02.27.07
Inconceivable!
Well, Joral’s decided to start his “Word of the Day” feature, and has even been so kind as to give me a degree of credit for the title (of course, we all know it’s a quote from The Princess Bride), but so far he hasn’t seen fit to actually bring up a particular word. So I’m going to scoop him, and beat him to his own punch with my own first installment in “Words, words, words”: Procrastination.
Actually, just kidding about that “procrastination” thing (besides, I’d be a hypocrite to talk about his procrastination when I’ve put off my theme for a week); the word I plan to tackle first is “bigotry”. Well, I don’t suppose I can directly tackle the word “bigotry”, since at least Merriam-Webster’s definition has it as “the state of mind of a bigot; acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot”. Okay, so I guess we have to go after “bigot”. What does the ol’ M-W have to say about bigots?
Pronunciation: ‘bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I’d like to focus on that part after “especially“. When you see that word especially, that tends to indicate that this is the most common meaning of a term, or the majority representation of usage. More specifically, it’s the concept that pops into most people’s heads when you say the word. Sort of like how, when the average Joe and Jane Q. Public hear the word “normal”, they thing “in accordance with societal norms”, not “perpendicular”. Okay, since that little unpleasantry is out of the way, I guess we’re done here.
…Oh, right. There was a reason I brought up that word. I’ve seen the word “bigotry” used interchangeably (though not necessarily synonymously) with “prejudice” or “discrimination”. The problem is that the three concepts seem to involve increasingly complex patterns of cognitive function. Here’s my interpretation on the matter, using paraphrases of the broadest definitions I can find. Please note that I’m using “thing” and “object” sort of like the Hawaiian Pidgin phrase “da kine” - they could be people, cars, buildings, or alcoholic drinks.
- Prejudice
- Apparent common use: A preconceived notion about something’s nature based on a particular property of that thing, usually based on a statistically-insignificant observed sample.
- Cognitive function(s) involved: Pattern-matching and property inventory
- Example
- Every Corvette I have seen has been red and driven by a young adult male.
- Therefore, every Corvette is red and every Corvette driver is a young adult male.
- My aunt Phyllis drives a Corvette.
- Therefore, my aunt Phyllis is a young adult male and her Corvette is red.
- Notes
- This is more of an oversimplification for purposes of theme than an “extreme example of prejudice”.
- Discrimination
- Apparent common use: Separating classes of objects, either cognitively, physically, or by some mechanism of outcome, often based on a prejudicial view of the properties inherent to members of a class.
- Cognitive function(s) involved: Discernment, pattern-matching, property inventory
- Example
- Young adult males are predominantly dangerous drivers.
- Dangerous drivers should not be allowed to drive.
- Corvette drivers are predominantly young adult males. (We’ll leave Auntie Phyl alone here)
- Corvette drivers are predominantly dangerous drivers.
- Corvette drivers should not be allowed to drive.
- Notes
- Notice the use of the word “predominantly”. I think we’ve all met that person who says (in as many words or not) “I’m not prejudiced; I know that not all black people are bad drivers…” (with the implication that those who are not bad drivers are the exception, rather than the rule)
- Also notice here that discrimination, unlike prejudice, involves some concept of action rather than simply “things one thinks about X”.
- Bigotry
- Apparent common use: Treating a particular class of objects in a negative manner because of a prejudicial view of the properties inherent to members of a class.
- Cognitive function(s) involved: Discernment, pattern-matching, property inventory, moral judgment (in a phrase)
- Example
- People who drive dangerously have no regard for human life.
- People who have no regard for human life are morally unsound.
- Morally unsound people have no qualms about harming others.
- […]
- Corvette drivers are potential rapists and I won’t let my daughter near one.
- Notes
- The elided part indicates the mix of syllogism and judgment calls that associates Corvettes with young males, loose morals, and rape.
Yes, I understand the irony inherent in pointing out that bigotry, often considered the “lowest form” of social thought, implies a more patterned thought process than mere prejudicial thinking.
Okay, so what am I getting at here? Well, in this article over at the Volokh Conspiracy (I know, I’m a week behind!), Ilya Somin mentions the prevalence of bigotry in the decision not to vote for an atheist for political office.
Some of this opposition to candidates from particular groups may be a result of using information short cuts rather than simple bigotry. For example, a survey respondent might be opposed to an atheist candidate not because he has anything against atheists as such, but because he knows that most atheists are political liberals; he doesn’t want to support a candidate that is on the political left, and as a result of “rational ignorance” (discussed in my recent article here) he doesn’t want to take the time to study the candidate’s issue positions in detail.
Unfortunately, however, it is likely that bigotry is the main factor, even if it is not the only one. After all, the survey asks whether voters are willing to support a candidate from a particular group nominated by their own party, and the party is unlikely to nominate someone whose ideology is greatly at variance with that of the party’s base.
I have more or less completely avoided the comments section of that article; I think I saw a tooth fly by, and the comment period has since expired. I think Prof. Somin is missing an important point in here. Yes, it’s possible that people are against atheists in office because they think that an atheist will be too liberal. Yes, it’s possible that it’s just a function of real bigotry (more on that in a bit). But there are lower cognitive functions that can be polled first before going straight for the bigoted jugular. While it’s true that “[a] party is unlikely to nominate someone whose ideology is greatly at variance with that of the party’s base”, other more (shall I say) nuanced thought process may actually be at play.
For instance, a voter may want to ensure that a candidate’s motive, as well as their action, is in line with the voter’s morality and thought process. I think one need look no further than SCOTUS to see the concept of action versus motive at play in concurring opinions. Alternately, a voter (having seen or perceived long runs of officeholders who have run on one platform, but acted differently in office) may fear that a person of differing religious values will get into office and act entirely on their own interests, and the voter wants to make sure that any “rogue agent” is acting on interests with which he or she agrees. I live in Georgia; you don’t have to look to the far left to see fear whenever a member of the Religious Right runs for office here. A voter may fear that an atheist may represent the political and financial interests of his or her constituency, but not the values, or that appeals to societal value as a compass for legislative action will fall on deaf ears.
Of course, bigotry may be at play - I’m not denying that possibility. There may also be bigotry that’s not directed at the candidate, but rather at the groups that a voter fears may get access to a candidate’s ear. To say, however, that the decision is either “atheists are liberal” or “atheists are evil” is a matter of an unjustly excluded middle. Now is that prejudice, discrimination, or bigotry? 