AUGUST 2005 - ISSUE 5 - ISSN 1448 - 632

	A REFLECTION ON PREJUDICE   AN IRRATIONAL REACTION BASED ON "HARD EVIDENCE"   PETER BLAKEY

 

Abstract

Prejudice - it comes in many forms and reflects more upon the holder than those to whom it expressed. This essay is an attempt to address the concept from an individual perspective. Drawing on a range of experiences in which 'comfort zones' and presumptions were challenged, and held to account, the understanding of what induces the destructive and fearful activity we call prejudice is examined. Understanding our fears, and acknowledging their presence is part of the process of our developing understanding in our humanity and ourselves in particular.

The concept of prejudice - or rather what is ' a prejudice' has been one of the major impediments to harmonious human existence. Its manifestations are various, and to acknowledge such requires a degree of self-examination that may be difficult, as it requires a review of the person of your self and all that is involved. There is an element of the understanding and implementation of the concepts of theology - as in on the basis of what do we know and believe.

Let me commence with a story, avoiding locations or names, as they are not really that important. What happened though was as I remembered - and stayed with me. It's relevance, I trust will come apparent in the course of time.

 Some years ago, when I first arrived in this city, where I am now resident, I was in need of using public transport - namely that curse of modern society - the public bus. Whilst there were many things one could complain about in this town - the efficiency of the public transport was on the list. Just the amount of this service - limited by a citizenry umbilically attached to their pet  - the car. Around my first residence these came in the form of Paddington 'paddock bashers'. Four wheel drive vehicles that would more often as not collapse in the quivering heap at the very thought of mud, or anything that wasn't covered in bitumen and cambered according to government specifications.

The bus stop was on the main road, which, given the location was an asphalt track going towards one bend, and - conversely - disappearing around another. The residents, such as I could make out, were of a conservative disposition, not open to communicating with their neighbours, accept by phone. Such being the size of the properties - and they would be defined by letter boxes strategically placed against the road, behind which was a density of bush that anticipated the return of Ludwig Leichhardt.

Thus I awaited the bus. Sun was hot, it was early morning and summer was in full swing. As the lorikeets haggled over breakfast, I watched the 4WD's pass by heading to God knows where. Suddenly, from out of the bus, beside the bus stop came a car. I acknowledged the entry into civilisation with a nod. The car stopped.

"Want a lift into town?" I was spoken to, and after getting over that shock, responded with a request to go to the nearest railway station. A request, being a minor diversion from the same direction, found my exchanging names, the limited personal history available in the given time and our respective occupations.

My driver was a financial consultant. Something I noted as being something that we did not have in common - but listened carefully. This person was also a member of the local Lutheran community, involved with the local Lutheran school.

Now my previous residential locations never had these strange species of Christian in any number. I had studied Martin Luther in my youth - his passion, bravery and courage stayed with me ever since. My fascination was aroused. Then an invitation to a Lutheran Men's Breakfast came and was accepted - with the curiosity thus aroused; this was too good to avoid. My spiritual education was about to continue - I was going to meet live Lutherans.

My partner was non too impressed - being Catholic and then having our neighbourhood financial consultant coming over to visit, both to discuss the 'Breakfast' and other things we'd discussed on our way to the station. However as this was a "Men's Breakfast", she washed her hands of the whole thing, with a "you got yourself into this………."

And so, at 6.00am one sunny Saturday morning, I was collected and with others arrived at the local community centre of another local Lutheran Church, for breakfast.

And so, through further mouth filled introductions I was exhibited to the others present. Around the hall were mostly men of my age, or within the neighbourhood, dressed in conservative, but casual attire, that was at ease with their company, and their apparent affluence.

Upon prayer and consuming a breakfast that would have kept the residents of Dafur Refugee camp in the Sudan, nourished for a couple of days, one of the pastors arose and spoke about the topic of the talk. A smallish man, who could have easily passed off for a garden gnome, stood rather nervously behind him. 'Bill' - the real name I've forgotten - was introduced, more like a father or uncle introduces a younger relative, as in…

"How are you going 'Bill'?"  ……….and what are you doing now?"………"And the wife?"

"Bill" nervously responded - yes he was well, he was working a clerk for a TAFE institute in the outer western suburbs, and yes, his wife was well. Yes he was still umpiring cricket in the local competition.

I sat contemplating this - a store clerk with a receding hairline and slightly expanding waistline was going to talk to this gathering about 'the dark night of the soul'.

