Take Me To The Mardi gras

Instead of just posting my thesis on prejudice I thought I'd spice it up these posts just a little by also posting some personal experience with prejudice taken from some old journal passages that I kept while traveling the country. The incidents provide some of rationale relating to why prejudice matters to me and why I am posting my thesis here.


Being young certainly has its advantages, but sometimes being young has its dark side also. I went through my “black period” a long time ago, but I bring this up because this dark side may be a common “rite of passage” for many writers. The following post is a description of an event that opened for me a door leading into the light (although back then it still seemed pretty dark) and second, it is a post containing my musings concerning the writings of the philosopher, Fredrick Nietzsche, who helped me appreciate both my “black period” and escaping my “black period.” These events took place while I was living on the beach on a south Texas island.



End Of The World

Nov. 7, ‘70

Three Rivers Junction





The ride wasn’t boring! My excitement was not prompted by any extraneous event. Instead, it was the result of a revelatory experience, an eruption of thought. This revelation deeply affected me; it changed my perception of reality. It was not however, the result of an inference or reasoned deduction. It had nothing to do with logic. The revelation was just that, a revelation that popped into my head (it had no voice attached to it). I was absolutely convinced of its authenticity.



On that night, it was raining hard enough to make driving difficult. I was doing my best to stay on the highway and still make good time. At 3 am, nothing was unusual. Mike and his chick were in the backseat asleep, and I was thinking normal thoughts (for me at least) like: How can existence be so paradoxical? What makes a person do what he does? Why am I never sure of myself? Then, for no apparent reason, something flashed in my brain. It was like words crossing the bottom of a television screen warning of an impending disaster. In my mind’s eye those words read: Flash…There is no such thing as human nature. Man is capable of anything…Flash…There is no such thing as human nature. Man is capable of anything. I didn’t know why or how the words came to be. I didn’t think them. Nobody spoke them. They just appeared, and reappeared, and reappeared. The question of whether to believe them did not arise. They were true. They are true. Suddenly, everything was so clear, and I couldn’t believe that it took me so long to comprehend such a simple truth. The question, “What is man?” had always perplexed me. I had always thought of him as a greedy, malicious, self-centered, egoist – a Hobbesian puppet, but human motivation isn’t like that. It’s too slippery to mold, box or explain. It can’t be contained in one cracker-jack theory. Where are the absolutes? There aren’t any! Where are the valid labels? There aren’t any!



I have not fully realized the meaning of this revelation. Perhaps it cannot be realized. Indeed, perhaps it can only be realized when I realize that it will never be realized! You can’t know part of nothing, yet the affects of this nothing on the norms, mores, and morals are inundating to the point of becoming lethal. When there is nothing to begin with there is no divine law. Where is guilt? Guilt is no more! Show me guilt, and I will show you fabrication, hoax, and myth! I am the originator and terminator of my every action. I am everything and nothing simultaneously. I am all there is, and I only have to look to myself for the answers. I am the bestower of good and the creator of evil, and I am equally capable of both! I am the beginning and the end – of nothing! There isn’t any right or wrong! There is no redeemer or redemption! There are no wrong choices! When you enjoy, dislike, pity, love, and hate, you are doing these things to yourself. You are the center of the universe and the universe doesn’t even exist!



The ultimate truth of this revelation, - There is no such thing as human nature. Man is capable of anything-- I am only now beginning to understand. It will take more than my lifetime to fully digest what’s going on here. There are no essences, only annihilations. With this revelation, a feeling of total freedom filled my body, and simultaneously a feeling of rapt unimportance filled my body. After my revelation, I knew I would have to change my priorities; yet, I also knew that it didn’t matter if I changed my priorities! I knew that from here on out whatever decisions I would make were only accountable to me, while I was meaningless and accountable to nothing. I spent the rest of the ride down to McAllen on this mental merry-go-round. Not at any moment, however, did I feel bored.



A little before daybreak, we came to Three Rivers Junction and that’s where I said good-bye to Mike. I slept under a tree and remained sleeping until the sun rose high in the sky. I started hitching back to Padre Island after that, but I was so entrenched in thought from the previous night’s revelation that I totally forgot to get out of the car when it passed by my destination. I had to backtrack fifteen miles. Instead of hitching, however, I walked the beach. There was nothing but seagulls and hermit crabs to keep me company. I needed time to reflect on the meaning of the previous night’s revelation. It was a cold and gloomy day, but I hardly noticed. When I finally arrived back at Bob Hall Pier, the bottoms of my feet were raw.




As Bad As It Gets, Nietzsche Still Makes Me Smile

Beach Life

Nov. 11, ‘70



I’ve really been living a solitary existence; the cold forced everybody off the beach. I ran out of money (except for the $5. stashed away for my 1500 mile trip home). Iva brought out a bag of groceries; I guess she wanted me to stick around. I’m pushing it now, leaving the beach is a certainty; I’m actually looking forward to it. One of the reasons beach life is less satisfying (besides the money) is my memory of Jolynn. I’m convinced I could love her, that is, if I don’t already. This loneliness is a bitch. The weather hasn’t given me any reason to stay either. It’s fifty degrees in the daytime, dropping to freezing at night. The only thing that’s been good for me is Nietzsche. As bad as it gets, after reading him, I can always count on a smile



I wouldn’t say that I agree with him on everything, but the more I read, the more I enjoy his style. First, I believe he is saying that a “will to power” drives life. Human nature is simply the use of this power to accomplish goals and satisfy desires. All we are, according to Nietzsche, are creatures of desire and need. We might think we want peace and tranquility. Forget it, it won’t happen. To make matters worse, we are burdened with this constant craving to speculate about “ideal existence,” when in reality we are and will always be simple rule followers. The rules that get followed, however, are only meant to work for some people some of the time. At best, we can look forward to a heard-mentality-existence, and then we die.



Its not a pretty picture! Nietzsche counters this vision of reality by saying that if we would just act in accordance with our natural instincts things would be different and better. The problem is that we think we know what motivates us when in reality mental causes do not exist. What’s in our minds, at any given moment, is only a reflection of some previous experience reconstructed. We reason phenomena to fit familiar patterns; patterns that are meant to neutralize fears and anxieties arising from life’s uncertainties. We create “imaginary causes” (Nietzsche’s term) in order to cope with this uncertainty. Religion and morality are prime examples. They are habitual responses to life’s disorder and uncertainty. Guilt, sin, and punishment, along with faith, hope and chastity are all products of our over active imaginations.



Only when morality is driven by the “will to power” does it cease being a product of imagination. “Morality,” says Nietzsche, “must be viewed as a means and not an end.” The “will to power, the will to master,” becomes the moral precedent for all morality. In nature there are few masters and even they, in the end, succumb to decay and death. There is only one true master and that master is the “will to power”; it is a moral imperative. Survivors conform and obey, or they cease to exist. There are no exceptions.



Traditional moral authority (religious authority) falsely commands against the natural instincts of the “will to power.” Society has misrepresented the moral precedent of obedience (the precedent set by the forces of Nature) by inventing the morality of “Thou shalt not.” Growth is stunted when this false morality is substituted for boldness, independence and freethinking. This false morality condemns free spirits to a life of moderation and mediocrity. By denying the moral precedent of obedience, “Thou shalt morality” becomes a contradiction in terms. When “Thou shalt morality,” denies fear, (the source of all morality), it denies itself.



