Prejudice and Discrimination

Two common words, prejudice and discrimination, are often conflated or seen as two sides of a single coin. They are clearly connected but are not synonymous. Put simply, prejudice refers to preconceived negative attitudes about specific people; discrimination is targeted behavior.

Like other attitudes, prejudice (the word is derived from the Latin praejudicium, meaning to prejudge) has several components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The first refers to beliefs, even those that may be and frequently are erroneous (“All Slobovians are terrorists”). The second refers to emotions (“Whenever I see a White person I get nervous”). The third refers to a readiness to act (“I know what I'm going to do when I go into that neighborhood where those people live”). According to sociologist Arnold M. Rose, “However false as to fact, prejudice has a certain logic, a logic not of reason but of the emotions…. Prejudice is more than false belief; it is a structure of false belief with a purpose, however unconscious” (1948, p. 374).

Believing something, feeling something, even having an impulse to act on those beliefs and feelings is not action, but any form of unjust and harmful behavior against a specific social aggregate, category, or group of people is discrimination.

Many Americans have grown up learning the bit of doggerel that says, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” This is simply untrue. Names—“coon,” “spic,” “wop,” “hebe,” “raghead” (epithets that have been used as labels for African Americans, Italians, Latinos, Jews, and Arabs, respectively)—and other such derogatory terms hurt those targeted by such expressions. They are harmful. Name-calling is discrimination. So, too, of course, is any manifestation of denial of access and attacks against others based on race, creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation. Such actions range from segregation and ghettoization to “ethnic cleansing” and genocide, the deliberate mass murder of a targeted population. Every one of these forms of discrimination has occurred over the centuries. The 21st century appears to be no exception.

Many years ago, in an essay, “Discrimination and the American Creed,” the American sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed out that it is a fact that many prejudiced people do act in a discriminatory manner and that some, far fewer, nonprejudiced people never discriminate. At the same time, there are many who might be prejudiced but refrain from acting on their beliefs and feelings and desires and many who are inclined to discriminate but are somehow reluctant to do so. Merton sagely suggested that a key factor in these seemingly curious conundrums is the situation in which individuals find themselves.

While those in the first two categories—who might be called “active bigots” and “open-minded liberals,” respectively—are readily identifiable, they are in the minority. According to Merton, far more people fall into the other cells of the typology. The prejudiced nondiscriminators are those who may harbor all sorts of negative thoughts about others but are restrained by law or custom from acting on their preconceived assumptions. The nonprejudiced discriminators are those who “know better” but follow certain policies and practices because they do not want to rock the boat. They may consciously go along to get along. The last two types, aptly labeled “timid bigots” and “fair-weather liberals,” are both clearly influenced by the circumstances in which they find themselves. The importance of this cannot be overstated: In the first case, restraint prevents prejudiced people from turning thoughts into actions; in the second, altering the social conditions by enacting and enforcing antidiscrimination laws can give license to those who go along to get along despite their own beliefs, to bring behavior into line with sentiments.

...