A voice in me muttered a  " Yeah right!" as my eyes surveyed the potential escape routes, the company and ruminating on the concept of my presence. What could this person teach me?

And then 'Bill' told about how he'd shot his first wife and his wife's lover, and how he'd charged and convicted of these crimes of passion. Of what life was like in maximum security in one of our more brutal gaols, and that he was still living with his crime. Of prison riots, fear of death and his re-discovering of God.

We sat stunned silence. The silence, being broken by the sound of our jaws bouncing across the floor. What had we - or rather I - walked into. I hardly knew him, and yet  - this little bloke had done - what!!?  We were in the presence of a double murderer, and being told about his life.  Then things moved to finding God, being helped by the Lutheran pastors, and how he'd used his love of cricket to aid his release on parole.

No, he would never be forgiven for these horrendous crimes. His children - mature adults now - would never forgive him for this. Accepted, understood and yet - no bitterness. No sense of 'if they had only known', and so on - just an acceptance that IT had happened; it was an offence both against nature and God, and he had to live with this for the rest of his life.

Life after prison was getting back together. Married with a wife who both knew what had happened, and accepted him for who he was. A steady job and support from a group of generous souls. No, his children still had not forgiven him, but he'd accepted that.

And yet, in a society that is all too keen to lock the offender up, and throw away the key - he looked - reformed - whatever that ' being reformed' actually meant. He had done what he had done - been through his own private hell, the odd prison riot and the general 'joys' of being 'inside'. Now - with a stable job, a stable relationship and people who knew him, in affirmation of this.

Was I speechless - of course. There is a first time for everything. There was no desire to do anything - but reflect. To consider, if that opportunity ever arose - would I do likewise? More than mildly hypothetical given the capacity I have to access firearms or shoot straight.

This experience challenged me to my very core - and caused a review of what I understood and in what I believed. I have always believed that punitive actions - such as capital punishment and the like - are both pointless and inducing of 'bad karma', as well as doing nothing more than duplicate - in some cases - the crime as punishment.

This example required me to take my thoughts away from theoretical and bring them to the present. Was it the exposure to too much simplistic popular culture, where bad people did these things and good people didn't? I was being challenged, on so many levels and with no real way to duck out of the exercise. Intellectually I know some of these thoughts were silly, but never had I really had to face these in flesh, as it were.

These certainties scattered before the winds of the immediate experience. Yes, 'Bill' might do IT again - and he might not. Here was someone though, by a number of strokes of luck, was back into the community. A community that still has trouble accepting the possibility that someone may be remorseful of such a horrendous act, and yet be capable to be as was before me, a person whose self knowledge and awareness was more than I could ever have hoped.

And yet, standing before we mainly middle aged males, was a factual example of the redemption of soul, who'd committed an unspeakable act, acknowledged this, and accepted the outcome, and through this and other positive and constructive actions - was accepted back into the community.

The challenge arose in me. It wasn't so much a case of 'some of my best friends are…' as to determine where my prized open mind had gone and why. Were the emotions I was experiencing based on the positive or the negative experiences that had been part of the socialising forces in my life. I saw my prejudices rise up in me, and was trying to understand why they were there, given that - I hardly knew 'Bill' at all.

Basic Definitions and understandings

For me, prejudice is a strongly and irrationally held belief or beliefs about something that is personally important, allegedly based on what 'hard and conclusive evidence'. In attempting objectivity in describing what is becoming an advanced form of social cancer within the existing community, I have provided a superficial response to a complex and involved situation. But to attack it - for it does need to be attacked and at its source, there is a need to address the lack of understanding of the human condition. What makes these upright apes the dominant species within the food chain, and yet has them commit some of the most amazing cruelties upon themselves - in the name of prejudice.

The need to, as that old Joe South's song, to " before you accuse, criticise and abuse - walk a mile in my shoes" - first requires knowing whose shoes you are using, and whether the journey is warranted. Thus the journey is not to transport yourself into the psyche of the German Concentration Camp guard, or the Israeli soldier on the "Green Line", but start with the eyes of either the person in the mirror, or for the brave - the person opposite.