After demolishing traditional morality, Nietzsche develops his concept of “higher man” and higher morality. Higher morality is realized in the warp and woof of mankind’s unceasing, striving nature. When we learn to inexhaustibly affirm life in the face of adversity, when we learn to shrug off pain and suffering, then we also learn higher morality. In this respect, Nietzsche sets the “selfless man” (the sage who pursues renunciation) on his head.



In Nietzsche’s morality there is no protest against life, no purging the self in order to get beyond illusion. In fact, in Nietzsche’s morality, only when one wills (eternally) agony and anguish, is he able to celebrate the masquerade of appearance without the need to get behind it. One cannot have an appetite for life without also having an appetite for suffering, and in Nietzsche’s morality one’s appetite for life feeds off an equal appetite for suffering. Only at this level of affirmation is a person able to unlearn what has been learned, is able to dominate and command, and is able to spontaneously create his own morality, the morality of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch, or “higher man.”



New Orleans
Jan. 1970

The weather was unseasonably cold; snow covered the ground even in Mississippi. The farther south I went though, the harder it became to tell the snow from the litter. Also, the farther south I went, the more rickety the houses became. House was probably not the right word, “old shacks,” I suppose more accurately described the living conditions of the poor blacks. I expected to run into this kind of poverty in Mexico, but I never thought it possible in healthy, wealthy America. These shacks were so dilapidated you couldn’t even build a fire inside them. It was a common sight to see black families congregating around open bonfires trying to keep from freezing outside their shacks. I saw barefooted kids running through the snow while the rest of the family huddled around their front porch fires.




Just before arriving in New Orleans, the bus crossed a twenty-six mile long bridge, (the bus ticket ride that kept me from freezing to death back in St. Louis, Missouri). From the middle of the causeway, you felt like you were driving across the ocean. Due to many delays, the bus ride ended around 6 p.m., lasting more than eighteen hours. I was not in the best of moods when I arrived in New Orleans. I planned on getting an apartment, but I wanted to get to know New Orleans before I made a major decision like that. Back on the street, I immediately started looking for New Orleans’ hip culture. When I asked the street people where the local hippies hung out, they looked at me like I was from a foreign country. Their responses were cold, but not as cold as the nippy breeze that chilled every bone in my body. I finally asked a hotdog vendor where I could get a cheap place to stay. He told me about a few cheapies and then told me I might be able to get a place in his boarding house. He said, “It’s clean and you can cook there too.” I didn’t want to turn away any luck that came my way; these days luck for me was a precious commodity. I thanked the man and left to try and find his place. At least the hotdog vendor was friendly, a friendliness that in my opinion, was in short supply in New Orleans.

After a long walk, I rented a room in a large house from a nice landlady who spoke in a heavy southern accent. The room had a double bed and was fairly clean with adequate ventilation. A stove and sink were in the corner of the room and the bathroom was off to the side of the facilities. I liked my room on the second floor of the house, but living with all the uninvited insects was not my idea of ideal living conditions. I found out later that in the South, even among the more respectable rent districts, living with insects was quite common. The cockroach came in all sizes, with the largest one being the most disturbing. I guess I never did get use to living with my roomies, although I did manage to put up with them.

I became a tourist for a couple of days. I was in the most visited of all southern cities and before I went job-hunting, I wanted to soak up some of the local culture. Without spending much money, I took in the sights and sounds of Bourbon St. and Royal St. The closest thing I could find to hip-culture was a little boutique at the end of Royal St. called the Far Out. Here, the hippies would linger until the cops moved them along. There were a lot of hippie-looking people around, but they were scattered about the French Quarter with no apparent cohesiveness. I believe the cops were the reason there was no organization to hip culture down here. Oh, I’m sure there was some organization, be it at concerts, or at a friend’s houses, but it’s just that it wasn’t happening on the street. This lack of organization, I am sure, had something to do with my living a solitary existence in the middle of a city known for conviviality and its party atmosphere.

With my books to keep me company, my nights were mostly spent reading in my room. Having only a few dollars in my pocket and even fewer friends, painting the town was not an option. One night was worth remembering, barely. After a disappointing day job-hunting, I stopped by a local tavern. At the bar, I sat next to a pretty girl. I listened as she poured her life story out to the bartender. She was new in town and unattached. When she said she was from Huntington Beach, California, I thought to myself, “Now there’s a connection, I’ve been there and I can use that to begin a conversation with her.” Drinking my beer, waiting for the right moment to begin talking to her, a Dylan song popped into my head. In the song, the protagonist in the song strikes up a conversation with a girl at a bar and discovers that both he and she share a common hometown and acquaintances. Sitting there, with the song playing over and over in my head, it was easy to wait for the right opportunity to talk to the girl. Just as her conversation with the bartender was tailing off, in walked this guy who sat down on the other side of girl, and when he heard that she was from California, he asked, “Where in California?” As it turned out, both he and the chick happened to be from Huntington Beach, and they shared many friends in common. That could only happen to me!

Back in my room, I was not in a very good mood. I didn’t feel like reading, but I needed to do something, so I sat down and started to write. I guess I wrote a poem. Well, maybe it wasn’t a poem. The only thing that really mattered is that it helped me get through the night.

My Despair

Discontent is as much a part of my soul
as being human is a part of my body.
I say look to the future for salvation.
You say, wallow in your shit.
I say there is always hope.
You say the future is present now,

and shit stinks forever too.
I say you are a fool.
You say eat shit,
hope for an early death
and win paradise.


I had arrived in New Orleans four weeks before Mardi Gras. The whole time I was there I could feel the excitement building. Every day the city was becoming more alive with its new decorations, fresh paint, and newly installed bleacher seats. Although I was looking forward to Mardi Gras, I didn’t figure on any surprises. The people in the French Quarter were already celebrating. The excitement of watching people throw beer cans, scream obscenities, and, in general, act like jerks, loses its appeal after awhile. I suppose I could be speaking out of envy, since I was not one of the good-time people, but I hope not. The week before Mardi Gras there was the pre-Mardi Gras party. Bourbon St. and Royal St. were awash in drunken celebrations. The highlight of the party came when this muscle bound peacock stopped traffic and tried to pick up a Volkswagen full of terrified tourists. Even with his drunken buddies cheering him on, he could not pick up the car.

The thing that turned me off more than anything else, however, was the indisputable prejudice that was all around me. Although the black population got the brunt of the prejudice, there was more than enough to go around. It seemed some of the people down here were still fighting the Civil War. Being from the north and looking like a hippie, I was not immune from being the object of prejudice. Not one to back down, though, I would often walk through the black section of town up where I lived and stop to swing on one of the swings in the playground reserved for black kids. Everybody, blacks and whites alike, gave me dirty looks. The anti-social stigma of being the wrong color in the right swing, or being the right color in the wrong swing, did not win me points among the locals. Fortunately, I wasn’t trying to win a popularity contest. I just learned to swing with my eyes closed.

