In Saturday's Globe and Mail writer Pasha Malla wrote about keeping something he calls a racism journal.
"This was inspired by the actor Michael Richards, whose bigoted onstage outburst in 2006, made everyone gasp "Not Kramer!" and for a week or two enjoy Seinfeld a little less."
"Over a twelve-month period, every time I made an assertion, had a thought or acted on an attitude based on race, I did my best to stop and write it down. This proved useful in recognizing how I think and interact with people of other races, and brought into shocking relief how often my behaviour is based in prejudice or stereotype. My racism journal has revealed that, although I conduct myself publicly in a way that conforms to Canadian political correctness, what I'm often thinking, and occasionally doing, is often very racist indeed," Mr. Malla writes.
In a companion article , Michael Inzlicht, an experimental psychologist who explores how stereotypes and prejudice affect individuals, says be believes racism has mutated over the past few decades.
Because it is no longer socially acceptable to express any antipathy toward any group based on any category, Dr. Inzlicht believes that we now have two types of prejudice: modern and implicit.
"A modern racist is someone who hides their racism behind things like objections to social policies. But the deeper issue," explains Dr. Inzlicht, "is that there are some people who are prejudiced and have stereotyped views who aren't aware of it themselves. This is probably true for many, if not most of the people in our society. It is called implicit prejudice."
As to how to overcome this type of prejudice, Dr. Inzlicht calls it a "million-dollar question."
What do you think? Do you worry you are racist? Do you think there is modern and implicit racism? Dr. Inzlicht will be live online Monday at 3:30 p.m. ET to answer your queries and comments."
Join the Conversation at that time or submit a question in advance.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Your questions and Dr. Inzlicht's answers will appear at the bottom of this page when the discussion begins.
Micah Toub, globeandmail.com: Dr. Inzlicht, thanks for answering our reader questions today. I thought I'd start by asking about this idea of implicit prejudice, which you brought up during your interview in the paper. You said that this is a set of biases that we possess but are not aware of. How is this different than normal, expressed prejudice? And are there any outward signs of implicit prejudice?
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: Thank you for having me. There are a number of features of implicit prejudice, with the most important being intentionality, awareness, and control. First, implicit prejudice operates without intention. People don't necessarily want to have a negative stereotype come to mind when they see someone of another race; it just does. Second, people are often unaware when the stereotype comes to mind and unaware of when and how it influences their behaviour. Third, people cannot necessarily control their stereotyped thoughts or quick impulsive behaviours that reflect these thoughts. This lack of control can come about because of a lack of awareness.
In terms of measurable signs, there aren't very many. Modern research can measure implicit prejudice with tests asking people, for example, to pair African-American faces with positive and negative words. Interestingly, the difference in reaction times for these words predicts activation of brain areas associated with fear and anxiety.
GlynnMhor of Skywall writes: The underlying foundation of all racism is deciding to use race as a criterion for deciding how to treat people. Racial 'affirmative action' is thus just as racist as any other racial discrimination. Do you agree
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: While many critics have characterized affirmative action as reverse discrimination - and the policy is not without problems - many policy makers have argued that it is an important piece of legislation to right historical wrongs and to level the playing field for many disadvantaged groups. Affirmative action policies are an effective tool to fight institutional discrimination and implicit biases in hiring decisions. Importantly, it can place disadvantaged groups in positions that were previously closed to them, thus increasing the chances that these groups' voices will be heard.
These positions also allow them to act as role models for a younger generation of disadvantaged individuals.
Loudan Bellicose from Canada writes: People of colour (that this racism is directed against), how do you feel when it is implied that you cannot fend for yourself, that you need special help?
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: This is related to the above question about affirmative action and to the problems to which I referred.
Although I believe that affirmative action, on the whole, is a sound policy, we also need to acknowledge that it has problems. If you were a person of colour, how would you feel if you knew that you got a job because of your race/ethnicity? You probably would not feel too good about yourself.
Research shows that knowing (or suspecting) that one is the beneficiary of affirmative action is deflating and can lead people to feel less capable and accepted. This is clearly a problem we need to address.
Mike Z from Saskatoon writes: Hello Dr. Inzlicht. My question is in regards to your 'modern racist' category. I just wanted to clarify that your position is that some racists manifest their racist attitudes through criticism of social policies, not that all people who criticize those social policies are modern racists. This is an important distinction to make (at least in my mind), as failing to make it would stifle much-needed discussion regarding those social policies. My fear is that the term 'modern racist' would be used as a form of attack against those who wish to question/discuss the social policies. What are your thoughts on this?