What is visible to you? The hair, the eyes, body shape and so on. Go on have a good stare - be obnoxious about it. The effect will be quite intimidating - and the source of many a fight. It also requires a degree of focus and courage - because…………the person you are looking at, just ….. may … look back, and do what you are doing to you.  Accept them as part of the human family, and that we are related by the "six degrees of separation' or what? Already we have raised the barriers to sharing of information about things that make us, for want of better - unique.  The experience of the return of that look implies connection, and where will that lead us? There is a classic child safety motto - "Don't talk to strangers". We of the Anglo-Celtic 'persuasion' are also encouraged to respect each other's personal space. Therefore we have created a basis of antagonism that without the necessary understanding about the process inhibits the intake of knowledge that allows the 'shared journey' to commence. You could be staring at the Prophet Mohamed - but what would you see? - An Arab or a holy being? And on the basis of this reference to your collective social understandings - what could you say, or do?

Some spiritual philosophies talk about our interaction with our fellow humanity as being a reflection of 'own Selves".  If that person is looking back at you from the mirror, this is even worse - as you are taking your understandings about the world in which you live, and the capacity for personalised objectivity is almost non-existent. The capacity for self-acceptance is not something that comes down from parent to child. The parent is too busy trying not to make the same mistakes they made as children, or as they experienced from their parents. The need to protect, to do the right thing - overrides the need to encourage one to accept and acknowledge, but look into the shape before you in more than transitory and fleeting manner.

And this would be added to our stock o personal knowledge, and used as hard evidence. Evidence on which to base perceptions, reactions and sincerely held conclusions about life and times.  But - seriously - what does this say about prejudice? Let us accept that they exist. Where do we find them, and how do we address and reconcile these "well founded beliefs"?

Prejudice, it could be suggested, is a subjective reaction to social or environmental conditioning. The re-enforced plausible falsehood writ large, rather than the resolution of complex truths.

Is prejudice, God given? If it is accepted that there is a humanity of within the Christian God - and that this being should have a decision in the matter is never considered. Does this God of love understand what is meant by, ' being on OUR side'?  For those who believe this, they know it feels good, it justifies the conditioning of a few hundred years, and numerous deaths within what is supposed to be a Christian community. And yet they are the same people who pray to this God of Love. The irony in that alone is mind blowing.

What role God - the personal being of God - has in the existence of prejudice may be debated? What is evident is that it occurs through ignorance, supported by intolerance and produces that toxic by-product - a fear of the unknown and the capacity to accommodate or tolerate that unknown.   As in we don't know, we don't need to know - we don't want to understand, and it appears within that ignorance exists a type of safety. There is no room for interplay, the lines are drawn, and it requires an extreme effort to reverse this situation.

How is this matter changed? How do we become children of the Christian New testament God of Love? It requires a will to swim against the tide. It also demands an ability to see the person of yourself, Mohamed, Buddha, Jesus or whoever, in that which you don't understand. It is the seeing of yourself in others - or the Christ in you, in the images of others.

However that is only half the journey, as to address this social cancer, it requires both parties - of their own choice - to move on and establish the sense of who they are, and how they are reflected in each other's existence. However maybe the concept of prejudice is subjective. Must all prejudices be implicitly bad?

Are there such things as good prejudices?

The question presumes that a prejudice is an objective concept. Given that prejudice is - by implication - a pre judgement made from sources, whose validity is yet to be tested, cannot therefore stand up the necessary scrutiny of what would be an objective concept. We therefore have a situation where suspicion and superficiality are used to cover personal ignorance.

The very acknowledgment of this ignorance is an admission of awareness. However in doing so, exposes a personal vulnerability that can be threatening to our being. There is a universal 'truth' that knowledge is power, but a more accurate view would be knowing, and knowing what is known, is of itself powerful.

It’s a part of self-knowledge, in which the truths, about who we are, provide us with the strength to maintain that journey of discovery, rather than hide behind conceptions that have not been thoroughly tested.

Prejudice is therefore something of a safe harbour, in which a view establishes itself, confirmed, and then selectively re-enforced over time, from within one's social comfort zone.

Rather than wringing one's hands, there needs to be a process developed to allow for the appreciation of where one has travelled, so to understand both the journey and the mode of transport. This is something that provides the major challenge to a harmonious society and - dare I say it - peace in our time.

