All Humans Have Prejudice and Discriminate

All Humans Have Prejudice and Discriminate

Just as all people have prejudices, learned from socialization, all people discriminate. So, the blind woman in our previous example may also have prejudices against us because we are sighted. Based on her previous experiences with sighted people, she may assume that we are ignorant about people with disabilities and that we will be condescending toward her. Thus if we attempt to speak to her, she may ignore us; she is discriminating against us based on her prejudice toward us. However, her prejudice and discrimination against us will not have the same impact as ours against her will (we will discuss why in Chapters 5 and 6).


If we all have our prejudices, can we avoid discriminating? Without conscious effort, this is highly unlikely; because prejudice informs how we view others, it necessarily informs how we act toward others. This action may be subtle—as subtle as avoidance and disinterest. But this lack of interest is not accidental or benign; it is socialized and results in not developing relationships—in this case, with people with disabilities. However, while we can’t avoid prejudice, we can work to recognize our prejudices and gain new information and ways of thinking that will inform more just actions.

A key aspect to challenging our prejudices is challenging the social segregation that is built into the culture; the more educated we become about people who are different from us and the more relationships we build with them, the more likely we are to have constructive responses when interacting with other members of their group. This education requires more than knowing one or two individuals in the past and in a limited way, such as having a coworker or neighbor who is blind. If we engage in ongoing study and education, while also building wide-ranging and authentic relationships with people who are blind, we are more likely to have an informed rather than superficial response to the woman in the theater.

In order to get a sense of the power of our deep-structure, below-the- surface socialization in terms of our ideas about and actions toward others, consider this thought experiment. You are going about your day and engaging in conversations with the following people: your friends, your romantic partner, your children, and your supervisor. You might be joking with your friends, sweet-talking with your romantic partner, speaking with formality to your supervisor, and talking irritably with your children. Now add a layer of context: your friends in the classroom before class versus on the weekend at the bar; your romantic partner while walking across campus versus alone in your dorm room; your children when they are celebrating an accomplishment versus struggling with a disappointment; and your supervisor when you are receiving positive feedback on your work versus when you are explaining a series of missed deadlines.

In each of these scenarios you are weighing the value of the social group of the other person in relation to the value of your own social group. These relational values inform how you speak—your tone, the words you use, and even your facial expressions. The navigations we make are the result of our socialization about groups and do not generally occur at the conscious level. You don’t need to pause and figure out how to switch gears from your friends to your supervisor; your awareness of the value relations are so internalized that you shift gears effortlessly.


Awareness of ourselves as socialized members of a number of intersecting groups within a particular culture in a particular time and place (social location or positionality) will increase our critical social justice literacy. We need to see the general patterns of our socialization and be aware of ourselves in shifting contexts. In other words, we need to step back and become aware of ourselves shifting gears and examine the assumptions underlying these shifts and the behaviors they set in motion. When interacting cross-culturally with members of less familiar groups, the codes we rely on are more likely to be based on stereotypical assumptions and messages. A key goal of critical social justice literacy is to raise our awareness of these patterned codes. When we are more conscious of them, we are more equipped to change them when they are based upon misinformation.

Returning to the vignette of the search committee that opens this chapter, we can see that this scenario illustrates several dynamics related to the key concepts of prejudice and discrimination. First, every person in the room had prejudices about a male elementary school teacher. These prejudices were both negative (the candidate is less suitable because he is male) and positive (the candidate is more suitable because he is male). While the members of the hiring committee necessarily also held stereotypes, assumptions, and value judgments (prejudices) about female teachers, these prejudices were invisible, unremarkable, and taken for granted because female teachers are the norm in the elementary grades. Only the male teacher stood out to them. In other words, for someone to be seen as not suitable for the job based on their social group membership, someone else has to be seen as suitable for the job, based on their social group membership.

Second, each person tried to present this prejudice in a way that she believed was more socially acceptable than simply stating it bluntly. This indicates her awareness of the belief that it is wrong to be prejudiced.

And third, when someone pointed out the prejudice, others became defensive and insisted that no one in the group had any prejudice whatsoever. This illustrates the belief that it is possible to avoid prejudices altogether. Mary’s final statement that they had policies and procedures that would prevent any prejudicial evaluations leads us to the next chapter.

Discussion Questions

1. According to the authors, all people have prejudice and all people act (discriminate) based on their prejudices. Explain this process.

2. What is necessary in order to minimize the effects of our (discriminatory) actions based on our (prejudiced) ideas about social



Extension Activities

1. Generate a list of actions (verbs) and personality attributes (characteristics) that people in various occupations perform and have.

For example:

Teacher Environmentalist Police officer Dentist Soldier Counselor Librarian Stay-at-home parent Scientist Housekeeper Farmer Car wash attendant

What is the picture in your mind that you have of the person who holds that occupation? What gender, race, and class is that person? Does the person have a visible disability? Is she or he someone who will observe religious/holy days? If so, which ones?

Then compare your list with others’ lists. What are the implications of these pictures in our minds for the ways we might behave toward the person? And what are the implications of the awareness of these pictures in our mind for the ways we might behave toward the person?

2. Get a magazine and choose 10 photos of people. Swap your photos with others (so you are working with a different set). Sort the people in the photos according to each of these questions. Then pick one question, and rank all 10 photographs for that attribute, for example, from “smartest” to “not the smartest.”

1. Who’s the smartest? 2. Who’s the wealthiest? 3. Who’s the most religious? 4. Who reads a lot? 5. Who’s careful with money? 6. Who’s a stay-at-home parent? 7. Who’s the most likely to feel included in society? 8. Who’s the most likely to feel isolated? 9. Who’s the most likely to be put in charge?

Place Your Order Here!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *