Hello my loves,
Thank you all for your wonderful
contributions to the class discussion on Thursday. Especially since the topic
of implicit bias is extremely complicated, anecdotal experiences as well as
scholarly views are equally helpful to understand the implication of implicit
bias within the context of social justice.
In class we discussed the concept of
cognitive system one and two; one being rapid, intuitive, and error-prone,
while the latter tend to be more deliberative, calculative, and slower. Our
instinctual feelings are mostly the product of system one, which reflects our
bare emotions, such as anger, fear, joy, and repulsion. Some of us may like to
think that their behaviors are independent from cognitive system one, because
it is easier to believe that we have conscious control over our own behaviors.
But we might be surprised to learn that there, in fact, are a great degree of
interconnection between unconscious thoughts and our actual behaviors. We could,
however, cultivate and rationalize our cognitive system two, through, for
instance, moral and literal education. Whenever we encounter an incident, our
initial feelings and thoughts are derived from system one, though some of us
may express this bare emotion more explicitly than others. It will take longer
before the authority of system two kicks in, such as the role of our ethical
beliefs and logical thoughts. Unfortunately, there aren’t always enough time
for people to make rationalized decisions basing on their system two. Although
it often takes less then a minute for some one to unconsciously exhibit bias
driven behaviors, but consequences can be dreadful. These examples can be seen through
those white pedestrians in Staple’s story, police officers who shoot at unarmed
young minority men, and even George Zimmermann.
For my first question, I want to re-raise
a topic we discussed in class. Some scholarly suggested the option of utilizing
law, education, or therapy to “encourage a system two override of the system
one impulse.” Do you think it is feasible to adapt this approach in police
recruit, legal training, and hiring process of government positions? This
question is worth further discussion because it is important to explore
possible means to combat implicit bias buried deep in the criminal justice and
political spheres.
Most of our discussion on Thursday
evolves around the social phycology perspective of implicit bias, and I know
that some of are dying to pour out their thoughts on our readings. Here is your
chance! Please choose ONE question from below to discuss whether implicit bias is
capable of creating a biased social atmosphere that permanently cripple individuals’
self-perceptions.
Option 1) Why would Staples adopt “tension-reducing measures” to alter public place, and what
is the significant behind a perfectly innocent man’s conscious efforts to
“decriminalize” his physical appearance?
Option 2) What do you see as the main
contributing factor(s) in staples, Trayvon Martin, and Kimani Gray’s
terrifyingly similar unfortunate encounters? Also, what do their tragic
personal experiences suggest about existing collective social sentiment toward
young minority men?
Sylvie
7 comments:
Sylvie, very enjoyable class. Thanks again.
To answer your first question, I think that that is a necessary component to reducing system one impulses, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. Many professionals undergo so-called “sensitivity training”—i.e. police, psychologists--ostensibly engaging individuals to think more in terms of system two, but just how effective are such trainings? I think about individuals who may not want to recognize their biases, or worse, deny them. Or, like I mentioned in class, there might be the problem of translation of such training to real-life situations.
While I am all for cultivating a society where mindfulness, critical thinking, and reflection is of high importance—and I think we have been moving in that direction to some extent—, I think we first need to explore where system one biases originate (while also employing the former ideas you mentioned).
I mean, we’re not born prejudiced and racist individuals—that’s learned behavior. Like you said, system one is a built in mechanism with obvious evolutionary benefits (i.e. being afraid of the big dog to protect ourselves, or being able to react quickly to a dangerous situation). The problem is when people’s system ones become coded and enmeshed with race and ethnicity factors. Implicit bias is deep rooted. Race is a salient characteristic and, as you said, an easily accessible mental shortcut.
But that raises a deep question? Where do we even start? So many sources can unintentionally and intentionally propagate stereotypes—the media, family, friends, peers, teachers, etc. What experiences led Zimmerman to profile Trayvon Martin?
---
To your second question, Staples certainly adopts some interesting techniques to reduce the tension he unintentionally creates… I think, if anything, it says a lot about his personal character, and ability to deal with adversity. Is it right that he has to do that? No. Is it telling of our society’s biases? Yes. It definitely shows his heightened awareness of what is stereotypical, and more specifically, what is deemed stereotypically to be a predictor of dangerousness. It is a sad reality, and one that many individuals are (rightfully so) not as quick to accept and adapt to.
Sylvie,
Very enriching and interesting class! In regards to your first question, I do believe that it is crucial because it allows for a type of training to refocus one’s thought and reaction process. Though I believe the idea behind it seems effective to combat implicit bias, I don’t believe that it is as realistic as we had hoped. As Joe mentioned, this is just one piece of the puzzle.