Once the lack of understanding, knowledge or whatever term seems appropriate is accepted, the next step is to know where the boundary of the zone is and cross it. This can be achieved by establishing the nature and substance of commonalities - the things that bind us together. Basic survival, social infrastructure and others may be a basis of finding where the commonalities arise when dealing with a prejudice against something or someone. Then move to establish - as objectively as possible - the points of difference.  Thus begins the walk - not so much of subservience to the understanding. There is no guarantee that others will walk with you, or towards you, in this journey. But as this is a matter of self-understanding, this is of consequence, but not something that prevents commencement.

The Nurture of Prejudice

So why should it be of benefit to anyone to encourage the maintenance of a cancerous ignorance that cripples, maims and kills? It maintains the status quo - would be a simple response. Divided communities allow others to make the decisions for them, provided they support the prejudice. In maintaining the chaos, there is a stability in which there are some winners, and many losers. The challenge is step outside the safety of this 'iron curtain' and establish meaningful dialogue. To move beyond the accepted mores, and find - what might be a truth about this matter?

The Bible has many examples of where the prejudice of the community is held up against the teachings of Jesus.  Both in social and spiritual terms - Jesus' activities challenged the perceptions of those in power, as he sort to present truths, that had been hidden in the midst of those around him. The actions of the Sanhedrin and the Roman Government - it may be suggested - in addressing these issues, related more to the maintenance of the status quo, and all that this entailed. 

That prejudice is encouraged, in some places as a means of political control. Suspicion is encouraged, to divide, control and conquer people and nations. It is easier to control when the authority is passed on elsewhere. The existence and 'nurturing' of this state of consciousness, becomes an instrument of policy. In circumstances where a tradition of hatred has developed, the base prejudices that arise from the "tradition' are used to maintain that statue quo.

The main theme underlying the existence of the communal attitudes that have been generated from initial prejudice is that through division comes control. Prejudices are used to preserve the control of some over the many. Thus to meet immediate needs to control, the Israelis will take land for settlements, and America will build more nuclear bombs.

In the name of security, or whatever piece of rationalisation is needed, the prejudice against those against whom 'we need to be secure form', justifies these acts. The need to communicate, resolve and share - in short, remove the grounds for prejudice to exist - becomes lost.

The existence of prejudice, in is many forms, derives from the fear of moving outside the comfort zone that your society claims to provide. Prejudice, being seen in terms of the acceptance of the present social order, and using this to endorse the denial of difference. The denial being seen not as the action of one part of the societal equation, but being the basis on which societal conflict and division arises. The prejudice of one, and the attendant actions provide a further basis of reaction, give that the basis of the existing suspicions have been verified.

Because we don’t know any better, we see your 'action' and respond to it in terms of "I told you so" - suspicion confirmed. The nurture of this is allowed to occur, as a political instrument of control. For instance, the west - as personified as an Anglo-Celtic Christian Capitalist society - is being seen as being under siege by the Islamite 'east'. The East - no longer seen in terms of the Communist - as this myth has ceased, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Detente.

Rather than finding a basis of initial communication, in which equity and openness are the key, there appears to be an approach, from both sides that focuses on the virtues of the known, against the need to find common points of understanding. There God is seen in Christian terms, where as a closure consideration of that point would see both seeing the same thing and describing differently. Only in a basic sense, is that concept alone, seen within the historical continuum that started with the Prophet Abraham and move through time and history to the Prophet Mohamed.

The suspicion, of the differences between the communities, nurtured by the actions that produced the Crusades and the foundation of the Israeli state - have seen the prejudices of these spiritual communities formalised into a state of war.  The prejudice, being re-enforced by the actions of those reacting to the sins of their forebears. However this cannot continue - the basic spiritual practices that are the cornerstone of the belief, as well as the measure of the historical journey from the Torah to the Koran - demand that the issues must be addressed.

However who makes the first move, and can such an act be done without the loss of something by the initiator? To make the journey of understanding, it requires an open mind. An open mind not only values the known, but also is prepared to challenge by the unknown. The Socratic challenge of 'knowing nothing, and knowing that' leaves the participant open and vulnerable.

It also requires the challenge to be accepted, and without conditions. The point of being vulnerable, in the present society is seen as a sign of weakness. Rather than approach the concepts of joint understanding, valuing the important and discarding the irrelevant, there is more a view that such an action is a concession as the position and understandings that are held, because they are being held up to challenge - are of no value. The assumption would therefore appear that coming to establish an understanding, without preconditions, is a sign of weakness.

Thus we maintain our prejudices - deify them with the re-enforcement of the results of history - and present them as legitimised facts.