Racial Beliefs Can Result From Cultural Dilemmas

Racial Beliefs Should Not Be Taken As Facts That Can Explain Discrimination

Racial Beliefs Can Result From Cultural Dilemmas Like-Getting Paid For Something You Know Is Wrong




SURVEY OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION


[Footnote. A literature survey has produced a paucity of literature concerning sociological ambivalence and the proposed interdependent linkage concerning ambivalence, self-awareness and prejudice. The researcher has, therefore, chosen to combine the literature on ambivalence, self-awareness, and prejudice with the theoretical foundation used to relate the interdependent relationships between ambivalence, self-awareness and prejudice. The researcher, with this goal in mind, describes: 1) the prejudice-ambivalence connection, 2) the social ramifications of the prejudice-ambivalence connection, 3) the reflexive nature of self-awareness, 4) the reflexive nature of self-awareness as a major component of modernity, and, 5) the resolution of self-reflexivity and ambivalence in what the researcher calls “the implicative affirmative of the not-me-self,” that is, an understanding of how the “inner life of a person”, argumentative consistency, and normative guidelines can be incorporated into a shared discourse in the postmodern era.]





The Prejudice--Ambivalence Connection

In the article entitled, “Prejudice or Ambivalence? Attitudes toward Persons with Disabilities,” Soder (1990) suggests that ambivalence, rather than prejudice, may be taken seriously as a point of departure for exploring the negative affect of attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities. Soder (1990: 227) states:


“Attitudes toward persons with disabilities are often assumed to be negative and prejudiced... The assumption of attitudes as prejudiced is questioned in this article ... Instead an interpretation in terms of ambivalence is suggested, where reactions toward persons with disabilities are seen as a result of conflicting values.”

What Soder has in mind is an ambivalence-centered theoretical perspective, which will help us to better understand attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities. This theory will incorporate conflicting values. These conflicting values, Soder informs us, are based on the results of sociometric studies (MacMillan & Morrison, 1984; Altman, 1981; Lapp, 1957), where respondents were seen to show a real preference for real persons with disabilities, and, survey research studies where disabilities were associated with devalued characteristics (Whiteman-Lukoff, 1965). These conflicting values are identified as, on the one hand, benevolent sympathy toward persons with disabilities, and on the other hand, negative valuations of the disability. According to Soder, these conflicting values cannot be understood as indicators of prejudices, and require, if they are to be reconciled, a new theoretical understanding.

Soder, after citing researchers who have, at least in some respect, attempted to use ambivalence as a modeling concept for interpreting a person’s attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities (Lewis, 1973; Farber, 1964; Livneh, 1980), proposes an explanation for why this aspect of inquiry has remained unexplored. Soder (1990: 237) states:

“The traditional methods leave little room for exploring this ambivalence. They are usually designed in order to fulfill the wishes of the researcher to find a one-dimensional explanatory variable for predicting behavior... The bulk of such theories seem to be focused on finding rational ways people use to reach consistency among different conflicting entities (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). No matter how sophisticated those rational mechanisms are supposed to be, they leave little room for the idea of people being exposed to and living with constant ambivalence.”

Following a thorough critique of the restrictive nature of attitude research, Soder offers the example of Myrdal’s study (1964), which links the struggles of the American Negro to the values and social structure of society, to make clear how situational influences and conflicting values can be understood in an encompassing theory of ambivalence. Myrdal, instead of reducing racial problems to prejudice and a set of false beliefs, suggests that the source of these problems, at least in part, can be traced to the moral dilemma that, on the one hand, is posed by the American Creed (as it is expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution) and, on the other hand, to the specific economic and political interests which followed from America’s investment in the slave trade. Racial beliefs then, according to Soder (1990: 238), “should not be taken as facts that can explain discrimination. Instead, they should be seen as expressions of the real dilemma that lays at the root of the problem and which is just as much a cultural dilemma as an individual one.”

Soder, in conclusion, offers no conceptual linkage between attitudes towards persons with disabilities and prevailing ideologies and social structures in society. But, he does offer ambivalence “as a sensitizing concept that can guide such research” and, hopefully, at some future date, according to Soder, the conflicting values that coincide with people’s responses to persons with physical disabilities will be analyzed in terms of ideological and structural moral dilemmas.


Attitudes Toward Marginal Groups Tend To Be Conflicted, Uncertain, And As A Result Given To Exaggerated Appraisals

An Overt Expression Of Ambivalence In A Person’s Social Relationship With Others May Cause Friction Within Social Relationships


Another critique of the ambivalence--prejudice connection is found in Katz's social psychological theory of ambivalence-induced behavioral amplification. According to Katz (1981: x):


“...attitudes toward marginal groups are not simply prejudiced, neutral, or accepting, but tend rather to be deeply conflicted and uncertain, a complex mixture of sympathetic and aversive elements. It is further proposed that as a consequence of the ambivalence, behavior toward group members can be erratic and extreme--either in a positive or negative direction depending on how situational factors affect the attitudinal equation.”

Some of Katz’s research tends to support Myrdal’s thesis (1944) that the key to understanding race relations in America will be found in a theoretical understanding that explains why Whites maintain ambivalent attitudes toward Blacks. In two relevant studies (Katz et al., 1986; Katz and Hass, 1988) it is demonstrated, for example, that “Whites are ambivalent because some of their values compel them to sympathize with Blacks (e.g., egalitarianism), whereas other values imply Blacks have failed to use their opportunities (e.g., Protestant work ethic)” (Leippe and Eisenstadt, 1994: 397).

Two more studies suggest ambivalence-induced negative affects, at least indirectly, may produce prejudiced attitudes (Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, Eisenstadt, 1991; Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, Moore, 1992). In the former study ambivalent attitudes were found to produce extreme effects in cross-racial attitude appraisals. Black participants tended to be appraised at the extreme ends of the good/bad scale by White participants in the completion of a task-related project. This result was in opposition to White participants appraising White participants for the completion of the same task. This study lends credence to the claim that attitudes toward marginal groups tend to be conflicted, uncertain, and as a result given to exaggerated appraisals.

In the latter study (Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, Moore, 1992), support was generated for the claim that ambivalence evokes a negative affect in people who are made aware of their ambivalent attitudes towards Blacks. We are aware, at least since Goffman’s work with stigmatized individuals (1963), that an overt expression of ambivalence in a person’s social relationships with others and in one’s self-presentation may cause friction within social relationships. “Smooth social encounters,” according to Katz, “are governed by presentations of self that are consistent with the expectations and assumptions of the participants. A profuse display of ambivalent emotion, attitudes, or behaviors would certainly disrupt the ‘working consensus’ of the participants and would create conflicts in their ‘definition of the situation’” (Katz, 1981: x). As this study shows, the more a white person is made aware of their ambivalent attitude toward Blacks, the more that person will experience a negative affect, for example, states of agitated anxiety which may “take the form of negative behavior toward members of the out-group” (Hass, et al., 1992: 796).