There are two points that I would like to make which touches upon the effectiveness of the teaching, and how more still needs to be done. These two factors may impede upon the ability of such programs to allow law enforcement to be more aware of implicit bias, as well as the overall effectiveness of such programs.
The first factor is the awareness of the individual himself to realize his own implicit bias first. Some individuals, because they are so deeply rooted in their ways, as Joe mentioned, may not even recognize their bias or will deny them. Because of this, how receptive will they be to the training if they don’t even a problem within themselves? They may learn about different ways to “switch” to system two, but if they don’t sense an issue, how likely will that be?
The second factor stems to realizing where the implicit bias came from. As Joe mentioned, prejudice and racism is a learned behavior. By not realizing where the bias came from, again, one will deny and be less receptive to the teachings. The program will teach them how to control system one, but it is up to them to adjust and actually translate their learnings to real life situations. The issue of power comes into play. Yes, we teach them reasoning, etc., but when a real life situation happens, and they see the “bad guy,” how likely are they to stop and think? Their feelings of authority may override and they will instantly switch back to system one. Also, I want to point out that after a certain age, one may be in more denial because they have grown up with such prejudices throughout their lives, that they are conditioned to such thoughts and won’t see flaws in their ways.
To answer Option 1, I believe that Staples brings up the idea to adopt “tension-reducing measures” to hopefully ease stress that society feels around minority men. Because of the prevalence of implicit bias and “fear” that certain people of society feel around minority men, taking such measures will be a step towards easing tension. Not only does implicit bias affect society, it also affects the individual being discriminated against psychologically. After a while, the individual may take on the bias he/she is being subjected to and actually believe some of the negative connotations. With this, I want to make a reference to the Staples article. In the article, he referred to the white woman as his first “victim” when he never touched her. Because of all these negative stereotypes placed upon him, he actually began believing he was a threat to society and took on the unnecessary labels. I feel some people may take efforts to “decriminalize” their physical appearance to ease the tension society feels around him and so he can feel like less than a “threat” as well.
I know you all will not be surprised when I comment that Michelle's final paragraphs so clearly illustrate the process we have heretofore been calling "Grendling". This also struck me when re-reading the Staples article. (I read it when it was first published and it made me sad to think how the more things change, the more they stay the same.) We could not deny that Grendel went on to commit monstrous acts; we could not deny that while he shared things with humans he had a different history, a different space in the ecology of Hrothgar's kingdom. But we so clearly saw how he came to see himself through the eyes of others and that really complicates how we solve problems and assign responsibility.
Great class, Sylvie. And how can you not love someone who starts a post "hello my loves"?
I just want to chime in briefly and mess things up, as usual.
It would be lovely if we could cut someone's head open and see system one and system two, clearly delineated. Unfortunately, this is not the case. (There are not really two systems but it still is a useful metaphor for what we are discussing so I'll use the framework.)
The two systems are highly interdependent. Our executive brains are always searching out explanations/rationalizations for the feelings generated by the amygdala, the seat of our limbic system, our primitive brain.(Remember Grendel's soul searching trip to the Dragon?) Conversely, our supposedly "innate" senses, as Joe points out, are always being shaped by incoming data, both consciously (for example, through education) and unconsciously (for Instance, through emotionally arousing experiences).
Education, training etc. is great but it is only an opening salvo. What tends to make people less prejudiced over time is constant positive exposure to a stimulus. That can certainly be facilitated by changes in law which, in turn, change "folkways", giving people greater opportunity for positive interactions.
Police especially, because they deal with so much threat on a daily basis, and because they have so much exposure to human frailty, pain, illness, and depravity, may need more than just a few weeks of "training" to unlearn what sometimes, unfortunately, becomes a dark second nature. Community policing (no longer favored) used to put cops in neighborhoods so that they could see people's humanity as well as their inhumanity. I think this goes a substantial way towards eliminating "implicit bias".
Hello Sylvie, great class.
I really enjoyed this material and the topic is something we all need to discuss and pay attention to. I response to your question, I think that it is important to utilize any and all mechanisms necessary to combat biases, implicit or otherwise. I believe that there is so much that can be done to encourage people to see pass our physical appearances and to concentrate on an individual, based on his/her actions and character. I also agree with Joe and Michelle that the priority lies in identifying where our implicit biases come from since we are not born with prejudices. The way to combat implicit bias is by getting at the root of the onset. I believe that education is always the key to understanding society’s problems but I also think that we must engage with each other on a more humane level and try to understand that we are all different and that we come from different places, backgrounds, beliefs and understandings. If we can teach each other how to better understand one another, we might learn act, listen and understand without so many biases.