We need to take up the challenge and open our hearts and minds to the shock of the new. The process of opening up, places those involved in a position of vulnerability. It also requires the process to be shared. Acceptance of more than the immediate 'known' is one thing, the 'known' has its degree of re-enforcement and legitimisation. An opening up requires an acceptance of specifics. The specifics that cover all matters - whether it’s the acceptance of God, or the concept of the human spirit being seen as "That", rather than an attachment of personality and ego to the existent self.

In reflection of the argument being presented, let me take you back to that communal breakfast. As I sat through this recollection of the 'dark night of the soul" of this double murderer, I attempted to address my feelings. I searched for where I could see links between us. The major impediment firstly was, not just that I'd never killed, but could I have killed? This drew me deeper into myself - the matter of killing was a result of anger. Yes, I had experienced both anger and the grief it caused me, as a result of its uncontrolled expression.

The more I reflected, the less certain I was of my own self. Rather than deny the possibility, where was the basis of any link to the act that saw two people die? Had I the right to judge - given that I hadn't walked the miles that had got the person to where he was? It was not for me to judge, but to reflect. To reflect within the nature of my humanity - rather than just own the various facets of my ego's attempt to control the situation. My prejudice - as expressed in use of words and the general sense of the telling of the story - does not address the feelings that must be with the doer of the act. Not so much implied but expressed - aware that an offence against the spirit and fact of the nature and the spiritual understanding that was now possessed. The act has been done - the punishment - from the community and society meted out and yet the effects keep following until the end.

The prejudice of the not knowing, the use of superficial reference points that do not take the individual passed the point where they look into their souls, seeking a basis on which dialogue can commence is not an easy call. How do we counsel let alone understand someone who has participated in an abortion? Do we resort to the written thoughts of others - using them as a basis of response in strict terms - or should take all that we know and weigh it against our personal senses of who we are, and that being in terms of the specific essence of our humanity.

Too often we take predisposed positions, and covert them to a state of fact - rather than accepting the essence of the teachings and then using them to measure against our 'Self', rather than the manifestation of this - which is our ego.  To avoid the cancer that arises from prejudice in action, careful reflection on experience and our selves is needed. I contend that we are all one, in many essential elements - these elements being washed back from the diminishing presence of ego. Shakespeare's observation about being to thine own self, true - is presented in sharp relief as our spiritual nature - in what ever manner expressed - is set against a simple and pat response to a complex situation.

To avoid prejudice, acceptance of its presence is the initial criteria. Taking this, it then necessary to move through dogma and belief to a position that considers the situation in terms of the 'doer' and the 'reflecter' being of the same being. The seeking of initial commonalities allows for understanding to develop. The challenge is not in acceptance, but the reaching of understandings that neither condone nor accept as a sign of concession. The outcome being something that enhances the spiritual and communal nature of those involved and lifts them further in their growth as spiritual beings.

Faith, belief and all that this entails requires more than just blank acceptance of what is imparted as 'truth'. Prejudice accepts unchallenged truth as fact. The need to maintain the participation in the journey ensures, I suggest that the truth you find will be that. Faith requires more than just an acceptance, and the more it is challenged, the stronger and fuller it becomes. I told my story, in the first part of this essay to demonstrate this challenge. Rather than accept that 'challenges', to paraphrase St. Ignatius Loyola, as tangible presences of the devil, these are like, I suggest what Bunyan subjected Christian to as part of the Progress, that this Pilgrim was required to carry out. Is a murderer somewhat for whom acceptance can be given? Do we for ever blame for a death that happened in circumstances we - in the majority of cases - in which one could never conceive of participating.

Prejudice is slipped on like an old pair of shoes - they fit easily, wear well and meet the immediate needs. And without effort we draw conclusions that may be valid, or not. But we have not addressed the issue presented to us - but have ducked it, like many of our peers. In writing this essay, I have tried to address the nature of the act, and why some actually use the act to justify and defend the indefensible.

 

Peter Blakey, a member of the Australian Catholic University Online Unit, is an occasional contributor to the Ejournal. His acitivities include working in the development of online educational material, political activities, most recently working to defend the rights of the employed against the proposals of the present Federal government, and exploring spiritual matters that effect the manner in which he relates to those around him. He has run for political office, and held positions of responsibilty in community and professional organisations. He is using his reflections as an expression of his ongoing spiritual journey.

 

© Copyright is retained by the author