A THEORY OF SELF, AMBIVALENCE, AND TOLERANCE

This Theory Is Expected To Help Us Better Understand The Conjugate Complexity Of Prejudice

1997 Thesis



“For every difference that makes us more unique there is a common thread which connects us all. We share the need for home and community, for love and respect. May these common threads form a beautiful world in which all people and all cultures are honored.” -- unknown


ABSTRACT
PREJUDICE: EMPIRICAL DATA BECKONING TOWARD

A THEORY OF SELF, AMBIVALENCE,
AND TOLERANCE



This research proposes a Self-Awareness theory that theoretically connects prejudiced attitudes with the conceptual framework of self-focused attention, attention directed at personal domains of enduring feelings, opinions, and behavioral tendencies of self, and, with ambivalence, the psychological stress of not knowing how to proceed in a given situation. The claim that ambivalence is a frequent effect of private self-consciousness activity is explored in this thesis. The claim that prejudiced attitudes arise when the presence of ambivalence is excluded from salient private self-consciousness activity is also explored in this thesis.

Responses to a survey questionnaire were collected and the data has been analyzed in order to measure the linkage of prejudiced attitudes, ambivalence, and self-focused attention. Three scales, the 9-item Private Self-Consciousness Scale, the 20-item Multifactor Measure of Whites’ Attitudes Toward Blacks scale, and the 20-item Evaluation of Physically Disabled Persons Measure scale, and two ambivalence-inducing vignettes, were administered to college students.

Results were varied. Of the nine proposed hypotheses four resulted in statistically significant results consistent with the researcher’s expectations. It was concluded that more research is needed if the hypothesized connection between prejudiced attitudes, private self-consciousness activity and ambivalence is to be conclusively established.


INTRODUCTION

Statement Of The Problem

This thesis attempts to advance an understanding of prejudice whereupon the likelihood of a person to seize upon prejudiced attitudes toward African Americans and the likelihood of a person to seize upon prejudiced attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities will be conceptually linked to the proneness of a person to engage self-focused attention.

In this regard, a Self-Awareness theory is proposed that theoretically connects prejudiced attitudes with the conceptual framework of self-focused attention, attention directed at personal domains of enduring feelings, opinions, and behavioral tendencies of self, and, with ambivalence, the psychological stress of not knowing how to proceed in a given situation. The claim that ambivalence is a frequent effect of private self-consciousness activity is explored in this thesis. The claim that prejudiced attitudes arise when the presence of ambivalence is excluded from salient private self-consciousness activity is also explored in this thesis. Responses to a survey questionnaire were collected and the data has been analyzed in order to measure the linkage of prejudiced attitudes, ambivalence, and self-focused attention.

This thesis attempts to advance an understanding of prejudice/tolerance by measuring respondents’ attitudes towards private self-consciousness, prejudiced attitudes toward African Americans and prejudiced attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities. More specifically, this thesis research explores two different sets of data. Individuals were surveyed in order to test whether the self-perception of self-focused attention and prejudiced attitudes are related; and, individuals were surveyed to test whether individuals prejudiced toward African Americans were also prejudiced toward persons with physical disabilities.

Since prejudiced attitudes are manifested, for the most part, through injurious acts and judgments occurring on the global stage ad infinitum, this theory is not meant to suggest a definitive explanatory account of prejudice. Albeit, this theory, as a tool for illumination, is expected to help us better understand the conjugate complexity of prejudice.


The Inner Life Of The Individual Is Either Abandoned Or Not Taken Seriously


In America, Prejudice Against Such Groups As African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, American Indians, Homosexuals, Jews and Others Is All Too Prevalent



Significance Of The Problem

A study of prejudiced attitudes toward African Americans, prejudiced attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities, and attitudes towards the self-perception of private self-consciousness is also a study of human nature, group membership, and intergroup relationships. Human needs are best satisfied when individuals organize themselves into groups. Group membership may be voluntarily selected or ascribed. When individuals organize themselves into groups, they tend to classify and evaluate people according to intergroup norms. Group members tend also to evaluate other people according to whether they are a members of the group, or, members of an outgroup. Prejudiced attitudes towards members of other groups are the outcomes of this process. According to Gaertner (1986 : 322), “...at the intergroup level, people act in terms of their social identity, more faithfully conforming to the group’s norms and also treating others in terms of their corresponding group memberships rather than their personal identities. Outgroup members, in particular, become depersonalized, undifferentiated, substitutable entities.”

In social relationships intergroup dynamics of prejudiced attitudes towards outgroups are usually described in terms of confrontation, violence, and, depending on the scope of animosities, war. In American society, the evidence is all too convincing that prejudice persists at alarmingly high rates against such groups as African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, American Indians, homosexuals, Jews and others. In human costs, prejudiced attitudes and racial discrimination are measured in terms of poverty, drug addiction, physical and mental health, and crime. Deriving a better understanding of the relationship between prejudiced attitudes towards both racial minorities and persons with physical disabilities will help us to better understand both intergroup relationships and prejudice.

This research project has offered an opportunity to further our understanding of the process that results in prejudiced attitudes towards outgroups by furthering our understanding of the boundary-making (labeling) process. Cognitive boundaries do not stand alone, they are continuous with, and informed by, socioeconomic status, linguistic expression, and cultural values [and, in the absence of values, by feelings of detachment, displacement and groundlessness].

[Footnote. Sociology, in this era of postmodern sensibilities, is under attack. For postmodernists, the assumptions of Enlightenment rationality, traditional Western epistemology, and any supposedly “secure” representation of a reality that exits outside of discourse, are, according to A. J. Vidich and S. M. Lyman (N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 1994), a subgroup of assumptions that fall into “an all-encompassing critical skepticism about knowledge.” As a consequence of the postmodern critique of Sociology, the “inner life” of the individual is either abandoned or not taken seriously. Further, the desire to reach agreement on normative guidelines for scientific practice or argumentative consistency is also not taken seriously. A Self-Awareness theory, as it is proposed in this Thesis, speaks to these concerns while remaining within the discourse of postmodernism.]

This thesis contributes data and a theoretical foundation for why attention frequently focused on private self-consciousness activity facilitates the likelihood of cooperative, self-restrained behavior among individuals, and, by extension, cooperative interaction between groups. A major theoretical premise directing this research project maintains that the need to reconcile ambivalence-inducing thoughts, feelings, and desires has the potential to reshuffle and expand cognitive boundaries (intergroup identities).

The data generated in this research project is directed toward answering two questions: 1) Does a preoccupation with private self-consciousness activity, for example, the tendency to think about feelings, beliefs, values, generalizations, and, self-identity, lead a person to be tolerant of ambivalence and therefore less likely to exhibit prejudiced attitudes?; and, 2) Are people who demonstrate prejudiced attitudes toward African Americans also likely to demonstrate prejudiced attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities? If the answer to the first question is yes, then a new direction would open up for studies of prejudice and intergroup boundary manipulation. If the answer to the second question is yes, then this data, in addition to supporting the juxtaposition of prejudiced attitudes and authoritarian syndrome, [that is, the phenomena of authoritarianism as it is linked with anti-Semitic ideology in the classic work, The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, et. al., 1950)], would also act to underscore, at the risk of stating the superfluous, that persons with physical disabilities face similar obstacles that confront other racial minorities, for example, discrimination in employment, education, income, and housing.

