The confrontation of prejudice

[adrienmundi]

Is it the obligation of conscientious individuals (ie, me, in this case) to confront all instances of prejudice they encounter? Is there ever a case in which it's morally acceptable, or where it's just more trouble than it's worth? I tend to hold myself to the Kantian standard of the categorical imperative (damn German philosophers; I blame Kant and Hegel for much of my interpersonal confusions), but I also realize that I tend to be less than realistic in my standards as applied to myself.

Comments

[champignon.livejournal.com]

Well, first, I don't think it's possible. There are so many types of prejudice, and we all are guilty of it. And I think if you tried, in most cases, it would be a waste of your time. And, if you really tried to confront all instances, you'd never have time to do anything else. I suspect you have other things you'd like to do with yourself. :-)

My guess is that you are talking about a specific type of prejudice, but even if you narrow it down, I think you'd be spinning your wheels a lot doing direct confrontation. Few will change their minds because someones says "You're wrong!"

I believe that the way we conduct ourselves, express ourselves, and explain ourselves when asked is far more instructive to most people than going out on a crusade to change people's minds or show them where they are wrong.

your cynical (lazy?) pal,
K :-)

[adrienmundi]

Yeah, I'm talking about my least favorite -ism, but I want to play with metaphor for a moment.

Say you and Will receive an invitation for a social gathering. Aside from the time/place, details, etc., right at the top is a statement to the effect of "Please join us for our All White(ethnicity, not color scheme) Party!". Independent of whether you want to go or not, or any other details, I'd guess that would be quite offensive to most people I know. It's quite different if all those invited happen to be caucasian, than if it's stated that only caucasians are even qualified to be invited.

And yet, few feel the same tug of guilt and unfairness if you substitute "man/boy" or "woman/girl" for "white". To me, it's just as arbitrary, just as exclusionary, and just as prejudiced.

[champignon.livejournal.com]

OK, but finding something offensive, confronting it, and the manner in which one confronts are all different things.

In your post, you asked if we thought one is obligated to confront all instances of prejudice one encounters... I don't think anyone can confront all the prejudice one encounters, because prejudice is everywhere.

That's not to say that I don't find much of it offensive. I just can't take it on myself to fight all of the battles. Context, the importance of the issue (to me), and a lot of other things affect the way I respond to prejudice that I notice or encounter. My take, in answer to your question, is that, in a lot of cases, it is more trouble than it is worth. It all depends...

[subjective.livejournal.com]

for me it usually comes down to context, & issues of safety, both for me & for the people i'm with.

lately i feel like my energies have been more focused on confronting my own allies, self-identified progressive folks, on more subtle forms of prejudice. weirdly, sometimes those are the most difficult confrontations of all.

[adrienmundi]

It doesn't seem weird at all to me. Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm expected to be grateful for whatever support that is aimed my way, and that it's the height of ingratitude to question those who offer such support. Thankfully, this is not so much the case now as it has been in the past, at least for me.

[martinhesselius.livejournal.com]

When you see it in me, please do so.

[adrienmundi]

Only if it's a reciprocal deal.

[martinhesselius.livejournal.com]

Done. :)

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the premise.
Not all things matter the same
Not all things count the same
And even though one may be find bias in something stemming from another's worldview of distinct categories, (as VERY distinct from outright prejudice-- and though i may not like it personally, i have nothing, no obligation and probably no 'right' to mess with someone who likes to think in blunt categories but who is perfectly happy and functional with such an epistemology WIHTOUT hurting anyone -in a more substantial manner than others just 'not liking it' -and i have rather conservative views on what constitutes 'offence' and what one can do about it-) sometimes the problem is not prejudice but silliness or stupidity.
You can confront stupidity (or what seems to you and possibly others to be stupid). That is usually tiresome, ineffective and hence pointless, and hell, we all live with tons of things we do not quite like and accept them even in those we hold most near and dear.
And if hominids are complex (and we are all for complexity), we take the less good with the more good as on a personal level, it is usually pretty hard to make absolute judgments about someone because along the stupid things they do and have done cool things. (Makes us confused, but it is a GOOD thing, btw).
Or you can laugh about it, maybe with a hint of indignation, and shake your head at the facile simpletonistic world.
But to call foul on such things as you would for an actual breach in human decency, both dilutes the power and right to call it when it truly happens and when it truly matters and… is that not a form of intolerance?

[adrienmundi]

Interesting, and good points. I guess the question becomes, at what point does it matter? What are the instances of "seriousness", what are "silly and/or stupid"? At what point does an unexamined prejudice cross from the realm of one category to the other?

I don't think I'm about making judgement here; I'm much more concerned with ideas about what to do, how to best carry my point across, and whether it's worth the effort, or if I should just suck it up and strive to develop a "thick skin", since things like this bother appear to bother me more than others.