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: I agree with your distinction. Opposition to a social policy is not a sign that you are prejudiced; one could oppose a social policy on many justifiable grounds, none of them reflecting some deep-seated prejudice. Modern racists, on the other hand, hide their true prejudiced feelings behind a symbolic opposition to some policy.
I recently read a story about a group of people living in a suburb of Houston who opposed the building of a mosque in their neighbourhood because they were worried about sewage and traffic problems to be created by the edifice. This, even though the mosque complied with all zoning requirements and bylaws. I wonder if the group would continue their opposition if a chain-restaurant was to be built instead of a mosque.
Steve Turner from Canada writes: Good Day, Dr. Inzlicht. I agree with your notion that racism has mutated. I post quite often on news stories respecting Aboriginal Canadians, and one of the most ironic ideas that people will float from time-to-time - all the while claiming that they are not racist - is that Natives 'should give back all we gave them, like roads, planes, canned meat etc.', thus claiming ownership of these 'inventions' solely based on the fact that they share a racial heritage with those who actually did the inventing. I don't believe that they see themselves doing this. I also believe that the concept of 'White Privilege' plays a large part in many people's thought processes, based on the exchanges I have with these people. Do you feel that this idea of 'White privilege' continues to be an undercurrent in this country?
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: This is an interesting question relating to power. Groups who have more power than others can neglect the fact that their privileged status has made things easier for them. A white person goes through life with white skin and thus doesn't realize how having more or less melanin in the skin can determine whether they are stopped by the police, pulled aside at border crossings, harassed at airports, or watched with vigilance in convenience stores.
Not experiencing these things personally or seeing them chronically may make it appear like non-Whites are whining or unnecessarily complaining when they make attributions to prejudice.
Anthony Maragna from Vancouver Canada writes: Hi, Dr. Inzlicht. We often hear studies stating that there are different parts of the brain that might be responsible for different aspects of social behaviour. Is there any credible research that lends evidence to the idea that there's a 'racist centre' in the brain? And, as a follow-up, might you have any comments on the proliferation of racist comments/actions brought about thanks to the internet?
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: Thanks, Anthony. There are lots of studies these days using brain imaging (usually with a machine called the MRI) to map a part of the brain that is responsible for an action or behavioural disposition. While this research is cutting-edge and exciting, we should also temper our enthusiasm because some of this research is poorly conducted, lacking appropriate controls, or stating more than the findings justify. So, no, there is no credible research supporting a "racist centre" in the brain. However, there are a number of good studies linking prejudiced attitudes with activation of the part of the brain that is thought to be associated with feelings of fear and threat, a part of the brain called the amygdala, which consists of a group of neurons located deep within the temporal lobes.
nigel martin from Canada writes: There is no genetic proof of race. Increasingly, with globalization, there is also no visible definition of so-called racial differences as peoples of different climatic origins inter-marry. Race is an invention, just like nationality, to allow people to feel different, or better, or worse than 'others'.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: To some extent I think you are right. In many cases race, is a social construction. For example, the Nazis "racialized" Jews, turning a religion and culture into some biologically distinct category.
So when we speak of race we need to be mindful that we are often talking about culture and nationality and not some genetically endowed category. That's not to say that all ethnic and national differences are constructions, however. There are true differences out there (e.g. European Jews are more susceptible to certain genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs).
Mark Taha from Toronto writes: Dear Dr. Inzlicht, you say that racism can hide under 'objections to social policy.' I'm very uncomfortable with this assertion as people should be free to object to social policy without the threat of being labelled a racist. I'm a minority but I'm against multiculturalism and affirmative action because I think they actually promote racism.
I want to be able to discuss and debate these issues openly and freely. Only then can we advance and find better solutions, but I want to do that without the risk of being labelled a racist. Would you please clarify what you meant by that comment and how to balance the need for open debate and discussion without being labelled a racist simply by objecting to a social or political policy, local or international. Thank you. Mark
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: I agree with you. Opposition to a social policy is not the sole territory of modern racists. Many reasonable people disagree about the pros and cons of an issue.
Affirmative action is not a problem-free solution and to label someone as racist because they disagree with it only stifles conversation and potential advancement.