The sequel will address the interdependent link between prejudiced attitudes and ambivalence. I would like to suggest that on a different level, a more significant level perhaps, acquiring an understanding of ambivalence (as opposed to acquiring an understanding of the specific elements of prejudice), may have an impact on sustaining (or creating) a healthy, caring society; that is, if our common objective is to reduce unnecessary human suffering.

Certainty-Oriented Persons Lack Interest In Discovering New Information About The Self Or The Environment

An Uncertainty-Oriented Person Is A “Need To Know” Type Who Is “Primarily Concerned With, And Interested In, Finding Out New Things About The Self Or The Environment.”
Prospectus Continued


Survey of Literature and Theoretical Foundation Continued


Self-Cognizing Research literature goes back to the objective self-awareness theory of Duval and Wicklund (1972) which holds that whenever a person takes himself or herself to be an object (in the form of self-focused attention) a negative affect will follow. Although I was originally drawn to the Self-Cognizing literature because I thought the negative affect discussed in the objective self-awareness theory could be directly attributed to the negated “me-self” component of the triadic self concept that I proposed, I found, after surveying the literature (Wicklund, 1975; Carver and Scheier, 1981; Gibbons, 1990,), that a negative affect, although a frequent occurrence, does not necessarily occur as a result of self-focused attention, i.e., whenever attention became fixed on a within-self dimension. The literature on Self-Cognition theory does contribute to this research project in other ways however. Self-Cognition theory tends to analyze human behavior in terms of “information processing,” and assumes that all information that is accessible to awareness originates in the environment and “in the person” (Carver and Scheier, 1981, p. 35.)

Self-focused attention may be attuned to public or private concerns. Evidence has been gathered to support the claim that a public self exists side by side with a private self (Froming and Walker,1980; Froming et al., 1981; Caver and Scheirer, 1981) and when attention is focused on the public self, - the self-presentational, public aspect of self - attention is likely to remain focused, according to Gibbons (1990, p.281), on the “feelings of group cohesion ....thereby promoting conformity with group norms and, when carried to an extreme, resulting in deindividuation. The deindividuated state, then, is characterized by a more or less constant absence of self-focus. When this happens, behavior essentially comes under control of the group” (Diener, 1979; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982). On the other hand, when attention is focused on the private aspect of self, on the feelings, opinions, motives, and behavioral tendencies of self, then self-focused attention has been found to “encourage a more careful and thoughtful consideration of the antecedents and the consequences of behavior” (Gibbons, 1983; Gibbons, 1990, p.255). The evidence gathered in these self-cognizing studies, particularly Froming and Walker (1980) and Froming et al. (1981), according to Carver, et al. (1981, p.320), “make it clear that different manipulations of self-attention can push behavior in different ways in the same situation by directing attention to different aspects of the self.” Significantly, as is demonstrated by these studies, when attention is directed inward (at the private self-consciousness dimension of self), an increase in the salience of cognitive boundaries occurs. As cognitive boundary salience increases, so to does the likelihood that a person’s attitudes and behaviors will change (alter, intensify).

More support for the claim that attention directed at the self initiates a salience generating cognitive process is accumulating in the literature of Self-Inference and Motivation. By investigating individual differences in uncertainty-oriented and certainty oriented persons Sorrentino et al. (1990, ed. Olson et al., p.242), found that an uncertainty-oriented person can be described as a “need to know” type who is “primarily concerned with, and interested in, finding out new things about the self or the environment.” Certainty-oriented persons, on the other hand, were found to ignore or avoid circumstances of fixed self-attention. Certainty-oriented persons demonstrated a lack of interest in, according to Sorrentino, “discovering new information about the self or the environment.”

While I understand that the attitudes and behaviors of uncertainty-oriented persons are not necessarily similar to the attitudes and behaviors of persons who score high on the Private Self-Consciousness Scale (Scheirer et. al., 1987), I cannot ignore the similarity that exists between the evaluative self-appraisal behavior that characterizes persons predisposed to private self-consciousness activity and the “need to know” type behavior that characterizes uncertainty-oriented persons. This similarity in behaviors seems to be, at least in part, brought on by the “need to acquire self-relevant information,” and, according to the Self-Cognizing literature, the trigger for this “need to acquire self-relevant information” gets jerked when attention becomes focused on the private aspect of self.

Investigating the implications that follow from this “need to acquire self-relevant information,” at least in those persons who demonstrate this need, is an important part of the research undertaken in this research project. Based on a careful reading of the above literature survey, there is a strong indication that the “need for self-relevant information” (in the people who develop or have this need) is as important in determining cognitive boundaries as is the heretofore mentioned principal determinants, or, socioeconomic status, linguistic expression, and cultural values.

If, in this research project, the data shows that persons who score high on the Private Self-Consciousness Scale are not as likely to hold prejudice attitudes towards racial minorities and persons with physical disabilities then persons who score low on the same scale, then another important similarity will, again, arise, between the attitudes of uncertainty-oriented persons and the attitudes of persons who score high on the Private Self-Consciousness Scale. “An uncertainty-oriented person,” according to Sorrentino et al., (ed. Olson et. al., 1990, p. 242), “is one who scores high on our projective measure of the need to resolve uncertainty, or n Uncertainty (Frederick, Sorrentino, & Hewitt, 1987), and low on a measure of authoritarianism (Byrne & Lamberth, 1971).” This result is not only important because it points out that uncertainty-oriented persons (i.e., persons who “need to acquire self-relevant information), tend not to hold prejudiced attitudes, it is also important because it seems to suggest that a reduction in the salience of cognitive boundaries (intergroup identities) facilates the likelihood of cooperative self-restrained behavior among individuals, and, this is one of the implications which I contend follows from the theory of an ambivalence shunning, salience generating triadic self.


Uncertainty-Oriented Persons Have A Tendency Not To Be Prejudiced, Bigoted, Opinionated, Or Sexist


Uncertainty-Oriented Persons Have A Tendency To Feel Helpless, Guilt, Discontent, And Loneliness

Prospectus Concluded



Summarizing, in this research project I will attempt to produce data that is consistent with and supportive of, the claim that cognitive boundaries are determined and shaped by the “need to acquire self-relevant information.” It is my contention that the “need to acquire self-relevant information” plays a significant role in the cognitive boundary formation process, perhaps, a role as significant as the more recognizable cognitive boundary determinants of socioeconomic status, linguistic expression and cultural values. In conjunction with producing relevant data to support this contention, I will also provide a theory of self, a salience generating triadic self (ambivalence/self), that offers a unique perspective upon which to base an explanation for: 1) why “rational conduct always involves a reflexive reference to self, that is, an indication to the individual of the significances which his actions or gestures have for other individuals” (Mead, 1936, p.122); 2) why “sensing ones individuality is thus connected with a self critical attitude, a sense of uncertainty or insufficiency” (Wicklund and Eckert, 1992, p.108)

[Footnote. With the answer to the second question I will also be able to answer why uncertainty-oriented persons have a tendency not to be prejudiced, bigoted, opinionated, or sexist (Sorrentino et al., 1986, p399); while, they also have a tendency to “feel helpless, guilt, discontent, and loneliness” (Sorrentino et al., ed. Olson et al., 1990, p. 248)]


And, 3) why the public, presentational aspect of self, - the Mead (1936), Cooley (1902), Goffman, (1963) variety of selves,- is not able to account for why “self-awareness occurs when aspects of the self [the private self] are more salient than environmental stimuli” (Gibbons, 1990, p.252).



