promote federal civil rights laws, antagonism towards the new law and the minority group dropped. Despite the advancements brought on by Civil Rights legislation, prejudice is too complex a phenomenon to be eliminated through one type of method. Alone, each hypothesis on fighting prejudice does not address all of the reasons for the presence of prejudice in society. Instead, sociologists found that all of the following conditions between the various social categories must first be met:

A desire to become better acquainted
A desire to cooperate
Frequent opportunities for informal and interpersonal contact between in-groups and out-groups
Equal economic standing and social status
Equal support from society

Which means, essentially, that all of the hypothesized strategies mentioned above must be put into effect simultaneously to counter societal and individual prejudice on any substantial level. Individual self-esteem must rise, in-groups and out-groups must interact socially and work towards a common goal, and social norms (mores, folkways, and laws) must change to encourage equality in opportunity and status for all members of a society. Obviously, it is very difficult to manipulate all members of a society to meet these conditions at one time and place.

Why is it necessary to end prejudice? Because closely related to prejudice (which is an attitude,) is discrimination (which is an action). Discrimination is the process of denying opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups because of prejudice. In some instances, discrimination is the best-case scenario of prejudice, culminating in social inequality. The worst-case scenarios are far more destructive. If not kept in check, prejudice can lead to hate crimes or genocide. This is why some sociologists encourage the study of institutional discrimination over individual discrimination. Through the study of institutional discrimination, sociologists hope to address how discrimination is part of society.

Minorities and Prejudice Key Terms Review Activity

Turn each card to review key terms. Use the > to advance cards.

IMAGES CREATED BY GAVS OR OPENSOURCE