A modern racist, on the other hand, uses the social policy to hide his or her true feelings of dislike. The most famous example of this is with the busing of school children in the US from one school district to another to counteract discriminatory district assignments and to de-segregate schools. Many people disagreed with the busing policy because it meant that children had to travel a great distance from their homes. This is a reasonable objection and not at all racist. Some people, however, cared very little about how far children had to travel, but were deeply troubled at the idea that white children would be in the same classroom as black children. These are the modern racists.
The choices we make decide our place in life from Canada writes: If it is racist to be opposed to immigrants demanding that we change our culture, our laws, even our way of life in order to accommodate their culture, then yes, I am racist. This country was settled by Western Europeans with Judeo/Christian values. This is the foundation of our culture. Those who come here should expect to have to adapt to it. They should not expect it to adapt to them. The fact that some immigrant groups are demanding we change our culture to suit them indicates to me that it is the immigrants who are racist, not us.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: Here, you are touching on the contentious "reasonable accommodation" debate going in the country, most notably Quebec. The basic issue is that of balancing the needs of newcomers with the needs and culture of the host country. Underlying this is Canada's policy of multiculturalism, where we encourage newcomers to retain their cultures and traditions, while at the same time embracing their new country. This is in contrast to the American "melting pot" model where newcomers are expected to drop their traditions and embrace their new American identity. There are pros and cons to each model, but psychological research out of the Netherlands shows that newcomers feel more welcome and comfortable with our very own multicultural model. That's not to say that the host nation should bend over backward to accommodate all cultural practices. I would not for example, support a policy that would accommodate a cultural practice that contravenes our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I would be against genital mutilation, for example.
K Kal from Canada writes: Stupid study and a waste of money. Everyone is 'racist' in some form or another. You don't need a study to tell you that. As long as people aren't over the top or fanatical, I don't see a problem.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: I'm hearing a lot of comments like these, that studying the psychology of prejudice is a waste of time and money. I'm clearly biased here, but I could not disagree more.
It is true that noticing categories and traits that go along with these categories (i.e. stereotypes) is natural and an integral part of how we navigate our social worlds. So you could say that we're all a little prejudiced. The psychological study of prejudice has given us tools to measure prejudice - including prejudice that we ourselves are not aware of - to see how it is manifest in the brain and, importantly, how to reduce it.
The problem with "everyone being racist" is that it can sometimes lead to tragic consequences such as the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide, and the current problems in Darfur. If these seem too remote, let's recall that we've seen a recent rise of racist instances in Toronto as well, so this is clearly a real problem. The psychological study of prejudice gives hope that these instances will be less pervasive in the future.
Chris E. From vancouver, writes: The term 'ethnic-nationalist' should be used instead of 'racist', so that all behaviours, both positive and negative, could be grouped together. All acts promoting a racial or ethnic group should be treated alike. For example, forming a black students association is an act of ethnic nationalism. Forming a white student association would also be an act of ethnic nationalism. Under the current establishment, forming a white student association or celebrating the white race would automatically be labelled 'racist'. This is unfair.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: There are a number of elements to your comment and I will address a couple. I agree that the term 'racist' is inadequate, especially when we consider that many groups -- not just racial groups -- are perceived uncharitably and treated unfairly.
I prefer the term prejudice, which refers to prejudgments based on categorical distinctions such as race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The other element of your question refers to what some theorists have called "love prejudice" and "hate prejudice." Although we tend to think of prejudice as negative prejudgments (e.g. disliking group X), we could also have positive prejudgments (e.g. liking group Y, usually your own group). Both are acts of bias, but one is favouring and one is disfavouring.
lynn H from Canada writes in a comment to the article: 'Racist' is the most misused and abused word around. In today's politically correct world it means simply disagreeing, criticizing or being skeptical of any non-white person or equality program. It has gone from the noble goal to provide dignity and equal opportunity to all to an overzealous movement of entitlement and equality of outcomes programs for designated groups. When someone claims racism these days, most Canadians roll their eyes and think 'What do they (special interest leaders) want now and how much will it cost?'. The sooner the word loses its power to manipulate the social agenda, the better. Do you agree the word 'racist' manipulates the social agenda?