Hypotheses And Methods


Towards a Toleration of Differences: Derivation of Hypotheses and Empirical Data.

Ambivalences are motivationally affective in directing the person to remove ambivalences. Emotional (parent child relations), voluntary (conflicting wishes), and cognitive (contradictory wishes) ambivalences can be neutralized by reactive behavior, e.g., repression, education, denial. Confronting ambivalence generating cognized conditions initiates a cognitive search for a counter proposal in order to neutralize the ambivalence. For instance, I would rather continue to work on this paper, but I have been invited over to a friend’s house. What should I do? The due date of the paper is not tomorrow, so I will choose to visit with my friend. This is an easy case, but, when the focus of attention is directed toward the self’s more ambivalence-prone covert nature, such as privately held beliefs, aspirations, values, and feelings, then neutralizing counter proposals are not so readily available. And further, if the ambivalence generating cognized condition becomes the self itself, i.e., self-identity, then no (satisfactory) ambivalence neutralizing counter proposal will be found. Self-identity centered ambivalence informs all other ambivalences. It is, according to Thom (1984, p. x.), “the most primitive of oppositions.”

Thus, a person encountering ambivalence will be motivated to escape
ambivalence by seeking a neutralizing counter proposal to ambivalence generating
cognized conditions. A prolonged search for ambivalence-reducing counter proposals will entail encounters with numerous unsatisfactory counter proposals. In this way ambivalence-generating cognized conditions stimulate self-awareness and self-conscious inquiry, and, depending on the nature of the ambivalence-generating cognized condition, e.g., life/death, egalitarian values/greed, to invest in the market/when to invest in the market, this inquiry may or may not succeed in producing a satisfactory counter proposal. The longer the search continues, however, the more likely cognitive boundaries will shift and cognitive horizons expand. Therefore, I hypothesize that the persons who engage in persistent private self-consciousness activity - evaluative self-appraisals, will be the same persons who are able and willing to deal with self-inflicted cognitive tensions, discords, variances, contrarieties, and uncertainties, and, these same persons will be the persons most likely to hold tolerant attitudes towards racial and ethnic minorities as well as maintain a respectful sensitivity toward persons with physical disabilities.

[Footnote. Billig (1987, p.250), in his inquiry concerning thought and the spirit of contradiction, expresses the significance of evaluative self-appraisals: “The switching of a stance, whether from criticism to justification or vice versa, can represent a process of self-discovery for the individual. Having been placed in a new rhetorical context, individuals may experience an unforeseen rising of the spirit of contradiction, and in this way they may encounter a new side to their attitudes and maybe to their own selves.”]



In order to test this hypothesis, a population of university students will be surveyed for their attitudes on prejudice and self-consciousness activity. The data gathered from this survey will be evaluated. If a large number of affirmative responses indicating prejudiced attitudes towards racial minorities and prejudiced attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities is recorded on the survey then those responses would indicate a highly prejudiced person. Data that supports the above mentioned hypothesis would result in respondents indicating a high score on questions indicating prejudiced attitudes and a low score on questions indicating private self-consciousness activity. Conversely, respondents who score high on the Private Self-Consciousness Scale would be expected to score low on the scales measuring prejudiced attitudes toward racial minorities and persons with physical disabilities.


The Instruments and Procedure

The sample for this study will be taken from university students who volunteer to fill out a questionnaire. With the aid of one or more of my sociology professors, I will distribute questionnaires to students enrolled in Sociology classes on the campus of Central Michigan University. Results from this survey will be obtained from a non-random sample of students. Although this more or less homogenious group of students does restrict the generalizability of this study to other populations, this non-generalizability does not threaten the internal consistency of the hypothesis. In order to get a more significant test of the hypothesis in question, future studies will have to be undertaken to replicate the results of this present study. If significant results are obtained from this particular study then I suggest that future studies be carried out on large, randomly selected populations.

In The Mind Of Bigot-- Flight From Ambivalence

The Defining Condition Of Ambivalence/Self Becomes Identified With A “Neither This Nor That” Circumstance

Prospectus Continued


If the genesis of ambivalence can be located in the differentiating space [to paraphrase Thom’s (1983, p.187) description of Simmel’s concept of a person], arising between what is simultaneously social and individual, social, in the form of the product of sociological categories, and individual, as the stranger existing outside of sociological categories, then the defining condition of ambivalence/self becomes identified with a “neither this nor that” circumstance. It is for this reason that ambivalence, in its most primitive form, becomes objectified as a “flight from ambivalence.” This “flight from ambivalence,” in turn, may be understood to be a powerful contributing factor to both the closing of the mind of the bigot, and, the modern penchant for division, domination, order, and technology.

In modern society’s matter-centered universe a human being’s “so-called” value and worth is never far removed from some objective measure that claims to be able to scientifically predict and explain human behavior. In this research project I propose to challenge this idea by putting forth a theory of self that recognizes ambivalence to be the locus of self where cognitive objects acquire salience. In this way I hope to show that science, or, as F. S. Northrop defines it (1946, p. 301), “the hypothetically proposed, apriori, theoretical component indirectly confirmed through its deductive consequences,” is merely one of the many expressive possibilities of a creative self and should, therefore, be judged accordingly.

In so far as I am to identify, in this research project, the locus of convergence of three relatively unrelated research areas - prejudice, ambivalence, and self-theory, I have made a survey of the relevant literature in the various research fields. Since the scope of this project is large, my survey of the literature has been more selective than comprehensive, so, in the interest of brevity and coherence, I will describe this literature from its convergent theoretical perspective. Therefore, the next section of this prospectus combines my survey of literature with my theoretical perspective.


It Is The So-Called Democratic Personality Who Is Saddled With Painful Ambivalences

I Will Argue How Ambivalence, In Its Most Elemental Form, and Self (As Defined By a Three-Term Relationship), Are Reflections Of One Another
Prospectus Continued


Survey of Literature and Theoretical Foundation

There will be a brief overview of theories concerning prejudice. My focus will be on prejudice as way to harden cognitive boundaries. In this respect, prejudice and fear will be connected. Sartre (1965) and Held (1980) will be quoted in support of this connection. I will continue to explore prejudice by citing Aboud’s (1988, p.4) definition: “Prejudice refers to an organized predisposition to respond in an unfavorable manner toward people from an ethnic group because of their ethnic affiliation.” I will briefly discuss Allport’s (1958) reflective theory of prejudice, that is, the idea that prejudice is a product of an environment where power, status and competition are reflected in the attitudes of the people who compete for power and status; and then I will turn to Adorno’s (et al., 1950) view of prejudice as it may be understood as a result of a child’s inner conflict with his/her authoritarian parents. The cognitive developmental theory of prejudice will also be mentioned (Piaget and Weil, 1951), as will a number of studies linking prejudice, or, attitudes toward marginal groups, with ambivalence (Myrdal, 1944; Katz, 1981; Katz and Hass, 1988; Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, and Eisenstadt, 1991; and Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey and Moore, 1992).

