articles
China Elevator Stories
Benign Bigotry: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice (by Kristin J. Anderson)
When prejudice is subtle, it can be hard to fight.
22/09/2024
Ruth Silbermayr
Author
Recent events have shown that in Central European countries like Austria and Germany, overt racism and sexism have become increasingly prevalent in recent years.
In Kristin J. Anderson’s 2009 book Benign Bigotry: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice, she observes a different trend in the 2000s: “As biological and social sciences have challenged claims regarding the biological basis of human differentiation, legislative (e.g., Brown vs. Board of Education) and cultural transformations have made overt racism, sexism, and homophobia less socially acceptable.”
Thomas Booker explains that racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed at someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
The internet has enabled individuals to remain anonymous. Although significant efforts have been made to prevent the use of fake accounts and identities, these efforts have not been thorough enough to stop people from remaining anonymous or using fake identities.
In Europe, while clashes between groups of different religious, cultural backgrounds, and nationalities have increased in frequency, violent incidents have also escalated in recent years. The internet has contributed to more radicalization, more aggressive behavior, and a level of anonymity that allows individuals to express racist, sexist, and violent views without fearing significant repercussions.
One major incident of racial violence occurred during the far-right riots that followed the stabbing of three young girls in the UK this year. Another major sign of rising racism in Germany was seen in the recent state elections, which indicated that the far-right has gained significant support over the past few years.
“The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has become the first far-right party to win a state election in Germany since the Nazi era, dealing a crushing blow to Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government with only a year to go before the next federal election. After voting closed on Sunday, the AfD was projected to become the strongest party in the eastern state of Thuringia, with 32.8% of the vote, and to come a close second in Saxony, with 30.6% of the vote.
In another worrying development for Germany’s mainstream, the fledgling Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) – a far-left party that has questioned the country’s support for Ukraine and shares some of the AfD’s anti-immigration streak – came third in both states, despite only being founded earlier this year.
Although extremism has long been concentrated in Germany’s east, the results will be a concern for Scholz’s center-left SPD coalition, which slumped to a dismal fifth in both states. If federal elections were held now, recent polls show the AfD could become the second-largest group in the Bundestag, with the SDP trailing in third.”
While these incidents reveal overt prejudice, Kristin J. Anderson points out that during the time she wrote her book, a different kind of prejudice—subtle prejudice—was more common.
I’ve experienced subtle prejudice personally, such as in court, where a judge believed my children belonged with their Chinese family and didn’t need an Austrian mother. Another judge restricted me to speaking only Chinese with my children during video calls, forbidding me from speaking German, which violates both Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
When a judge claims I am only allowed to speak Chinese with my children in video calls because my children supposedly don’t speak German anymore, this falls under the category of “subtle prejudice,” where discrimination is concealed.
Kristin J. Anderson describes overt prejudice this way: “You used to be able to spot them a mile away. Bigots. If they weren’t wearing white hoods, you could count on their willingness to identify themselves in conversation by their unabashed use of racial epithets and sexist stereotypes. They were the co-workers telling homophobic jokes in the break room. They were the people who insisted that a woman could never be president because her pre-menstrual syndrome might one day lead to nuclear war. Bigots – loud and proud and easy to recognize from their behavior and conversation. The bigot was able to find justification and comfort in a deeply rooted set of ideas supported by prejudice at cultural and institutional levels.”
This shift has led to the rise of a different form of discrimination—subtle prejudice. It is harder to detect because it remains hidden. Anderson further explains:
“That overt and conspicuous bigotry has decreased is supported by research. In the United Kingdom, in 1987, 75% of people polled expressed the view that homosexuality was always or mostly wrong. By 2008, only 32% expressed this view. In 1989, a third of British men agreed with the statement, ‘A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family.’ By 2008, agreement with that statement had dropped to 17%. In the early 1960s, only one third of white Americans believed that blacks and whites should be allowed by law to marry each other. By 1995, four of every five whites believed they should be. Are such changes in reported attitudes reflecting heartfelt beliefs or is this surface reporting? Susan Fiske observes that the more public the arena, and the more abstract the principle, the more marked the change in attitudes toward tolerance.”