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: To a certain extent I think it can. The word "racist" has power and no one wants this label applied to them. Because of this power some people abuse it to condone their own behaviour or to forward their own agenda. Although unfortunate, it doesn't negate the fact that prejudice exists and affects many people's lives. For this reason, we need to treat these accusations seriously and if verified, find ways to improve the situation.
Bob from Winnipeg writes: My problem with racism is being labelled as one every time I make a comment like: "My old high school is all Asian now." Excuse me, but I can make statements of fact without being a racist. How do we differentiate between a statement of fact and a racist remark? I wonder whether the context of the conversation matters in this instance.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: There are a couple of things going on here. First, related to the question above, is the power of the word 'racist.'
When interacting with members of devalued social groups, many well-intentioned people worry that their actions or words will be labelled "racist," and this leads them to be careful of what and how they say things. This is unfortunate because it increases stress and discomfort and reduces the chances that people will voluntarily seek out these types of interactions in the future. The second point is with the accuracy of statements concerning race. If you state that your old high school is almost completely Asian now, and statistics bear this out, well that is certainly not racist. It is a statement of fact reflecting the changing demographics of your old neighbourhood. If, however, the statistics do not bear this out (is your old high school *all* Asian?), this statement could be interpreted as reflecting some paranoid fear that Asians are taking over your school and neighbourhood.
As with many things, to really interpret this comment, we'd need to know the context in which this statement was made.
Wendy Sullivan from Toronto writes: I'm pretty tired of having my thoughts policed. Whether the PC-police like it or not, races and cultures and religions and even individuals are all DIFFERENT. And where there's difference, there can be friction. I will not have the human nature mandated out of me.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: You're right about people and groups of people being different. And, it is completely "human" for us to notice these differences and to categorize these differences. Our ability to categorize underlies our ability to learn and make predictions about the future. Without this ability, we would see every new encounter with the innocent eyes of a child, as if we're seeing it for the first time. So categorization is important. The side effect of this wonderful learning system is that we may sometimes over-generalize what we learn from one person to the group to which he or she belongs. The problem is not that groups of people are different, but rather begins when one assumes that all members of that group act and behave in the same way.
Ted B from Toronto Canada writes: I've always thought that 100 per cent of all people are racist. Very few admit to it though.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: Many people think categorically and use stereotypes to make judgments of people. While you are right that some people do not admit that they use stereotypes, it is also true that many people are unaware that they use stereotypes. Thanks to recent advances in psychological science, we are now able to measure this "implicit stereotyping" even when people are unaware.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: I heard the speech and agree with Obama that we need to have an open dialogue about race. This means not only examining how race is perceived by people, but also how people are affected by being seen as a member of a race. Race relations involve more than one party, meaning there is more than one group that contributes to these problems. Acting prejudicially is no good, nor is pulling out "the race card" in order to have one's own agenda put forward. An honest dialogue would acknowledge that to change race relations, all parties must recognize their own contributions.
Jonathan Ohara from Toronto Canada writes: Dr. Inzlicht, I have read with great interest an ongoing debate here in Canada dealing with hate speech and anti-hate laws. Some very thoughtful commentators like Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress argues quite persuasively that what he calls a "fence of protection" is needed for vulnerable minorities to protect them against vile hate speech that could lead to vile actions. Others such as Ezra Levant (though his argumentation is fraught with ad hominem attacks against his opponents) argue for no such sanctions suggesting that all speech be tested in the so-called "marketplace of ideas". It has been my experience that this marketplace doesn't exist in reality. In fact, the loudest voice seems to be the one heard and that is usually the bully/bigot. I wonder what your thoughts are on this.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: This is a tough question. On the one hand, I understand the concept of a "fence of protection" for vulnerable minorities. Speech often leads to action, and as a society, I think we should treat hate "actions" as especially vile. On the other hand, I also see the absolute necessity for freedom of speech, otherwise minority voices can be stifled and change could never occur. So how do we balance the need to protect minorities with the need to protect minority voices? Even though I'm a bit ambivalent, I think I would side with the need to protect free speech. We can avoid hate speech devolving into hate action through effective policing, whereas infringing upon free speech - even for a noble cause - would represent a loss of one of our most basic rights.
Micah Toub, globeandmail.com: Dr. Inzlicht, thank you so much for taking time out of your research and teaching to join us today. Hopefully, your insights will spark some conversations about this very important topic.
Dr. Michael Inzlicht: Thanks a lot for having me. I appreciated the many insightful and thought-provoking questions.