At this point I will turn my attention to the literature of ambivalence beginning with Merton’s (1976) use of Bleuler’s (1910) coinage of the word. Bleuler identified three types of ambivalence which, according to Robert Merton (1976, p.3), may be characterized as: “the emotional (or affective) type in which the same object arouses both positive and negative feelings, as in parent-child relations; the voluntary (or conative) type in which conflicting wishes make it difficult or impossible to decide how to act; and the intellectual (or cognitive) type, in which men hold contradictory ideas.” Ever since Bleuler, ambivalence has been an object for investigation by psychologists and sociologists alike.

I will briefly discuss the basis of ambivalence as it is presented by Freud (1939) and further interpreted by Thom (1983). I will then take a much closer look at how ambivalence, as a motivating factor, plays itself out in Adorno’s (et al., 1950) Authoritarian Personality. Using quotations from Billig (1982) and Gregg (1991), I will argue that an ambivalence grounded self is perpetually looking for an escape from ambivalence. Both of these authors have argued in a similar fashion and a good example of what this means for the individual is readily expressed in the following quote from Billig. Although ambivalence may generate negative as well as positive affects, this particular quote is an example of a positive affect. According to Billig’s (1982, p. 147) reading of Rosenberg and Abelson’s Congruity Model of cognitive consistency, ambivalence may be defined in the following way:

“Ambivalence refers to ‘the simultaneous presence of positive and negative affect in reaction to a cognized object’. Ambivalences are forms of inconsistency or incongruity, and as such they are ‘tension-arousing’ - ‘they set in motion processes directed toward their removal’, because ‘if the ambivalences are not removed, they continue to be unpleasant, even painful, to the subject so long as he continues to think about the concepts at issue’. Thus there is an implication that the authoritarian personality, whose basic motivation, according to the theory of Adorno et al., is an intolerance of ambiguity, is someone who has been able to remove inconsistencies; it is the so-called democratic personality who is saddled with painful ambivalences.”



Focusing on Thom’s (1984, p.xi) treatment of self as “the overcoming of the primitive ambivalence or opposition between the modes of difference and no difference....(and,) as some combination of difference and equality, dividing and making equal or identical,” I will begin to argue how ambivalence and self are intrinsically connected. Continuing this line of reasoning, I will discuss Simmel’s (Levine, 1971) concept of man as both the fixing of boundaries and the reaching out across these boundaries, and, Billig’s (1987, p.5) presentation of the categorization/particularization interdependence that characterizes the “inner deliberations [or] silent arguments conducted within a single self,” I will then proceed to argue how ambivalence, in its most elemental form, and self (as defined by a three-term relationship) are reflections of one another.

This argument will begin with a description of Descartes’ cogito (Flew, 1979), giving specific attention to the “identity” inference implied by this cogito. This inference is described by Anscombe (Ed. Cassam,1994, p152) as: “The thinking that thinks this thought--that is what is guaranteed by cogito”. I will then describe how the self, when the self is understood in terms of a triadic relationship, - “me-self,” the negation of the “me-self,” and, the “I-self,” - offers a different conceptual basis from which to derive the “identity” inference without attaching itself to Descartes' excess baggage, or, as this baggage is described by Hermans, et al., (1993, p. 39), “the existence of a unitary, closed, highly centralized subject or self, as an entity in itself, having an existence ‘above’ or ‘outside’ the social environment.”

With the triadic self-concept in place, I will then proceed to describe why “a relativity to a basis,” according to Evans (Ed. Cassam, 1994, p. 196), “becomes a conditional attribute of the self-ascription of mental predicates,” and, why acquiring knowledge (accessing the truth or falsity of knowledge) invokes an act of self-reference where the subject is required to reflect on the credibility, or basis, of the knowledge in question.

From this model of a triadic concept of self I will be able to forcefully argue that much of what Mead (1934) and James (1890) described as the socially generated component parts of self, is, in fact, an accurate description of self. However, I will also argue that, as a consequence of the conditional attribute of the self-ascription of mental predicates, a second, inner component of self is at work. It is this inner component of self that generates the salience of cognitive objects, and, in so far as this inner-self is capable of instantiating inner directed values, e.g., numbers, sets, multi-valued logics, this inner-self makes possible the hypothetical-deductive method of scientific explanation and prediction. It is relevant that the source of these inner values can be traced to the space that differentiates the self into a “neither this” (social), “nor that” (individual), circumstance, as opposed to Descartes’ “clear and distinct ideas” that, since the time of Descartes, have been identified as the source of these values. My discussion of science as a type of self-investigation of informational states should make this idea more clear. In lieu of this discussion I will cite literature on negation as it pertains to differentiation and affirmation (Billig, 1982; Blanco, 1975, Thoms, 1962, Gale, 1976).

After citing some friendly theoretical perspectives (Angyal, 1941; Jung, 1969; Billig, 1987 & 1982; Gregg, 1991; Hermans & Kempen 1993), that I believe are sympathetically disposed to my own position, - that of an ambivalence shunning, salience generating triadic self concept, - I will turn my attention to the literature of Self-Cognizing Research and the literature of Self-Inference Process and Motivation. In this literature clarifying insights and supportive empirical data will be cited.

When Purposeful Action Is Emancipated From Moral Constraints—The Horror

It Is Becoming Increasing Difficult To Look To Science And Technology For Rescue And Renewal

Prospectus Continued


The data generated in this research project will help answer two questions: 1) Does a preoccupation with private self-consciousness activity, e.g., the tendency to think about feelings, beliefs, values, generalizations, and, particularly, self-identity, lead a person to be tolerant of ambivalence and therefore less likely to exhibit prejudiced attitudes?; and, 2) Are people who demonstrate prejudiced attitudes toward racial minorities also likely to demonstrate prejudiced attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities? If the answer to the first question is yes, then a new direction would open up for studies of prejudice and intergroup boundary manipulation. If the answer to the second question is yes, then this data, in addition to supporting the juxtaposition of prejudiced attitudes and authoritarian syndrome, [i.e., the phenomena of authoritarianism as it is linked with anti-Semitic ideology in the classic work, The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, et. al.,1950)], would also act to underscore, at the risk of stating the superfluous, that persons with physical disabilities face the same obstacles that confront other racial minorities, e.g., discrimination in employment, education, income, and housing.

The sequel will address the interdependent link between prejudiced attitudes and ambivalence. I would like to suggest that on a different level, a more significant level, acquiring a more thorough understanding of ambivalence (as opposed to acquiring a thorough understanding of the specific elements of prejudice), might have an even greater impact on sustaining (or creating) a healthy, caring society, that is, if our common objective is to reduce unnecessary human suffering.

Although it is customary to believe that technological societies will not advance without producing some negative side affects, it is hoped that modern technology and scientific research will, ultimately, cultivate a better, more livable, world. Faced with the ills of modern society, however, e.g., the instabilities of the global market place, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the escalating threat of ecological catastrophe, it is becoming increasing difficult to look to science and technology for rescue and renewal.

