Kryachkov 2!indd

48
Д. А. Крячков
UNIT II
There is no master key to understanding why we discriminate. Rather, what we have at our dis-
posal is a ring of keys, each of which opens one gate of understanding of why intercultural contact, 
inter-racial contact, inter-religious contact can engender friction. There are a half dozen answers 
to the question of why we develop prejudices, why we discriminate. 
Frequently we make false generalisations — not through malice or hatred, but just because, in 
many cases, it is easier to do so than to understand the real differences and complexities of our 
world. Whilst we may think that comments such as: ‘black people are good at sport’ or ‘women 
are more romantic than men’, or ‘Jewish people are good at making money’ are innocent enough, 
they all contain assumptions and half-truths that we use to categorise and ultimately stereotype 
the people who ‘belong’ to those groups. The belief that Japanese are shrewd, sly, and treacherous 
may be true about some Japanese, as it would be of some members of any other ethnic or racial 
group. But it is preposterous to apply it to all members of a group. One holding such a belief may 
feel uneasy about trusting, dealing with, or associating with Japanese people. Rather than try-
ing to process the complex nature of things, it is far simpler for us to generalise our experiences. 
Psychologists who work within this school of thought suggest that prejudice is a consequence of 
our natural tendency to categorise the world in order to make sense of it. Such stereotypes are 
not based on fact but rather on what we think is right from our limited experiences and upbring-
ing. Besides life is so short, and the demands upon us for practical adjustments so great, that we 
cannot let our ignorance detain us in our daily transactions. We have to decide whether objects 
are good or bad by classes. Rough and ready rubrics, however coarse and broad, have to suffice.
Other theories suggest that we need scapegoats. People on whom we can project blame for 
whatever we are unhappy about. And there is no better scapegoat than the person who seems 
least like us. Our schools would be a lot less violent if it weren’t for the African Americans. The 
neighborhood would be a lot cleaner if it weren’t for the Puerto Ricans. Taxes wouldn’t be so high 
if it weren’t for having to support the welfare mothers. All good scapegoats for what ails us. By 
tearing someone or something down, we elevate our position. It is so easy to tear down; by con-
trast, building up takes work, time and sacrifice. To substantiate our denigrating practices we slan-
der, we libel, we twist the facts, we hide the context, we elucidate on horror stories from times 
past, we claim to be ‘chosen one’ in eternal circles, and we tout the accomplishments of others. A 
million-and-one combination of tactics, strategies and excuses to elevate our stature at the ex-
pense of someone else without one single good reason. 
There are also sociological theories that posit we learn prejudice against other groups as part 
of being socialized into our own group. One theory, known as Social Learning Theory, had a pro-
found impact on our understanding of why we are prejudiced and what we can do to reduce 
prejudice in society. Social Learning Theory accepts that individual bigotry is only one part of 
the explanation behind prejudice, and suggests that there are many other factors influencing our 
behaviour towards people. This theory places a strong emphasis on the values of our parents and 
friends which we absorb, where we live, and what culture we belong to. All of these factors have a 
significant impact on which people and groups we believe are ‘like us’ and which we want to hold 
at arm’s length. Maleness for example, is not just biologically defined, it is also culturally defined. 
The biological part happens naturally enough, but the cultural part we have to learn. And as we 
learn that being male means being strong, rational, unemotional, in control, and yes, into sports, 
we also learn that femaleness is the opposite. It is being weak, flighty, emotional, powerless, and 
unathletic. Hence, we learn our prejudices as we acquire our identities. Men make good presi-
dents, but not women. Men make good hockey players, but not women. 
40
50
60
70
80

---