Kristin J. Anderson concludes:
“There is a consensus among social scientists that prejudice has changed in the last several decades. The number of individuals reporting prejudiced attitudes has decreased. At the same time, the location of prejudice has changed; it now resides underground, in a subtler form.”
While I observed this trend in Europe during the 2000s, in recent years, people have reverted to becoming less liberal, less tolerant, and more prejudiced. The first time I noticed this extreme shift was in 2019 when I returned to Austria from China. However, the trend had already begun earlier—I first noticed it around 2015, during my visits to Austria.
When prejudice is subtle, it is nearly impossible to fight in court. Even when you experience discrimination, your lawyer might claim it didn’t happen. Subtle prejudice, unlike overt discrimination, is hard to prove. In Austria, this seems to be the case: the shift toward prejudice has been a covert process, making it difficult to detect unless you pay close attention to details.
For example, in a custody lawsuit where a mother is not allowed to see her children in person because of her ex-husband’s actions, overt prejudice would be at play if the judge mentioned this was due to the mother being a woman. However, subtle prejudice is at play when the judge connects this to the children not being accustomed to their Austrian mother.
Kristin J. Anderson further discusses how to make subtle prejudice visible:
“Given the changing nature of prejudice and its often covert and unconscious forms, how do we go about studying it? How do we make subtle prejudice visible, and how do we reveal its effects?”
She uses the term “benign bigotry” to describe this subtle form of prejudice: “I will use benign bigotry as an umbrella term to describe subtle prejudice—prejudices that are automatic, covert, often unconscious, unintentional, and sometimes undetectable by the target. The term is not intended to suggest that the subtle forms of bigotry described in this book are less harmful than other forms. They are not. In fact, benign bigotry is extremely harmful because it is insidious.”
Regarding racism, Anderson explains the difference between explicit and implicit prejudice: “Explicit prejudice is a set of feelings about others that are consciously accessible, seemingly controllable, and self-reported. Racism based on explicit prejudice is referred to as old-fashioned or overt racism. Implicit prejudice may or may not be consciously accessible and may be difficult or impossible to control. Implicit prejudice is believed to be a consequence of years of exposure to associations in the environment. It tends to be impervious to conscious control and is relatively stable.”
Thomas Booker explains overt and covert racism in this video on YouTube, saying: “Overt racism is done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden—an example would be the use of racial slurs to degrade somebody or physical violence targeted solely based upon their race. Covert racism is much harder to deal with and is much more insidious.”
In the case of a judge not allowing Austrian-Chinese children to see their Austrian mother in person, what we are dealing with is covert racism. The judge did not openly mention the reason was that I was Austrian or claim that my children should stay in China because they are mixed—this would be overt racism. Instead, he cited my ex-husband’s actions and claimed my children were no longer familiar with me, not allowing them to form the bond with me that would be necessary for them to feel comfortable with me. This statement was not based on facts or real evidence, it was merely based on a fictitious belief about the situation.
Judging from the video calls, yes, my children have been alienated from me by their Chinese dad and grandparents. But after a few calls, they have been okay chatting with me, and I could see that we still had the same bond we used to have when they were little.
One of my sons always played with me in the video calls, and my other son joked and laughed with me.
Parental alienation is a severe form of psychological abuse, and children should never have to stay in an abusive environment that encourages parental alienation. As with any form of abuse, children have a right to be protected from it—it is a universal human right of the child.
So how about this: Let’s take newborn children away from their Austrian mothers, give them to their Chinese fathers and grandparents, and then claim the babies can’t bond with their mothers because they don’t know them yet? After all, they were only in their bellies and didn’t have time to get to know their mother. Wouldn’t that be just as great? I mean, who needs mothers anyway?
Have you ever experienced subtle prejudice?