Oct 3, 2009
Four Phases of Bigotry
“..a dislike can be based on seeing and then judging, but real anti-Semitism- and all other forms of genuine bigotry- is based on first judging and then seeing.”
“If indeed, one is confronted with a case of bigotry, four phases or aspects of a bigoted narrative will usually follow. The first is selectivity: only “data” that are unfavorable to the targeted group will be acknowledged, and all other data will be ignored. The second is demonization: comparing the “guilty” to culturally embedded symbols of unarguable evil. The third is selective representation: finding the few members of the targeted group who are critical of their own and wildly exaggerating their relative significance. And the fourth is obsession: the idea that the targeted group is virtually everywhere and is responsible for virtually everything evil or troublesome or problematic in the life of the bigot.”
“It is thanks to the power of obsession that the anti-Semitism ascends into the ultimate abstraction, in which the medieval bias that what is Jewish is also evil gets inverted in more modern time to what is evil must be Jewish.”
From” Jewcentricity- why the Jews are praised, blamed, and used to explain just about everything” by Adam Garfinkle
Very good. I think it is very important to distinguish as separate phenomena two things:
1. Ordinary prejudice — Some people have a mild, non-violent, generalized dislike of various groups, whether the group is characterized as fat people, Catholics, businessmen, hockey fans, gays, Jews, whatever. While this kind of commonplace prejudice (particularly as it takes the form of stereotyping or mildly insulting idioms) may result in hurt feelings or even genuine discrimination — i.e., the Irish Catholic boss who shows favoritism toward his fellow Irish Catholics — it does not generally threaten basic rights: life, liberty, property.
2. Ideological or politicized hatred — This is the type of organized, programmatic groupthink that motivates neo-Nazis, radical Islamic terrorists, and other oppressive or violent groups. This type of hatred is typified by theoretical, political or religious dogma which asserts that the demonized Other is intrinsically inferior or malicious.
There is some overlap between these two phenomena — Type 2 groups may foster or exacerbate Type 1 prejudices held by individuals — but the truly dangerous, politicized and potentially violent Type 2 ideology is relatively rare.
It is important to identify, and publicly to warn against, Type 2 groups and doctrines, since most law-abiding peaceable citizens (even those who may have some Type 1 prejudice) do not wish to associate with potentially criminal activities. However, we see in Canada and Europe and on American university campuses how a zealous crusade against a vague conception of prejudice can, by leading to obnoxious things like speech codes and “political correctness,” tend to be self-defeating and may antagonize well-meaning people.
Do you see the general point I’m trying to make here?
Garfinkle refers to a cultural mindset that often but not always leads to a political sanctions. In Europe Jew hatred was a concept bread into the populace for centuries by the Church to a degree that made a farce like the Protocols of Zion believable. Unfortunately in the West we have come to ‘judge’ Muslims first and then ’seeing’ them to fulfill that judgment. I liked the passage because the concept of ‘judging’ and then ’seeing’ can be expanded beyond ethnic and racial boundaries to ideological. Using Garfinkle’s definition we are all in the midst of political bigotry.
I think I do see your point – that there is a different between acknowledging differences, even racial, and seeing differences that are not real. The real danger is not acknowledging differences but how we react to them.