There is a price that must be paid for the benefits that accrue from scientific research and technological advance. According to Andrew Weigert (1991, p.165), the cost of “technological progress” is an ambivalence producing cultural pathos:

“[Modernity’s] characteristic features, such as science, technology, computer rationality, near instantaneous communication, bio- and material engineering, indeed, any form of functional rationality cannot resolve ambivalence... In a word, the characteristic institutions of modern society are the driving forces of an ambivalence inducing culture.”

Ironically, it is the scientist’s attempt to eradicate ambivalence, or, the inability to read a situation correctly and choose between alternative actions, which fuel the inflated sense that advances in science and technology will transform uncertainty into certainty and ambivalence into transparency.

As science and technology advances, the scope of individual and collective responsibility becomes blurred. New technologies do not produce intrinsic values to
guide action. Rather, new technologies produce more and longer lasting consequences, both seen and unseen; consequently, the more modern society goes about subverting ambivalence through technological progress, the more modern society produces ambivalence. This ambivalence may have devastating consequences.

[Footnote. Ambivalence gets its ultimate condemnation when Zygmunt Bauman (1991, p.50) enjoins ambivalence with the rendering of human genocide. The rise of modernity, - the blurring of lines of responsibility, emancipating purposeful action from moral constraints, an exaggerated faith in rational thought, - has created, according to Bauman, the necessary condition for the occurrence of human genocide:

“Without being the sufficient cause of the genocide, modernity is its necessary condition. The ability to coordinate human action on a massive scale, a technology that allows one to act effectively at a large distance from the object of action, minute division of labor which allows for spectacular progress in expertise on the one hand and floating of responsibility on the other, accumulation of knowledge incomprehensible to the layman and the authority of science which grows with it, the science-sponsored mental climate of instrumental rationality that allows social-engineering designs to be argued and justified solely in reference to their technical feasibility and availability of ‘under-employed’ resources (all these to be put in service of the relentless lust for order, transparency, unambiguity) are all integral attributes of modernity.”

This same sentiment is found in Weigert’s (1991, p. 177) discussion on Lifton’s (1986) study of Nazi doctors operating the genocide of the German concentration camps. Weigert suggests that it is an escape from severe ambivalence into a psychological condition where everything is permitted as an expression of one’s “scientific identity.” According to Weigert, “The Nazi doctors double forth an ‘Auschwitz self’ within whose social world the daily degradation, torture, and murder of thousands of victims not only is acceptable but is transformed into a preferred moral act. The Auschwitz self believes in such contradictory imperatives as ‘therapeutic killing’ that is not in violation of, but demanded by, their identities as doctors.”]



We are sensitively attuned to the pain and suffering associated with racist attitudes that debase the sacredness and dignity of life, but, we have a tendency to remain blissfully ignorant of the harm that occurs when purposeful action is emancipated from moral constraints in the name of social engineering and the quest for truth. This issue is the affective motivating factor that inspired the writing of this research project, and, accordingly, this research project’s primary significance will be found in how I speak to this issue.

Racial Discrimination Are Measured In Terms Of Poverty, Drug Addiction, Depravity, and Crime

Prejudiced Attitudes And Racial Discrimination Are Measured In Terms Of Poverty, Drug Addiction, Depravity, and Crime

Prospectus For Thesis
1996


Prejudice: Empirical Data Beckoning Toward A Theory of Self, Ambivalence, And Tolerance


Yet see one day you will smell land where there be no land and on that day Ahab will go to his grave but he will rise again within the hour; he will rise and beckon, then all, all save one shall follow. -- Moby Dick


Just as the lifeless arm of Captain Ahab, whose torn body lay entangled in the ropes of spent harpoon lances on the back of the great white whale, beckoned the crew of the Pequod to continue the hunt for the ubiquitous white whale, so to the noxious and dead weight of prejudice beckons the social scientist to uncover the cause of prejudice and thereby render the power of prejudice benign for future generations. However, like the unconquerable whale in Melville’s classic novel, prejudice is easy to recognize, but, heretofore, extremely difficult to anatomize.

This research project will attempt to advance an understanding of prejudice/tolerance by first, theoretically linking prejudice with the conceptual framework of ambivalence and then linking ambivalence, in its most fundamental form, with the concept of self. Third, this research project will attempt to produce data, in the form of responses to a survey questionnaire, which will be used to measure the proposed linkage of prejudiced attitudes, ambivalence, and the self-perception of private self-consciousness. Proceeding toward this end, respondents’ attitudes towards private self-consciousness, prejudiced attitudes toward racial minorities and prejudiced attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities will be measured. More specifically, this research project will look at two different sets of data. Individuals will be surveyed in order to test whether the self-perception of private self-consciousness and prejudiced attitudes are related; and, individuals will be surveyed to test whether individuals prejudiced toward racial minorities are also prejudiced toward people with physical disabilities.


Significance Of The Problem

A study of prejudiced attitudes toward racial minorities, prejudiced attitudes toward person’s with physical disabilities, and attitudes on self-perception and self-reflection is also a study of human nature, group membership, and intergroup relationships. Group membership may be voluntarily selected or ascribed. In either case, however, group members, in the process of satisfying human needs, tend to classify, evaluate, and judge people according to intergroup norms. Also, group members tend to evaluate other people according to whether they are a member of the group, or, whether they are a member of an outgroup. Prejudiced attitudes towards members of other groups are the outcomes of this process. According to Samuel Gaertner (1986, p. 322), “[A]t the intergroup level, people act in terms of their social identity, more faithfully conforming to the group’s norms and also treating others in terms of their corresponding group memberships rather than their personal identities. Outgroup members, in particular, become depersonalized, undifferentiated, substitutable entities.”

In social relationships intergroup dynamics of prejudiced attitudes towards outgroups are usually described in terms of confrontation, violence and, depending on the scope of animosities, war. In American society, the evidence is all too convincing that prejudice persists at alarmingly high rates against such groups as African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, American Indians, homosexuals, and Jews. In human costs, prejudiced attitudes and racial discrimination are measured in terms of poverty, drug addiction, depravity, and crime. Deriving a better understanding of the relationship between prejudiced attitudes towards both racial minorities and persons with physical disabilities will help us to better understand both intergroup relationships and prejudice.

This research project offers an opportunity to further our understanding of the process that results in prejudiced attitudes towards outgroups by furthering our understanding of the boundary making (labeling) process. Cognitive boundaries do not stand-alone; they are continuous with and informed by, socioeconomic status, linguistic expression, and cultural values. This research project will contribute data and a theoretical foundation for why a reduction in the salience of boundaries (intergroup identities) facilitates the likelihood of cooperative, self-restrained behavior among individuals and cooperative interaction between groups. The major theoretical premise directing this research project maintains that the need to reconcile ambivalence inducing thoughts, feelings, and desires has the potential to reshuffle and expand cognitive boundaries. Getting a better understanding of what constitutes non attachment to boundary conditions, particularly intergroup boundary conditions, will aid in the comprehension of the boundary making process that characterizes prejudiced attitudes towards outgroups.