As we all said during class bias is something that not only affects the person who is the targeted by bias, it affects everyone in general. We learn from what we see and what we experience and when we are taught to act in a certain way or to expect a certain reaction from others, we will do and expect what we have been programed to expect and do.
Sylvie,
What an amazing class. You did an amazing job and it was such a great way to view this issue. Often times these conversations can get very heated and emotional, especially when using critical race theory (something I am very fond of) but you managed to steer the conversation in a very positive direction. Many people, including myself, can learn form you.
First off, while I agree that understanding implicit bias is important, we should be careful in thinking about using it to educate or train anyone - especially law enforcement. One, no test exists that is perfect, and as we discussed, implicit bias has its flaws. It would be dangerous to use it, perhaps, and may cause more turmoil than good (especially after the results - imagine FOX news). Also, as I experienced, I imagine the results would be rejected immediately. We would, as you said, not agree with our implicit bias because it may contradict our cognizant bias. To some, it may not, but to me, and many others (especially those in law enforcement) would not accept it and probably fight the use of the tool. However, I do believe that this may have an effect on society as a whole. it would open a forum of debate, and can perhaps bring out the problem of racism to the table again, in a much more authentic manner.
This raises another question. How do we deal with being aware of implicit bias as a society? And who is this important to? White people, men, taller people, more athletic individuals, and so on. When implicit bias goes into overdrive, someone is on the losing end of the interaction, so does that mean they should become the winners from us trying to resolve the issue. A confusing and very "justice" conversation, about who gets what and equality.
For the second question, I want to agree w/ Joe. Visually, we each have our notion for what is dangerous. For me, its a NYPD cop, not the black man walking down a dark street w/ me in it. But the cop may be the nicest person in the world. Its hard, but I think addressing the issues, like we have, can help us not only realize what our implicit biases are, but explore how we can fight it.
First, I want to thank Sylvie for the uncomfortable and stimulating class. Often times, especially in the United States, speaking out issues with race tends to create a tension or uncomfortable, which is necessary to generate changes in thinking. There were several times during the readings in which I had to pose to reflect whether I had some of my own implicit biases. Like Joe said, babies are not born to a race; race is a social construct. While training officers and legal professionals may help fix short-term problems, the root causes that contribute to implicit biases need to occur. For example, in the film, why are individuals so quick to rally around and pursue a black individual stealing a bike, yet are more hesitant during other times. Why is a black money viewed as emotionally and angry in a court when her son or daughter is charged with a crime, while a white mother, acting in the same manner, tends to be labeled as caring? Part of solving this problem requires two approaches. First, we must create mechanism that immunizes the opportunity for individuals to have discretion within the legal system. For instance, NYPD officers have discretion in who to arrest, individuals during in-take have discretion, and, at times, judges has discretion, over what actions to take during a case. Consequently, disproportionality in sentencing, crimes charges, and so forth vary as a result of implicit biases. Second, we must not be afraid to embrace and accept biases. The United States has adapted this culture that is so focused on colorblindness that we inhibit our ability to encourage individuals to own up to racial prejudices and seek help. It would be helpful to adapt approach to deal with implicit biases; however, I am not sure whether representative of the criminal justice system and legal system would be willing to accept the view that implicit biases are tainting decisions.
As I mentioned above, it is extremely important to recognize biases, especially to answer the second question. White people must recognize their privileges—even the poor and working-class—and understand that the system is more likely to favor them than someone in a similar position from a different race. As Nico said, people of color are constantly vulnerable to discrimination. Not all white people are racist, and, most importantly, stigmatizing and vilifying whites who have unconscious biases does not work. Part of the contributing factors to the Staples’, Trayvon Martin, and Kimani’s terrifying encounters involve a mass media system that reinforces criminal racial stereotypes. In addition, there is a psychological conditioning that has occurred during the past hundred years that have relied on using blacks and other minorities as the “other,” in turn allowing for detachment and the exploitation of racial stigmatization. For this reason, individuals are unwilling to question or explore the foundation to views and prejudices because they are never challenged. For example, let’s look at New York City. The NYPD is concentrated in minority communities with complete discretion to arrest individuals for non-violent crimes. The lack of resources, combined with limits in access to education and health, contributes to high rates of arrests. The general public looks at this situation without realizing that of course high rates of arrests are going to occur in communities that are over-policed and lack education and mental resources.
Post a Comment